26. The sense of evil from and as a female standpoint is intimately tied-up with a sense of female gender and that, in turn, requires a certain degree and acceptance of sensuality in which the female actuality of somatic precedence - akin in metaphorical terms to the precedence of daughter by mother - can be granted due recognition and be respected in relation to a sense of freedom which is especially congenial to somatic development. Otherwise, it is unlikely that such behaviour would be thought evil to begin with and still less likely that it would be stigmatized as criminal from a standpoint open to punishment and its corollary of goodness as the necessary complement, in bound soma, to the development of free psyche.

27. Therefore whilst it may be possible to interchange such terms as evil and crime, not to mention punishment and goodness (or somatic modesty, i.e. binding), it seems to me that just as crime and punishment are parallel psychic terms, so evil and goodness are parallel somatic terms; for the evil of somatic emphasis in relation to female gender reality will only be regarded as criminal when, due to sensibly hegemonic male pressures, there is sufficient punishment, or respect for punishment, to warrant a certain shame in regard to the committing of it, something not guaranteed in avowedly heathenistic contexts or societies, where evil may be no less difficult to recognize for want of goodness in regard to the sensible binding of soma.

28. Therefore if, as a female, it is evil to be somatically free, it is good to be somatically bound. And if, as a female, it is criminal to be psychically bound, it can only be punishing to be psychically free. In the one context, that of sensuality, evil conditions crime, as free soma conditioning bound psyche. In the other context, by contrast, punishment conditions goodness, as free psyche conditioning bound soma.

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

30. Therefore rather than upholding a sense of the somatic nature of crime compared with the psychic nature of punishment, which might well call if not for a parallel equivalence then a psychic interpretation of evil and a somatic interpretation of goodness, I have opted to affirm a somatic parallel between evil and goodness and a psychic parallel between crime and punishment, so that one can logically proceed with antithetical terms like evil and goodness in parallel vein from free soma to bound soma and with antithetical terms like crime and punishment in parallel vein from bound psyche to free psyche, the female equivalents of proceeding with antithetical terms like folly and wisdom in parallel vein from free soma to bound soma and with antithetical terms like sin and grace in parallel vein from bound psyche to free psyche.

31. Therefore gender is crucial to making a distinction, first of all in sensuality, between the desirability of free soma and bound psyche from a female standpoint whether primarily in relation to evil and crime or secondarily in relation to folly and sin, and the undesirability of free soma and bound psyche from a male standpoint, whether in relation primarily to folly and sin or secondarily to evil and crime, and, in sensibility, to making a contrary distinction between the desirability of free psyche and bound soma from a male standpoint, whether primarily in relation to grace and wisdom or secondarily in relation to punishment and goodness, and the undesirability of free psyche and bound soma from a female standpoint, whether in relation primarily to punishment and goodness or secondarily to grace and wisdom.

32. Life is and remains a gender struggle between the desirability of free soma and bound psyche primarily in terms of evil and crime from a female standpoint and the desirability, by contrast, of free psyche and bound soma primarily in terms of grace and wisdom from a male standpoint, with the vanquished in the struggle having to accept either secondary modes of free soma and bound psyche in terms of folly and sin on the one hand, or secondary modes of free psyche and bound soma in terms of punishment and goodness on the other hand, the hand not of subordinate males in sensuality, as in the former instance, but of subordinate females in sensibility.

33. Therefore whilst it may be fair to say that grace and wisdom are the true ends of life for males, whose gender reality corresponds to the precedence of soma by psyche and thus the subordination of soma to psyche, it would be somewhat disingenuous to claim that punishment and goodness were equally the true ends of life for females, given that their gender reality corresponds to the precedence of psyche by soma and thus the subordination of psyche to soma. Punishment and goodness will complement grace and wisdom as secondary modes of free psyche and bound soma only under duress of male hegemonic pressure, and not otherwise!

34. For left to herself, left to be 'true to her nature', the female will revert, as at present, to the sensual opposites of punishment and goodness, namely crime and evil, with an emphasis, according to gender, on evil, on somatic freedom, since the precedence of psyche by soma as the female gender reality necessitates that soma takes precedence over psyche and thus evil over crime with, in the more openly heathenistic or sensual instances, evil not being recognized as criminal due to a want of punishment in sensibility, the punishment, more particularly, of a psychic emphasis under male hegemonic pressure, contrary to female gender reality.

35. But when soma is free in evil and psyche bound in crime, bound to the criminal acquiescence in the evil of somatic freedom from a female standpoint, usually metachemical or chemical, then the male counterpart to this will be a retreat from grace and wisdom (in sensibility) to sin and folly (in sensuality), with a false emphasis, under female hegemonic pressures, on soma at the expense of psyche and thus on folly at the expense even of sin, or of a sinful consciousness of acquiescing in the folly of free soma from a male standpoint, usually physical or metaphysical or, more correctly, antiphysical (sensually physical) or antimetaphysical (sensually metaphysical). In such fashion, folly and sin will complement evil and crime as secondary modes of free soma and bound psyche only under duress of female hegemonic pressures, and not otherwise!

36. For just as grace is anterior to punishment (as wisdom to goodness) in the sensibility of psyche freedom and somatic binding, so evil is anterior to folly (as crime to sin) in the sensuality of somatic freedom and psychic binding.

37. Males and females do not originate from the same creative source, be it god or devil, but, on the contrary, from opposite creative sources - diabolic in respect of metachemical females, divine in respect of metaphysical males, with the generality of chemical females and physical males having an origin that, in typically lower-class fashion, owes more to antithetical manifestations of worldly existence, whether feminine or masculine, purgatorial or earthly, than to anything diabolic or divine.

38. Because males contain some female elements and females, conversely, some male elements, not least in the more relative contexts of masculine and feminine worldliness, there is always going to be a capacity for crime and/or evil in males and for sin and/or folly in females, not to mention, where sensibility is concerned, a capacity for punishment and/or goodness in males and for grace and/or wisdom in females. But, by and large, such capacities will be the cross-gender exception to the gender rule, whether that rule be crime and evil in sensuality for females or grace and wisdom in sensibility for males; for although males and females share many aspects of life in common, they remain antithetically distinctive - distinctive, that is, in terms of the particle objectivity for females of what somatically issues, in will and/or spirit, power and/or glory, from a vacuum in consequence of the precedence of psyche by soma in either metachemical or chemical contexts, and the wavicle subjectivity, by contrast, for males of what psychically issues, in ego and/or soul, form and/or contentment, from a plenum in consequence of the precedence of soma by psyche in either physical or metaphysical contexts.

39. The fact that few if any males or females are ever entirely male or female does not invalidate the broad argument, though even on a class basis one has to distinguish, as hinted at above, the greater distinctions between metachemical females and metaphysical males in relation to noumenal criteria from the lesser distinctions between chemical females and physical males in relation to phenomenal criteria, as between the most particles/least wavicles of will and the most wavicles/least particles of soul in the noumenal sphere of existence and the more (compared to most) particles/less (compared to least) wavicles of spirit and the more (compared to most) wavicles/less (compared to least) particles of ego in the phenomenal sphere of existence which, in contrast to the three-to-one (3:1) absolutism of the noumenal antitheses, is ever relative and, hence, comparatively worldly, symptomatic, in a two-and-a-half/one-and-a-half (2½:1½) ratio, of volume and mass rather than of space and time.

40. But here, again, I am generalizing in terms of the representative hegemonic positions in each element, each class, which does not therefore include the subordinate and effectively vanquished gender, be it antimetaphysical and antiphysical in sensuality or antichemical and antimetachemical in sensibility, the former options of course male and the latter their female counterparts. But even then, the gender realities remain more or less consistent, despite the cross-purposes with its own nature or nurture, according to context, in which each gender finds itself when obliged, in the male case, to emphasize soma at the expense of psyche or, in the female case, psyche at the expense of soma.

41. Such seemingly complementary parallels to the more inherent emphasis of the hegemonic gender have already been described by me as apparent, and so they are. For the underlying gender reality of each gender remains the same even under pressure of being at cross-purposes with itself through the prevailing influence, for better or worse, of the hegemonic gender, and therefore it will not be resigned to such pressure but will strive to reassert itself on more gender-representative terms - males striving to progressively climb from folly and sin under evil and crime in sensuality to grace and wisdom over punishment and goodness in sensibility, females striving to regressively climb from punishment and goodness under grace and wisdom in sensibility to evil and crime over folly and sin in sensuality.

42. For the freedom of the one gender effectively entails - despite parallel rhetoric in relation to psyche (male) or soma (female) - the binding, or enslavement, of the other gender, and one cannot as an individual be both psychically free and somatically free or, conversely, somatically free and psychically free at the same time. On the contrary, somatic freedom, which is primarily female, requires psychic binding, which can only be enslaving from a male standpoint, whereas psychic freedom, which is primarily male, requires somatic binding, which can only be enslaving from a female standpoint.

43. Hence resistance to enslavement is bound, sooner or later, to become the prevailing tendency of the subordinate gender, be it male in sensuality or female in sensibility, but such resistance, though inevitable, is not initially guaranteed, and cannot be said to characterize those periods or societies in which male sensibility is insufficiently developed and/or has been sufficiently hindered to warrant disillusion with sensuality or, conversely, societies or periods when female sensuality is insufficiently developed and/or has been sufficiently hindered to warrant disillusion with sensibility - as in intensely Heathen and Christian, 'once born' and 'reborn', epochs or ages respectively.

44. For until the subordinate gender 'wakes up' to its gender reality, it cannot properly analyze or even recognize its position for what it truly is - either sinfully foolish or, in the female case, modestly punishing, the hegemonic gender continuing to take evil somatically for granted in the one case and grace psychically for granted in the other.

45. Alas for males, females 'woke up' to their gender reality through so-called feminism and female liberation struggles quite some time ago and the result, not altogether surprisingly or unpredictably in an age that until comparatively recently was unequivocally dominated by technologies dependent upon the vacuousness of the cathode-ray tube, has been a steady increase in heathenistic evil and folly, not least under New World influence.

46. Males, on the other hand, have yet to 'wake up' from the nightmare of this post-Christian folly and, in recognizing it as sin and evil as crime, turn from it to the possibility of grace, thereby instituting a system, an order, a civilization, which will enjoin the acquiescence of females in punishment, in the punishment, more specifically, of psychic emphasis (contrary to gender reality) as the complement to the newly-won psychic freedom of males who, together with their female proletarian counterparts, elect to come into their own rightful high estate as and when contemporary post-human, post-historical urban civilization is transformed, following a majority mandate for religious sovereignty in selected countries, into the cyborg eternality of a civilization which, in rejecting evil and folly, barbarity and philistinism, crime and sin, opts to embrace, to a degree never before seen on this planet, wisdom and goodness, culture and civility, grace and punishment, as it undergoes a radical shift from the alpha of what was once unbridled sensuality to the omega of what can become a truly free sensibility, and thus ceases to be mere potential but, in dismissing traditional obstacles to its advance, comes properly into its own in relation to the maximizing of global universality, the goal of all true evolutionary striving.

47. It was a Nietzschean assertion that the Superman would have to be beyond good and evil, since it was - and had been - man's fate to be between it, to be both good and evil or evil or good, as the case may be. Yet this assertion beggars the question as to what constitutes being beyond good and evil? For it is surely not enough to be merely amoral and effectively indifferent to evil while simultaneously scornful of the good.

48. Leaving aside for the moment the exact definition of good and evil, it should be evident to anyone who has followed the progress of my texts through the successive twists and turns of their curvilinear unfolding over many years that good and evil or, rather, evil and good (to place them in the preferred sensual and sensible order) are terms that have more applicability to the female side of life than to the male, and that one is already, as a genuine male, a male given to male criteria in physics and/or metaphysics, vegetation and/or air, if not beyond evil in folly then certainly beneath it, whilst if not beneath then certainly beyond goodness in wisdom. Therefore folly and wisdom are as distinct from evil and goodness as ... sin and grace from crime and punishment, whether in terms of being beneath or beyond or, at any rate, above.

49. Evil and good, I have argued, are merely somatic, the former germane to free soma in metachemistry and chemistry, the latter germane to bound soma in their sensible counterparts, antichemistry and antimetachemistry. Therefore even crime and punishment are distinct from evil and good as the bound psyche relative to the one and the free psyche relative to the other, even before we extend the distinction across the gender divide in the aforementioned manner.

50. For folly and wisdom, I have likewise argued, are merely somatic, the former germane to free soma in antimetaphysics and antiphysics, but the latter germane to bound soma in their sensible counterparts, physics and metaphysics. Therefore even sin and grace are distinct from folly and wisdom as the bound psyche relative to the one and the free psyche relative to the other.