76. It is only in the subordinate state that the gender aspect of things is turned upside down, so that, even though still having a somatic dimension, whether pseudo-evil or pseudo-good, realist or antimaterialist, it will be the psychic dimension which, whether pseudo-criminal or pseudo-punishing, nonconformist or antifundamentalist, counts for more and is an important factor in the undermining of what would otherwise more properly characterize the State.

77. Likewise it is only in the subordinate church that the gender aspect of things is turned upside down, so that, even though still having a psychic dimension, whether pseudo-sinful or pseudo-graceful, antitranscendentalist or humanist, it will be the somatic dimension which, whether pseudo-foolish or pseudo-wise, anti-idealist or naturalist, counts for more and is an important factor in the undermining of what would otherwise more properly characterize the Church.

78. For whereas the subverted state becomes identified with nonconformist and antifundamentalist modes of psychic existence to the detriment of what is somatic, the subverted church becomes identifiable with anti-idealist and naturalist modes of somatic existence to the detriment of what is psychic, and even here one can infer an ecclesiastic/secular dichotomy which underlines the contrary fashions in which these institutions are undermined and, through subversion, rendered subordinate.

79. Frankly the subordinate state is as far from becoming primarily realist (phenomenal) or antimaterialist (noumenal) as the subordinate church from becoming primarily antitranscendentalist (noumenal) or humanist (phenomenal). For just as realism would be a threat to antinaturalism, and hence by extrapolation to antihumanism, and antimaterialism a threat to idealism, and hence by extrapolation to transcendentalism, so antitranscendentalism would be a threat to fundamentalism, and hence by extrapolation to materialism, and humanism a threat to antinonconformism, and hence by extrapolation to antirealism.

80. Obviously, a church-hegemonic society can no more countenance a threat to antinaturalism or idealism than a state-hegemonic society a threat to fundamentalism or antinonconformism, for in the one case antinaturalism and idealism are the somatic corollaries of antihumanism and transcendentalism, whilst, in the other case, fundamentalism and antinonconformism are the psychic corollaries of materialism and antirealism, and just as antihumanism and transcendentalism bring us back to sin and grace as the principal characteristics, in bound psyche and free psyche, of a church-hegemonic society, so materialism and antirealism return us to evil and good as the principal characteristics, in free soma and bound soma, of a state-hegemonic society.

81. Only sin and grace are authentically beyond evil and good respectively, as psyche is beyond soma and the church beyond the state, and as sin and grace are beyond good and evil, so folly and wisdom are beyond crime and punishment; for the folly and wisdom that are authentic corollaries of sin and grace can only exist in relation to the pseudo-evil and pseudo-good that are inauthentic corollaries of pseudo-crime and pseudo-punishment, and neither pseudo-evil nor pseudo-good has anything more in common with evil or good than pseudo-crime and pseudo-punishment anything in common with crime and punishment.

82. In short, the society that gives soma free metachemical rein is fated to bow before the state-hegemonic realities of evil and good to which crime and punishment are psychically affiliated, and evil must fear goodness as crime fears punishment.

83. But the society that gives psyche free metaphysical rein is destined to kneel before the church-hegemonic realities of sin and grace to which folly and wisdom are somatically affiliated, and sin must hope for grace as folly hopes for wisdom.

84. With the fear of good and punishment there can be no hope for grace and wisdom; for all that exists in relation to good and punishment is pseudo-wisdom and pseudo-grace, which are anything but compatible with or equivalent to authentic grace and wisdom.

85. Conversely, with the hope of grace and wisdom there can be no fear of good and punishment; for all that exists in relation to grace and wisdom is pseudo-punishment and pseudo-goodness, which are anything but compatible with or equivalent to authentic goodness and punishment.

86. In the one context, the descending axis, 'the above' fears 'the below', the Few the Many, the evil/criminal the good/punishing, whereas in the other context, the ascending axis, 'the below' hopes for 'the above', the Many the Few, the sinful/foolish the graceful/wise. No greater contrast could be imagined!

87. Therefore whilst in the former context the Few will do their best to resist the regressive proclivities of the Many, in the latter context, by contrast, the Many will try their best to embrace the progressive proclivities of the Few, so that, to take both contexts together, a resistance to being pulled down, or punished, from 'below' has to be contrasted with an insistence on being pulled up, or saved, from 'above' - all the difference between the descending axis of state-hegemonic criteria and the ascending axis of church-hegemonic criteria.

88. For what is the inner phenomenal darkness of goodness to those for whom the outer noumenal darkness of evil is somatic ideal but something to fear as a threat to metachemical freedom, even with the inner phenomenal light of punishment which, however, can only be less significant from a state-hegemonic point of view, not least from the standpoint of the outer noumenal light of crime.

89. And what, correlatively, is the inner phenomenal darkness of pseudo-wisdom to those for whom the outer noumenal darkness of pseudo-folly is perforce somatic ideal but something to fear as a threat to antimetaphysical freedom, even with the inner phenomenal light of pseudo-grace which, however, can only be less significant from a church-subordinate point of view, not least from the standpoint of the outer noumenal light of pseudo-sin.

90. But what, conversely, is the inner noumenal light of grace to those for whom the outer phenomenal light of sin is psychic shame but something to hope for as a solution to antiphysical binding, even with the inner noumenal darkness of wisdom which, however, can only be less significant from a church-hegemonic point of view, though not necessarily from the standpoint of the outer phenomenal darkness of folly.

91. And what, correlatively, is the inner noumenal light of pseudo-punishment to those for whom the outer phenomenal light of pseudo-crime is perforce psychic shame but something to hope for as a solution to chemical binding, even with the inner noumenal darkness of pseudo-goodness which, however, can only be less significant from a state-subordinate point of view, though not necessarily from the standpoint of the outer phenomenal darkness of pseudo-evil.

92. However that may variously be, there is a marked contrast between a conservative fear of the Many primarily from an evil/criminal point of view, and a conservative hope for the Few primarily from a sinful/foolish point of view, a metachemical fear of antichemical goodness/punishment on the one hand, that of the descending axis of state-hegemonic criteria, and an antiphysical hope for metaphysical grace/wisdom on the other hand, that of the ascending axis of church-hegemonic criteria.

93. In the former case, that of the metachemical Few ranged subversively above the antimetaphysical Few, fear of the antichemical Many ranged subversively beneath the physical Many is designed to protect the evil/criminal coupled to pseudo-foolish/sinful interests of the noumenal elites from the good/punishing coupled to pseudo-wise/graceful ambitions of the phenomenal generalities, whose existence, paradoxically, is conditional upon the prior and superior existence of the noumenal elites and is symptomatic of a radical regression down the descending axis of state-hegemonic and church-subordinate criteria from evil and pseudo-folly in somatic freedom to goodness and pseudo-wisdom in somatic binding, and is therefore something to be resisted from the socially superior standpoints of the freedoms in question.

94. In the latter case, that of the antiphysical Many ranged subversively beneath the chemical Many, hope for the metaphysical Few ranged subversively above the antimetachemical Few is designed to undermine the sinful/foolish coupled to pseudo-criminal/evil shortcomings of the phenomenal generalities in favour of the graceful/wise coupled to pseudo-punishing/good interests of the noumenal elites, whose existence is conditional upon the prior and inferior existence of the phenomenal generalities and is symptomatic of a radical progression up the ascending axis of church-hegemonic and state-subordinate criteria from sin and pseudo-crime in psychic binding to grace and pseudo-punishment in psychic freedom, and is therefore something to be embraced from the socially inferior standpoints of the bindings in question.

95. Just as surely as goodness and pseudo-wisdom must condemn the 'somatically free' to the damnation of somatic binding within a context, an axis, characterized by state-hegemonic criteria, so must grace and pseudo-punishment deliver the 'psychically bound' to the salvation of psychic freedom within a context, an axis, characterized by church-hegemonic criteria.

96. Therefore the 'somatically free', typified by evil and pseudo-folly in metachemical and antimetaphysical sensuality, will resist the pull or threat of the 'somatically bound', typified by goodness and pseudo-wisdom in antichemical and physical sensibility, as the noumenal Few of state-hegemonic and church-subordinate criteria will resist the phenomenal Many of state-hegemonic and church-subordinate criteria in defence of their own elitist ideals of somatic freedom in evil and pseudo-folly.

97. Therefore the 'psychically bound', typified by sin and pseudo-crime in antiphysical and chemical sensuality, will embrace the promise of the 'psychically free', typified by grace and pseudo-punishment in metaphysical and antimetachemical sensibility, as the phenomenal Many of church-hegemonic and state-subordinate criteria will embrace the noumenal Few of church-hegemonic and state-subordinate criteria in pursuance of the latter's elitist ideals of psychic freedom in grace and pseudo-punishment.

98. How significant it therefore is whether soma or psyche is the principal factor at stake in any given context, be it state hegemonic or church hegemonic, in determining the divergent course of events which must constantly and permanently unfold in relation to either axis - descending in soma from evil to good under a female hegemony or ascending in psyche from sin to grace under a male hegemony; for whilst it is the fate of the Few in the former axis to resist the Many, to reject the descent from somatic freedom to somatic binding, which enslaves from evil to the damnation of authentic goodness, it is the destiny, by contrast, of the Many in the latter axis to embrace the Few, to climb from psychic binding to psychic freedom, wherein they achieve liberation from sin in the salvation of authentic grace.

99. Quite frankly, goodness exists in the shadow of evil, as immoral virtue in the shadow of immoral vice, for it is symptomatic of a regression from the high ideal of somatic freedom to the low ordeal of somatic binding, the psychic corollary of which is of course punishment.

100. In complete contrast, grace exists in the light of sin, as moral virtue in the light of moral vice, for it is symptomatic of a progression from the low ordeal of psychic binding to the high ideal of psychic freedom, the somatic corollary of which is of course wisdom.