1. In my previous text, A Perfect Resolution, I showed how crime and sin hang together on the sensual side of life, while punishment and grace hang together on its sensible side, like the alpha of vice and the omega of virtue. And this was considered so whether in relation to authentic or inauthentic manifestations of each, which is to say, whether the respective factors appertained to a state-hegemonic context in which authentic manifestations of crime and punishment but inauthentic manifestations of sin and grace could be inferred to exist or whether, by contrast, they pertained to a church-hegemonic context in which authentic manifestations of sin and grace but inauthentic manifestations of crime and punishment could be inferred to exist.

2. For crime and pseudo-sin are no less state/church correlative than punishment and pseudo-grace in regard to what was described as the descending axis of state-hegemonic but church-subordinate society, whereas sin and pseudo-crime are no less church/state correlative than grace and pseudo-punishment in regard to what was described as the ascending axis of church-hegemonic but state-subordinate society - the former axis tending to characterize Britain and the latter one Ireland or, more precisely, Eire.

3. For you can no more have a descending axis without state-hegemonic criteria than an ascending one without church-hegemonic criteria, and therefore the two cannot co-exist within the same society but, minority exceptions to the rule notwithstanding, tend to exist in relation to opposite types of societies, the one female hegemonic in respect of authentic crime and punishment, the other male hegemonic in respect of authentic sin and grace, with their respective inauthentic and altogether subordinate corollaries.

4. Therefore just as the descending axis of crime to punishment is characterized by a female-hegemonic control of society stemming from crime 'on high', which subversively overrides such grace as may exist 'down below' in regard to masculine males, so the ascending axis of sin to grace is characterized by a male-hegemonic control of society stemming, contrariwise, from grace 'on high', which subversively overrides such crime as may exist 'down below' in regard to feminine females.

5. For while the descent from crime to punishment may be of a female persuasion in the objectivity of its state-hegemonic criteria, crime and punishment must be juxtaposed with sin and grace respectively, which are significant not of metachemical and chemical or, more correctly, antichemical (chemically sensible) persuasions but, rather, of antimetaphysical (metaphysically sensual) and physical persuasions, the former subordinate to metachemistry as sequential time to spatial space in noumenal sensuality, the latter nominally hegemonic over antichemistry as voluminous volume over massed mass in phenomenal sensibility but effectively subverted by antichemistry at the behest of metachemistry, which is thus able to override relative grace through punishment in the interests of criminal freedom, thereby maintaining a state-hegemonic relativity at the expense of such church freedom as would otherwise typify the physical grace of masculine males.

6. Conversely, while the ascent from sin to grace may be of a male persuasion in the subjectivity of its church-hegemonic criteria, sin and grace must be juxtaposed with crime and punishment respectively, which are significant not of physical or, more correctly, antiphysical (physically sensual) and metaphysical persuasions but rather of chemical and antimetachemical (metachemically sensible) persuasions, the former nominally hegemonic over antiphysics as volumetric volume over massive mass in phenomenal sensuality, the latter subordinate to metaphysics as repetitive time to spaced space in noumenal sensibility, which is thus able to override relative crime through sin in the interests of graceful freedom, thereby maintaining a church-hegemonic relativity at the expense of such state freedom as would otherwise typify the chemical crime of feminine females.

7. Therefore the contrasting axes present us with opposite forms of world-overcoming - the antifeminine overcoming of masculine males at the behest of diabolic females who have the better of antidivine males where the antichemical subversion of physics from a metachemical hegemony over antimetaphysics is concerned, and the antimasculine overcoming of feminine females at the behest of divine males who have the better of antidiabolic females where the antiphysical subversion of chemistry from a metaphysical hegemony over antimetachemistry is concerned.

8. Thus spatially hegemonic over sin, crime is able, on the descending axis, to determine the subversive terms of reference by which the nominal hegemony of physics over antichemistry, voluminous volume over massed mass, is undermined in favour of the displacement of grace by punishment, whilst, on the ascending axis, grace, spacedly hegemonic over punishment, is able to determine the subversive terms of reference by which the nominal hegemony of chemistry over antiphysics, volumetric volume over massive mass, is undermined in favour of the displacement of crime by sin.

9. In terms of the authentic vis-à-vis inauthentic manifestations of each of the contending state/church or church/state factors, it should be evident that while crime will be authentic in the subverting hegemony of spatial space over sequential time in the noumenal sensuality of metachemistry, crime is inauthentic in the subverted hegemony of volumetric volume over massive mass in the phenomenal sensuality of chemistry, but that whereas, by contrast, sin will be inauthentic in the subverted subordination of sequential time to spatial space in the noumenal sensuality of antimetaphysics, sin is authentic in the subverting subordination of massive mass to volumetric volume in the phenomenal sensuality of antiphysics.

10. Conversely, it should be evident that while punishment will be authentic in the subverting subordination of massed mass to voluminous volume in the phenomenal sensibility of antichemistry, punishment is inauthentic in the subverted subordination of repetitive time to spaced space in the noumenal sensibility of antimetachemistry, but that whereas, by contrast, grace will be inauthentic in the subverted hegemony of voluminous volume over massed mass in the phenomenal sensibility of physics, grace is authentic in the subverting hegemony of spaced space over repetitive time in the noumenal sensibility of metaphysics.

11. Frankly it stands to reason that if crime is authentic in noumenal sensuality it will be inauthentic in phenomenal sensuality, as the State will be inauthentic compared with the Church, whereas if sin is authentic in phenomenal sensuality it will be inauthentic in noumenal sensuality, as the Church will be inauthentic compared with the State. For that which is authentic in the one context, be it metachemical or antiphysical, can only be inauthentic in the other, be it chemical or antimetaphysical.

12. Likewise it stands to reason that if grace is authentic in noumenal sensibility, it will be inauthentic in phenomenal sensibility, as the Church will be inauthentic compared with the State, whereas if punishment is authentic in phenomenal sensibility, it will be inauthentic in noumenal sensibility, as the State will be inauthentic compared with the Church. For that which is authentic in the one context, be it metaphysical or antichemical, can only be inauthentic in the other, be it physical or antimetachemical.

13. Thus the criminal authenticity of metachemical sensuality should be contrasted with the graceful authenticity of metaphysical sensibility, and each of these hegemonic factors with the punishing authenticity of chemical sensibility (antichemistry) and the sinful authenticity of physical sensuality (antiphysics), both of which are antithetically subversive of the worldly forms of grace and crime, and thus of state and church phenomenality, albeit at the behest of contrary noumenal modes of crime and grace.

14. For some time prior to and even including my last text, the aforementioned A Perfect Resolution, I have been inclined to regard crime and punishment in their authentic manifestations as standing in an antithetical relationship to the authentic manifestations of sin and grace, pretty much as state-hegemonic to church-hegemonic axial antitheses. With this premise, I more or less assumed that crime and punishment were no less somatic than sin and grace psychic, although I had long entertained the parallel notion of punishment as in some sense psychic and sin as somatic, in contrast to the somatic nature of crime and the psychic nature or, more correctly, nurture of grace.

15. Gradually I found myself drawn, in the previous text, towards a sense of the psychic nature of both crime and punishment on the one hand and sin and grace on the other, though this was in relation to what seemed to be the somatic nature of evil and good (modesty) in relation to the former and of folly and wisdom in relation to the latter.

16. Therefore, although it was incontrovertible to me that, in their authentic manifestations, crime and punishment were no-less symptomatic of a state-hegemonic society than sin and grace of a church-hegemonic one, the terms in which each pair of opposites operated had gradually been modified from a simple antithesis of soma to psyche to a sort of psychic bias or integrity which co-existed with an interpretation of soma that laid greater emphasis on either evil and good or folly and wisdom, depending by and large on the gender-conditioned context.

17. Probably it is as over-pedantic to distinguish crime from evil and punishment from good as it is to distinguish sin from folly and grace from wisdom, though some such distinction can be made and, I believe, helps to distinguish the more openly barbarous forms of evil and folly from their 'civilized' counterparts, wherein a consciousness of the criminality of evil on the one hand and of the sinfulness of folly on the other is crucial to the existence and acceptance of a punishing or graceful retort to such a consciousness, a retort which is no less psychic or, at any rate, psychically conditioned in relation to the correlative acceptance of the need either for goodness or wisdom as bound somatic complements to the respective hegemonies of grace and punishment.

18. Be that as it may, it now seems incontrovertible to me that when there is a sense of folly as sin or rather of somatic emphasis as sinfully foolish from a male point of view, it is because there is a sense of grace in relation not only to sensibility but to the male gender actuality of psyche preceding and in some sense predominating over soma which therefore cannot be reflected in a context, or pattern of behaviour, which appears to be emphasizing, whether under duress of female influence or otherwise, the opposite - namely the desirability of free soma.

19. The sense of folly from and as a male standpoint is intimately tied-up with a sense of male gender and that, in turn, requires a certain degree and acceptance of sensibility in which the male actuality of psychic precedence - akin in metaphorical terms to the precedence of son by father - can be granted due recognition and be respected in relation to a sense of freedom which is especially congenial to psychic development. Otherwise, it is unlikely that such behaviour would be thought foolish to begin with and still less likely that it would be stigmatized as sinful from a standpoint open to grace and its corollary of wisdom as the necessary complement, in bound soma, to the development of free psyche.

20. Therefore whilst it may be possible to interchange such terms as folly and sin, not to mention grace and wisdom, it seems to me that just as sin and grace are parallel psychic terms, so folly and wisdom are parallel somatic terms; for the folly of somatic emphasis, contrary to male gender reality, will only be regarded as sinful when there is sufficient grace, or respect for grace, to warrant a certain shame in regard to the committing of it, something not guaranteed in avowedly heathenistic contexts or societies, where folly may be no less difficult to recognize for want of wisdom in regard to the sensible binding of soma.

21. Therefore if, as a male, it is foolish to be somatically free, it is no less wise to be somatically bound. And if, as a male, it is sinful to be psychically bound, it can only be graceful to be psychically free. In the one context, that of sensuality, folly conditions sin, as free soma conditioning bound psyche. In the other context, by contrast, grace conditions wisdom, as free psyche conditioning bound soma.

22. But the folly of free soma will not be recognized as folly if there is insufficient respect for the wisdom of bound soma, and there is unlikely to be sufficient respect for the wisdom of bound soma if there is insufficient respect for the grace of free psyche both to warrant and maintain it as a subordinate complement, and without such grace there is unlikely to be much shame in or consciousness of sin in regard to bound psyche but, rather, a heathenistic acquiescence in bound psyche under the delusion that free soma is a sufficient reward unto itself and not necessarily indicative of any great folly.

23. Therefore rather than upholding a sense of the somatic nature of sin compared with the psychic nature of grace, which might well call if not for a parallel equivalence then a psychic interpretation of folly and a somatic interpretation of wisdom, I have opted to affirm a somatic parallel between folly and wisdom and a psychic parallel between sin and grace, doing likewise, be it noted, for evil and good in relation to soma and crime and punishment in relation to psyche, albeit in respect of hegemonic female criteria rather than anything likely to result in a male lead of society to the end of church-hegemonic blessedness.

24. For if folly and wisdom are the somatic complements to sin and grace, then it would be illogical, indeed, if evil and good were not to be regarded as the somatic complements to crime and punishment.

25. For it seems equally incontrovertible to me that when there is a sense of evil as crime or rather of somatic emphasis as criminally evil from a female point of view, it is because there is a sense of punishment in relation not only to sensibility but to the female actuality of soma preceding and predominating over psyche which therefore cannot be reflected in a context, or pattern of behaviour, that appears to be emphasizing, whether under duress of male influence or otherwise, the opposite - namely the desirability of free psyche.