Freedom and Determinism

FREEDOM AND DETERMINISM -

The Gender Agenda

Aphoristic Philosophy

___________

The reader familiar with my theories of 'Kingdom Come', in which a triadic Beyond would be served by an administrative aside commensurate with the bearing of 'crimes and/or sins of the world' in the interests of the People's, or of a particular electorate's democratically expressed deliverance from such 'crimes and/or sins of the world' to the 'punishments and/or graces of the otherworldly 'Kingdom' in question via a majority mandate for what has been called religious sovereignty - the reader familiar, I say, with these and related theories would know that denominational affiliation predestined one to a specific tier of the said Beyond on the basis of either rising or falling diagonally according, in a more general sense, to gender, i.e. the elemental correspondence of one's denomination and its predilection, in consequence, for either objective (female) or subjective (male) attitudes to life.

In short, entitlement to deliverance from the sensual integrities of either inverted or vertical triangles, the former Protestant and the latter Catholic, the one phenomenal and the other noumenal, hinges upon a desire, democratically expressed, for religious sovereignty and the concomitant acceptance of an officially upheld sensible alternative in which not female criteria, as at present, but male criteria were uppermost, and therefore of paramount significance in relation to a type of society centred on moral forms of both culture and race on the one hand, that of the noumenal 'above', and civilization and generation on the other hand, that of the phenomenal 'below'.

Hence movement towards the sensible alternatives to the sensual present, in which non-Christian structures tend to prevail in all-too-'once-born' fashion, requires of the 'chosen peoples', or those whom I have considered worthy of and entitled to such moral alternatives to the largely immoral present (which as the reader may recall applies, in particular, to both Irish and non-Irish Gaels within the wider context of the British Isles), the outcome, wherever the requisite preconditions have been set in place, of a majority mandate for religious sovereignty, and the abandonment of those mundane sovereignties, including the political, which have been broadly classified as pertaining to the sensual realm of 'crimes and/or sins of the world', the very existence of which precludes that sensible alternatives from coming properly and fully to pass, whether in relation to the wisdom of grace or to the goodness of punishment.

Until such time as the chosen electorates vote for religious sovereignty, and in sufficient numbers as to guarantee a majority mandate, they will continue to be dominated and characterized by the evil of crime and the folly of sin, and therefore remain short of the possibility of deliverance from such sensual realities to their sensible counterparts in 'Kingdom Come', where not crime and sin but punishment and grace would be the presiding norms or, at the very least, official ideals to be institutionally underpinned and maintained not only on a basis of generation and civilization, as in the Christian and in particular Catholic past, but also, and more importantly, on a basis, quite unique to the West, of race and culture, as especially germane, so I teach, to the administrative aside and top tier of the triadic Beyond, and therefore to people of, by and large, Catholic descent.

For it is Catholics who pertain to the vertical triangularity of time and space, which is a noumenal reality, and Protestants, by contrast, whose position lies firmly within the inverted triangularity of volume and mass, the phenomenal counterpart to the above, where not eyes and ears (together with a certain manifestation of the heart), but tongue and phallus are the presiding organs of not-self sensuality, and where the overall 'once-born' reality strikes me as being rather more heathenistic than paganistic in its lower-class integrity.

Be that as it may, movement from sensuality to sensibility is either diagonally up, within the male contexts of vegetative and airy subjectivity, commensurate with physics and metaphysics, or diagonally down, within the female contexts of watery and fiery objectivity, commensurate with chemistry and metachemistry, so that one climbs diagonally either from mass to volume, phallus to brain, in vegetative subjectivity or from time to space, ears to lungs, in airy subjectivity, but falls diagonally either from volume to mass, tongue to womb, in watery objectivity or from space to time, eyes to heart, in fiery objectivity.

One is either saved, in short, as a male from an under-plane position in sensuality to an over-plane position in sensibility, or damned as a female from an over-plane position in sensuality to an under-plane position in sensibility, and this whether in relation to the phenomenal axes of mass and volume or to the noumenal axes of time and space.

Therefore one's salvation as a male can be either relative or absolute, phenomenal or noumenal, and one's damnation as a female likewise. One can be either saved from generation to civilization in the relative case or from race to culture in the absolute case, whereas on the other - and female - side of the gender fence one can be either damned from civilization to generation in the relative case or from culture to race in the absolute case.

Therefore he who rises from phallus to brain in the vegetative subjectivity of mass-volume, which is physical, does so from generation to civilization and is only saved on relative terms, whereas he who rises from ears to lungs in the airy subjectivity of time-space, which is metaphysical, does so from race to culture and is accordingly saved on absolute terms, the terms of a noumenal as opposed to a phenomenal sensibility.

Contrariwise she who falls from tongue to womb in the watery objectivity of volume-mass, which is chemical, does so from civilization to generation and is only damned on relative terms, whereas she who falls from eyes to heart in the fiery objectivity of space-time, which is metachemical, does so from culture to race and is accordingly damned on absolute terms, the terms, once again, of a noumenal as opposed to a phenomenal sensibility.

Therefore no less than grace (like sin) can be relative or absolute, manly or godly, so can punishment (like crime) be relative or absolute, womanly or devilish, and the two alternative contexts should never be confounded! For men and gods are no more equal, or equivalent, than women and devils, even though, strictly speaking, both the former options are male and both the latter options female.

There is accordingly a predestination of some for phenomenal orders of deliverance and of others for noumenal orders of deliverance, whether in terms of salvation or damnation, and one might say that the sensuality from which one is being or seeking deliverance in each case is either less or more of the world, or is even underworldly or overworldly, as the phenomenal/noumenal case may be.

Clearly those who are entitled to salvation or damnation as Protestants would not, coming from an inverted triangle affiliated to mass and volume, be earmarked for the same tiers of the triadic Beyond as their Catholic counterparts, whose triangular affiliation (in the decadence of Catholicism) is rather more to time and space, with the former divisible between the sensuality of the Eternal Father, correlating with the ears, and the sensibility of the Sacred Heart of the Risen Christ, correlating with the heart in what I regard as a molecular wavicle - and therefore economic - subdivision of sensible fundamentalism, and the latter (space) having reference to the sensuality of the Risen Virgin, correlating with the eyes.

Therefore Protestants are no less predestined for the lower, i.e. bottom and middle, tiers of the triadic Beyond than Catholics for the higher, i.e. administrative aside and top tier of the Beyond in question. At any rate, this must be generally true, although I don't believe that the majority of Catholic females would necessarily have to resign themselves to an administrative post in 'Kingdom Come' or, indeed, that such administration should be conducted exclusively and literally by females, even though the status of the administrative aside as a metachemical reality having reference to a specific manifestation (elemental wavicle) of fundamentalist sensibility would indubitably be more suited to females of a certain stamp in view of its female nature.

That said, however, there are other factors which could determine the exact composition of the administrative aside, including the role and status of, for instance, Jehovah Witnesses, about whom more anon, and the requirement of a fairly broad-based and representative body that, also drawn from certain Protestant traditions, would warrant general support and win the confidence of people from both of the mainstream Christian traditions.

Thus we come, by degrees, to the composition - projected in anticipation - of the triadic Beyond, with the predestined entitlement of Anglicans to rise diagonally from the phallic base of the inverted triangularity of so-called Protestant solidarity to the cerebral middle tier of the Beyond in question, as from mass to volume, in what would amount to a relative salvation, and for their Nonconformist counterparts to fall diagonally - as, incidentally, Baptists do when they elect to have themselves baptized in what always seemed to this writer to be a womb-like trough heralding and signifying a sort of proto-Marian damnation - from the forked tongue apex of the inverted triangle to the womb-like bottom tier, as from volume to mass, in what would amount to a relative damnation.

Similarly, there would be a predestined entitlement of Catholics, or the majority of Catholics, to rise diagonally from that lower corner of the perpendicular triangle corresponding to the ears, and hence the Eternal Father, to the top tier of the triadic Beyond, as from time to space, in what would amount to an absolute salvation, and for both hard-line adherents of the Risen Virgin, corresponding to the eyes, and the majority of Jehovah Witnesses to fall diagonally from the eye-based apex of the triangle in question to a manifestation of the heart lying just beyond that applicable to the Sacred Heart of the Risen Christ in what should be an unequivocally religious subdivision of sensible fundamentalism appropriate to the administrative aside to the triadic Beyond, and therefore to fall as from space to time, in what would effectively amount to an absolute damnation.

I have long maintained that the triadic Beyond would not just be a three-tier structure of religious praxis, or devotion, but also subdivisible on each tier on a three-way basis, so as to permit of sexual segregation between males and females on the one hand, and to enable males to be divided, relative to a subjective bent, between intellectual and emotional, or soulful, approaches to their particular elemental take, depending on the tier, to the practice of religious sovereignty under what has been called the ideological philosophy of Social Transcendentalism, the religious basis, in short, of 'Kingdom Come'.

Thus not only would there be a chemical subdivision, appropriate to females, on each tier of the triadic Beyond but also physical and metaphysical subdivisions appropriate, by contrast, to males, and this irrespective of whether in relation to the nonconformist, humanist, or transcendentalist forms of Social Transcendentalism that, broadly, would characterize each of the tiers as one ascended from the wateriness of mass to the airiness of space via the vegetativeness of volume within sensible parameters. The only factor excluded from the triadic Beyond, and thus from religious praxis at any level, would be the fieriness of time, which, being outside of Eternity, would pertain to the administrative aside as an expression of metachemical sensibility specifically earmarked, as a mode of progressive fundamentalism, to the service of the Beyond in question.

Now we have argued that for 'Kingdom Come' to actually come to pass on this basis - quite apart from the wider political implications of a Gaelic federation of, for instance, Ireland, Scotland, Wales, and the Isle of Man, or something to that effect - there would have to be a majority mandate for religious sovereignty and an end, in consequence, to the criminal and sinful sovereignties - and freedoms - of the democratic present.

For the outcome of such a majority mandate by the relevant electorate or electorates would be the overcoming of the world and the institutional establishment, in its place, of those aspects of the otherworldly 'Kingdom' which we have identified with the triadic Beyond and its administrative aside, where not crime and sin but grace and punishment would be the prevailing norms, if not permanently throughout society initially, then certainly within the framework of Social Transcendentalism's institutionally upheld commitment to specific religious devotions. For ideals are all very well in theory, but in practice you have to allow for human weaknesses and limitations, including a preponderance of sensuality with some people and/or environmental conditions.

Granted that religion, when true and genuine, has no business meddling in people's personal affairs and seeking to regulate society in such a manner that life on earth was being hijacked by Martian- or even Saturnalian-type criteria, duly transmuted for the benefit of organic sentience, to the detriment of its own integrity or, at any rate, to a degree which suggested the greater relevance of planets like Mars and Saturn to the people concerned, we nevertheless have a moral duty to devise and uphold various ideals which it is not only spiritually but, more importantly, intellectually and emotionally beneficial to adhere to, if only on an intermittent basis.

Social Transcendentalism may regard itself as that which does more justice to truth, and thus to metaphysical culture, than any previous religion, certainly in the West, has ever done, but it does not see itself as the means whereby life should be subverted by such truth to the exclusion of other things, least of all in sensibility. It believes that all Elements have - and must necessarily continue to have - a part to play in the overall composition or integrity of society if it is to remain structurally viable, but that priorities should nevertheless be accurately and logically maintained on the basis of a hegemonic truth which is both cultural and metaphysical. Hitherto the hegemonic position, always more the spatial alpha than the spaced omega, has lain with the metachemical clearness of cultural beauty, and thus with the righteousness of evil, not the righteousness of wisdom. This can only confound and thwart efforts to create the best possible type of society, in which the highest individuals are beholden to essence rather than to appearance.

But I speak - do I not? - of a triadic Beyond, and therefore have allowed, using abstract language, for quantity and quality as well as for essence in the religious praxis of the overall context of Social Transcendentalism. There has to be chemistry and physics as well as metaphysics, and also the metachemical appearances of the administrative aside, without which Eternity would be impossible to sustain.

But if Protestants have been earmarked for the bottom and middle tiers, corresponding to mass and volume, and Catholics for the top tier, corresponding to space, of the triadic Beyond, then it seems not unreasonable that a majority of those earmarked for the administrative aside should be Jehovah Witnesses, since they strike me not only as having a metachemical bias in their predilection for Christian fundamentalism, specifically with reference to the paradoxical accommodation of Christ to Jehovah and vice versa, but also as the sort of people who, lacking or disdaining a church, that institutional embodiment of the Christian religion, are the least hampered by vested interests, not least of all clerical, from advocating and hopefully recognizing and actively following the Second Coming, or equivalent Messianic leader and teacher of the terms and conditions of 'Kingdom Come'. Theirs, one feels, is no mere lip service to the promise and prospect of a new order of society commensurate with 'Kingdom Come', but a genuine desire and active hope for the coming of such an otherworldly 'Kingdom', and therefore it is not unreasonable to expect them to figure prominently in the eventual administration of the 'Kingdom' in question, should recognition of and devotion to the Second Coming - not literally identifiable with Christ, the 'First Coming' - subsequently be forthcoming.

Be that as it may, theirs - and whoever else might subsequently assist the divine bringer of 'Kingdom Come' in both establishing and maintaining his godly throne - would amount to a secondary order of damnation germane to the metachemical unclearness of the most devolved order of sensible fundamentalism, that of an elemental-wavicle manifestation of the sacred heart which was akin to a secondary Mother and most good Devil, as that which had fallen diagonally, in space-time, from the metachemical clearness of a primary Daughter organically commensurate with the Risen Virgin and inorganically commensurate, in cosmic primacy, with Jehovah - a 'first mover' of cosmic sensuality whose basis, I believe, is rather more stellar than optical.

However that may be, there are other orders of damnation and, more importantly, salvation, and they of course apply to the triadic Beyond of religious praxis, wherein Social Transcendentalism would be divisible between the mass and volume of phenomenal sensibility, corresponding to water and vegetation, and the space of noumenal sensibility, corresponding to air.

The reader may recall that Anglicans would be entitled to rise diagonally, in those countries like Eire where they are not politically pegged to the foot of the inverted triangle of so-called Protestant solidarity, from mass to volume, as from phallus to brain, in the event of mandating 'Kingdom Come' through the paradoxical democratically-engineered exchange of political sovereignty for religious sovereignty, thereby achieving deliverance from worldly sin, and for males the option between physical and metaphysical forms of humanism according to type would constitute a primary order of relative salvation which contrasted with the secondary order of relative damnation attending females who, as fellow Anglicans, would also of course be entitled to rise diagonally from mass to volume, albeit within the framework of a chemical form of humanism that, as with other female subsections of any given tier, would be more committed to the constraining of not-self freedom of action than to the enhancement of self in either intellectual or emotional subjectivity, as germane to the respective male subsections of any particular tier.

Hence while to rise diagonally is indeed to be saved in primary terms for Anglican males, it can only mean to be damned in secondary terms for Anglican females, quite unlike the fate of Nonconformists falling diagonally, as from volume to mass, tongue to womb, in the event of a majority mandate for religious sovereignty in society in general, with the correlative deliverance of Nonconformists from the freedom of worldly crime to the binding, whether directly or indirectly, of otherworldly punishment, and a primary order of relative damnation for females in the chemical subsection of the bottom tier contrasting with a secondary order of relative salvation for males in the physical and metaphysical subsections thereof, since a graceful enhancement of self would still apply to those subsections even with a falling precondition.

Likewise, Catholic males rising diagonally from time to space, ears to lungs, in the event of a majority mandate for religious sovereignty come that paradoxical election which I equate with Judgement, would undergo deliverance from the freedom of overworldly sin to the binding of otherworldly grace in terms of a primary order of absolute salvation, whereas Catholic females rising in such fashion would find themselves encountering otherworldly punishment in terms of a secondary order of absolute damnation, with correlative constraints upon not-self freedom of action in relation to the chemical, or bottom, subsection of the top tier of the triadic Beyond, a tier generally more metaphysical than either physical (middle tier) or chemical (bottom tier), and thus exemplifying the per se manifestation of transcendentalism in terms of a religious praxis centred, for the soulfully-oriented males, in transcendental meditation.

Just as males can only be saved, whether on primary or secondary terms in either relative or absolute contexts, so females can only be damned, again whether on primary or secondary terms on a phenomenal or noumenal basis, since where males alternate, in their subjectivity, between sin and grace, folly and wisdom, females tend, in their objectivity, to alternate between crime and punishment, evil and good.

The idea of saving females is both illogical and unrealistic; for even when females demonstrate an element of wisdom, and hence grace, it is as a shadow to what is - and must necessarily always remain - a male preserve and reality.

For females are not, like males, creatures for whom self comes first but, on the contrary, creatures for whom the not-self is primary and the self secondary, in view of the objectivity of natures rooted in or stemming from a vacuum, which tend, in consequence, to be either unnatural or supernatural, viz. metachemical or chemical, with fiery and watery implications in relation to what are, in fact, the primary Elements.

Thus any sensible constraints upon not-self freedom of objective action can only be commensurate with punishment, and it is because punishment is less attractive to females than crime, the crime of righteous clearness in that freedom of objective action which is correlative with evil, that they revert to crime as to a cultural and/or civilized ideal in which beauty and strength are respectively free to do and give their sensually noumenal and/or phenomenal most.

But when beauty and strength are culturally and civilly free to do and give their most, as they are in sensuality, then the cultural and civil forms of truth and knowledge, their righteous counterparts in male sensibility, are bound to take and be their least, even to the extent, in the latter case, of not being credited with any official existence or credence at all!

All that will be able to thrive, albeit on a secondary basis, are the unrighteous, because sensual, forms of truth and knowledge, as germane not to culture and civilization but to race and generation, and it will necessarily be on a basis of freedom rather than binding, and thus in subordination to the hegemonies of cultural beauty and civilized strength, a subordination at once foolish and unholy in its disrespect for self.

For binding to self is the utmost male ideal, and higher even than the knowing of self in civilized knowledge is the being of self, the being true to self, in cultural truth, which requires a repudiation, by those who are metaphysical, of cultural beauty and a turning away, in consequence, from the foolish form of truth which accords with race.

Such a turning away from racial truth in response to the repudiation of cultural beauty is a form of ultimate salvation, and in metaphysics this is the achievement of cultural truth on the basis of the utmost binding to self through transcendental meditation.

He who is most bound to self through transcendental meditation is truly wise, for his self tends to have its fulcrum, its raison d'être, not in the ego but in the soul, which is the per se context of the metaphysical psyche, and vouchsafes him that pure emotion which is commensurate with Heaven, and not just a secondary order of Heaven in the spirit, the breath, but the primary order of Heaven which is called the soul, and which manifests itself to the metaphysical psyche in the quintessentially essential form or, rather, content(ment) of joy.

Thus does a primary god who is also a primary order of the Son, correlative with the Second Coming, achieve his redemption and resurrection in the primary heaven of the Holy Soul, as he moves from the wise grace of inner metaphysical ego to the holy grace of inner metaphysical soul via the wise sin of inner metaphysical will, affiliated to the lungs, and the holy sin of inner metaphysical spirit, affiliated to the breath. For the Father and the Holy Spirit of the context in question are ever sinful in the nature (subnatural) of their doing and giving or, more correctly, in the fact of their association with a given manifestation of Nature, whereas the Son and the Holy Soul of this inner metaphysical context are ever graceful in relation to the psyche (subconscious) of their taking and being, which is to say, in relation to their association with a given manifestation of Psyche.

In subatomic terms it could be said that a metaphysical manifestation (protinos) of molecular wavicles has utilized both elemental-particle and molecular-particle manifestations of inner metaphysical reality in order to achieve for itself, on the recoil from selfless threat and/or stretch, the metaphysical manifestation of elemental wavicles, which is commensurate with the purest soul of joyful beatitude.

Metaphysical taking and being are never sinful, for they are of the Psyche and thus of primary orders of God and Heaven, whereas the secondary orders of God and Heaven which this psyche utilizes, being of a metaphysical manifestation of Nature (subnatural), are ever sinful, whether on the wise terms of the inner Father or on the holy terms of the inner Spirit, and in utilizing them for purposes of its own emotional transmutation and benefaction, the metaphysical psyche implicitly and readily forgives that which, manifesting the least sinfulness of any elemental context, vouchsafes to it the maximum grace.

For the molecular-wavicle quality of inner metaphysical ego, commensurate with God-the-Wise-Son, and the elemental-wavicle essence of inner metaphysical soul, commensurate with Heaven-the-Holy-Soul, would be inconceivable without the elemental-particle appearance of inner metaphysical will, commensurate with God-the-Wise-Father, and the molecular-particle quantity of inner metaphysical spirit, commensurate with Heaven-the-Holy-Spirit.

The form of inner metaphysical ego, which is relatively graceful, needs the power of inner metaphysical will, which is absolutely sinful, and the glory of inner metaphysical spirit, which is relatively sinful, if it is to achieve for itself the redemptive content(ment) of inner metaphysical soul, which is absolutely graceful.

The relative grace of God-the-Wise-Son into the absolute sinfulness of God-the-Wise-Father makes for the absolute grace of Heaven-the-Holy-Soul via the relative sinfulness of Heaven-the-Holy-Spirit. There is no other inner metaphysical logic than that, and that is the ultimate truth about the ultimate religious praxis which is called transcendental meditation, and which vouchsafes to the primary wise God, who as God-the-Wise-Son is one with inner metaphysical ego, the primary holy Heaven which is called the inner metaphysical soul, the Holy-Soul-of-Heaven, and which is His resurrection from form to contentment, as from qualitative grace to essential grace.

We have argued that in contrast to form and content(ment), which are graceful in their psychic connection with the self, or with a self disposed to metaphysical conduct, power and glory are sinful in their natural connection with the not-self, or with a metaphysical order of not-self, and that this applies no less to the sensibility of metaphysics than to its sensuality, even if the important distinction between a maxi-sinfulness in association with the ears/airwaves and a mini-sinfulness in association with the lungs/breath, together with contrary degrees of grace, has to be allowed for, in view of the overall distinction between the Eternal Father on the one hand and the Eternal Son, or the per se context of the Son commensurate with a Second Coming, which is nothing less than a distinction, in broad terms, between sin and grace, and more specifically between a secondary order of sin (compared to the temporal Father, Who is equivalent to Man-the-Foolish-Father) and a primary order of grace (compared to the temporal Son, i.e. the First Coming, Who is equivalent to Man-the-Wise-Son).

But if power and glory, equating with will and spirit, are sinful compared to the form and content(ment) which accrues to the metaphysical manifestations (not to mention physical manifestations) of ego and soul, then the association of grace with God only applies to the Son, not to the Father, who is ever commensurate with sin, whether in the maxi-terms of sensual metaphysics or in the mini-terms of sensible metaphysics, wherein sin, being inner, is either wise or holy according to whether we are focusing on the lungs or the breath, God-the-Wise-Father or Heaven-the-Holy-Spirit. But it is still an aspect of Nature, in this instance subnatural, which makes possible to that which transcends Nature in the Psyche, in this instance subconsciously, its grace, and in the context in question the maxi-grace which manifests on qualitative and essential, egocentric and soulful, or psychocentric, terms.

One can therefore distinguish the graceful truth and joy of primary God and Heaven, that of the Son and the Soul, from the sinful truth and joy of secondary God and Heaven, that of the Father and the Spirit, and this whether in relation to the folly and unholiness of sensual metaphysics or to the wisdom and holiness of sensible metaphysics. For grace, like sin, can be foolish or wise, as well as unholy or holy.

It can also be either absolute, and noumenal, or relative, and phenomenal, which is to say, of metaphysics or physics, of air or vegetation (earth), and in the latter case we can no more distinguish between paternal and filial forms of God in relation to spiritual and soulful forms of heaven than designate the former as germane to man and the earth. Anything physical, and therefore of mass and volume as opposed to time and space, is of necessity foolish or wise, unholy or holy, sensual or sensible in terms of man and the earth, whether in relation to Fathers or to Sons.

Hence there is nothing godly about the First-Coming position of Man-the-Wise-Son, any more than there is anything heavenly about his redemption, via Man-the-Wise-Father and Earth-the-Holy-Spirit, viz. cerebral will and spirit, in Earth-the-Holy-Soul or, as one could alternatively phrase it, the Holy Soul of Earth. Anything prayerfully cerebral, exemplifying the religious form of cogitation, necessarily falls short of Godliness and Heavenliness, and not only in relation to the saved metaphysics of respiratory sensibility, wherein the utilization of lungs and breath by a wise order of God-the-Son for purposes of His heavenly transmutation into holy Soul is the transcendent norm, but also in relation to the cursed (under the blessed hegemony of a female First Mover) metaphysics of audio sensuality, wherein the utilization of ears and airwaves by a foolish order of God-the-Son for purposes of His heavenly transmutation into Unholy Soul is the transcendent norm, and more in relation to the maxi-sinfulness of secondary orders of sensual power and glory than in relation to the mini-sinfulness of secondary orders of sensible power and glory, i.e. wise Father and holy Spirit.

Hence power and glory are only sinful, whether on absolute or relative, noumenal or phenomenal, terms in relation to metaphysics and physics, the upper- and lower-class male alternatives whose Fathers and Sons are either heavenly or earthly, as the elemental case determines. One is delivered from the predominant sinfulness of sensuality to the preponderant gracefulness of sensibility, but always on the understanding that sinfulness still attaches to the natural, or not-self, manifestations of sensibility, and that God-the-Wise-Father is no more graceful than Heaven-the-Holy-Spirit, without whose sensible metaphysical sin no sensible metaphysical grace would be possible to the inner metaphysical self, and that, likewise, Man-the-Wise-Father is no more graceful than Earth-the-Holy-Spirit, without whose sensible physical sin no sensible physical grace would be possible to the inner physical self, albeit the grace revolves around knowledgeable and pleasurable, rather than true and joyful, forms of ego and soul.

Be that as it may, when we cross to the other side of the gender fence, as to metachemical and chemical alternatives in fire and water, we find that power and glory are no more sinful than form and content(ment) graceful, but that, given an objective precondition in both not-self and self, power and glory divide between wilful and spiritual forms of criminality, while form and content(ment), ever subordinate to a predominant not-self, i.e. to both unnatural and supernatural forms of Nature, take on a punishing correlation which ever sets them apart from their male counterparts.

Hence far from the female parallels to Fathers and Sons, viz. Mothers and Daughters, being either sinful or graceful, they are rather criminal or punishing, with correlative orders of purgatorial or hellish spirit and soul, according to whether the context is one of Nature or Psyche in either phenomenal or noumenal contexts.

But even when we divide a maxi-criminality in natural sensuality from a mini-criminality in natural sensibility and, conversely, a mini-punishingness in psychic sensuality from a maxi-punishingness in psychic sensibility, we still have the right - as with their male counterparts - to uphold the contention that, objectivity remaining characteristically constant with females or, at any rate, with what is properly female, the self is subordinate to the not-self, whether in metachemistry or chemistry, and that greater or lesser extents of natural or psychic factors no more confutes this gender-conditioned constant than eliminates the need for the punishment of crime whether directed outwards, in sensuality, where crime is its own punishment, or directed inwards, in sensibility where, by contrast, crime is punished, or censured and reigned-in, by a seemingly preponderant psyche.

Just so, but in contrast to females, males remain fairly constantly creatures for whom Psyche takes precedence over Nature, specifically with reference to the natural and subnatural, physical and metaphysical forms of Nature, even when the emphasis between grace and sin is reversed or inverted in consequence of its being external and free rather than internal and bound; for, unlike females, males exemplify the triumph, in plenumously conditioned subjectivity, of self over not-self which is called Psyche and which renders both the will and spirit transmutably subordinate, as mind and subspirit, to the ego and soul.

In contrary vein, the female exemplification of the triumph of not-self over self, stemming, as it does, from a vacuous premise that makes for objectivity principally in relation to unnatural and supernatural forms of Nature, renders both the soul and ego transmutably subordinate, as id and superego, to the will and spirit, which are the primary factors with them and guarantors that, come what may, crime and punishment will remain in the driving seat and continue to condition their outlook on life even if and after the salvation of males from sin to grace, or, rather, from a maxi-sinfulness and mini-gracefulness in the Father to a mini-sinfulness and maxi-gracefulness in the Son, damns females from crime to punishment, or, more correctly, from a maxi-criminality and mini-punishment in the Daughter to a mini-criminality and maxi-punishment in the Mother, as described in greater detail in a previous text.

I believe it was in The Picture of Dorian Gray that Oscar Wilde had one of his principal characters saying something to the effect that whereas women represent the triumph of matter over mind, men represent the triumph of mind over matter or, rather, morals, and, to be sure, no matter how seemingly facetious, it contained a strong grain of truth which the above theories would seem to confirm. Whether the male be masculine or divine, manly or godly, physical or metaphysical, it would seem that his plenumously-conditioned subjectivity results in a situation in which Psyche takes precedence over Nature, and will and spirit are accordingly transmuted by soul and ego to an extent which makes for mind and subspirit, which is to say, for third- and/or fourth-rate orders of will and spirit in relation to second- and/or first-rate orders of ego and soul, as germane to those Elements which, in their vegetative or airy subjectivity, correspond to what is male, whose qualitative and essential attributes have reference primarily to form and content(ment), and thus to taking and being, knowledge and truth.

In contrast to those Elements which, in their fiery or watery objectivity, correspond to what is female, whose apparent and quantitative attributes have reference primarily to power and glory, and thus to doing and giving, beauty and strength. For whether the female be diabolic or feminine, devilish or womanly, metachemical or chemical, it would seem that her vacuously-conditioned objectivity results in a situation in which Nature takes precedence over Psyche, and soul and ego are accordingly transmuted by will and spirit to an extent which makes for id and superego, which is to say, for fourth- and/or third-rate orders of soul and ego in relation to first- and/or second-rate orders of will and spirit.

But this gender contrast between a preponderant Psyche in the case of males and a predominant Nature in the case of females, the preponderant conscious and subconscious aspects of Psyche of the one gender in the subjective contexts of physics and metaphysics contrasting with the predominant unnatural and supernatural aspects of Nature of the other gender in the objective contexts of metachemistry and chemistry, does not cease for either gender even when they are at loggerheads, as it were, with their own respective forms of righteousness but, rather, remains a fact of life even when circumstances suggest the contrary.

For even with the maxi-punishingness and the mini-criminality of metachemical and/or chemical sensibility, the female is still a creature for whom Nature takes precedence over Psyche, and for whom the unclearness of racial and/or generative damnation (under the hegemonic salvation of male sensibility) is accordingly unrighteous in its paradoxical requirement, through the pressures of male wisdom, of constraints upon not-self freedom of objective action as a secondary form of binding. Even when the female feels obliged to punish crime and rein-in her not-self with sensibility, she is still a creature immutably characterized, to paraphrase Wilde, by the triumph of matter over mind, of either unnatural or supernatural manifestations of Nature in heart or womb over their psychic counterparts in unconsciousness or superconsciousness, viz. id or superego, as characterized by racial beauty and generative strength.

And even with the maxi-sinfulness and the mini-gracefulness of physical and/or metaphysical sensuality, the male is still a creature for whom Psyche takes precedence over Nature, and for whom the unholiness of generative or racial cursedness (under the hegemonic blessedness of female sensuality) is accordingly unrighteous in its paradoxical requirement, through the pressures of female evil, of the loosening of binding to self as a secondary form of freedom. For even when the male feels obliged to take the forgiveness of sin to libertarian extents by giving free rein to self-rejection with sensuality, he is still a creature immutably characterized by the triumph of mind over matter (to speak rather more logically than, in Wildean vein, facetiously), of either conscious or subconscious manifestations of Psyche over their natural or subnatural counterparts in phallus or ears, viz. mind or subspirit, as characterized by generative knowledge and racial truth.

Therefore even when the genders are effectively at loggerheads with themselves, females reining-in Nature through a sensibly punishing Psyche that constrains not-self objectivity and males, by contrast, revelling in Nature through a sensually forgiving Psyche that turns away from self-subjectivity, they remain beholden to the underlying reality of a contrary emphasis upon Nature and Psyche, and are accordingly dissatisfied with the paradoxical situations in which they unrighteously find themselves - females damned from clearness to unclearness, as from evil to good, and males not yet saved, or rejecting salvation, from unholiness to holiness, as from folly to wisdom, whether relatively, in the phenomenal, or absolutely, in the noumenal.

Therefore the gender tug-of-war between clear righteousness in the blessed sensuality of evil culture and civilization, beauty and strength, and holy righteousness in the saved sensibility of wise civilization and culture, knowledge and truth, persists and, of necessity, can only persist in one form or another so long as there is gender; for females do not cease to be female even when they are under pressure by male wisdom to be good, i.e. behave well, and, conversely, males do not cease being male even when they are under pressure by female evil to act foolishly. All that really changes, over the generations, is the ratio of sensuality to sensibility or, conversely, of sensibility to sensuality, about which more anon.

When we distinguish the Psyche-over-Nature reality of males from the Nature-over-Psyche reality of females on the above basis, we are drawn to the conclusion that, contrary to a simple distinction between what philosophers call 'free will' and 'natural determinism', life exemplifies a more complex dichotomy, on both sides of the gender fence, between what could be called the 'free psyche' and 'natural determinism' of males and, by contrast, the 'natural freedom' and 'psychic determinism' of females.

In other worlds, because males are creatures for whom Psyche takes precedence over Nature, especially with specific reference, in physical and metaphysical sensibility, to conscious and subconscious forms of Psyche, their contexts of righteousness, they are, of necessity, persons for whom the ego and soul of Psyche is 'free', or free to be itself, while the will and spirit of Nature is determined by psychic factors to a degree which transmutes each of them into mind and subspirit, thereby resulting in the due subordination of Nature to Psyche.

Conversely, because females are creatures for whom Nature takes precedence over Psyche, especially with specific reference, in metachemical and chemical sensuality, to unnatural and supernatural forms of Nature, their contexts of righteousness, they are of necessity persons for whom the will and spirit of Nature is 'free', or free to be itself, while the soul and ego of Psyche is determined by natural factors to a degree which transmutes each of them into id and superego, thereby resulting in the due subordination of Psyche to Nature.

But this subordinated Psyche which is commensurate with id and superego is still able to outflank the soul and ego of males, the id apparently upstaging the soul in metachemistry and the superego quantitatively upstaging the ego in chemistry, with a consequence that, duly seduced, males are led away from free psyche towards free nature in will and spirit and enter into emotional or carnal relations with females in consequence, turning their backs, all the while, on the natural determinism that follows from adherence to free psyche as they take on a secondary mode of psychic determinism in response to female pressures of the sort that issue from the psychic determinism of id and superego in subordination to the free nature, or will and spirit, of unnatural and supernatural, beautiful and strong, forms of sensual Nature.

Hence the male who enters into sensual relations with females is as a shadow to his true self in which Psyche has the better of Nature, and never more so than in relation to the egocentric and soulful, or psychocentric, hegemonies of the conscious and subconscious, knowledgeable and true forms of sensible Psyche. Because he has succumbed, on the other hand, to the clear righteousness of absolute or relative evil, depending on the context, he is adjudged a fool, and must suffer the paradoxical consequences, including a vicarious identification with punishment and crime.

Only in sensibility can the male, whether masculine or divine, manly or godly, be delivered from the curse that hangs over him when he is at cross-purposes with his (physical and/or metaphysical) nature to the extent of allowing psychic determinism to eclipse free psyche and free nature, by contrast, to eclipse natural determinism.

For, in sensibility, it is the female who is at cross-purposes with her (metachemical and/or chemical) nature to the extent of allowing free psyche to eclipse psychic determinism and natural determinism, by contrast, to eclipse free nature in response to those hegemonic male pressures which, whether in physics or metaphysics, stem from loyalty to self and constitute his civilized or cultural, depending on the context, wisdom, as free psyche reigns over natural determinism, characterized, as we have found, by mind and subspirit, to the greater glory or, rather, form and content(ment) of holy righteousness.

For there is no holiness for a male without loyalty to self, and thus to free psyche in the sensible forms of either physical ego or metaphysical soul, knowledge or truth, in which the natural and subnatural forms of Nature are accordingly subordinate and, in effect, sinful realities to which forgiveness, in the prosecution of a psychic end, is due. This is what makes a male, whether manly or godly, wise, and wisdom constrains the will and spirit of females to paradoxically shadow standings in relation to the primacy of mind and subspirit that operates in natural determinism with psychically free males, and simultaneously undermines the prevalence of id and superego in psychic determinism, thereby causing females to take a secondary allegiance to ego and soul more seriously than would otherwise be possible, with the sorts of enhanced, or maxi-punishing, consequences vis-à-vis the criminality of Nature, specifically with regard to its female forms, that we have already noted, and which further undermine its criminal intent.

Nevertheless, even with the best will in the world, or even beyond it, females will not long remain content with the paradoxical unclearness of racial or generative unrighteousness, but will struggle back from such enforced goodness towards the possibility of renewed evil in the form of cultural and/or civilized clearness as a matter of gender-conditioned course.

Thus if wisdom on the part of males is insufficiently true or knowledgeable, with the corollary of sincere adherence and a readiness to utilize whatever humane strategies may prove of especial efficacy in constraining females to goodness, it will be undermined and suffer the unrighteous consequences of a return to generative and/or racial folly in the curse of physical and/or metaphysical sensuality, where it will be all the more vulnerable to being preyed upon by female criteria having more to do with natural freedom and psychic determinism than with their converse, and consequently undergo gender subversion.

Clearly the simple distinction so long bandied-about by philosophers between 'free will' and 'natural determinism' is, if taken literally, more a reflection of gender contrast than a simple dichotomy between one choice and another, since free will, like free spirit, is an aspect of free nature and therefore contrasts, from a female standpoint, with the natural determinism of that nature which, being male, owes the undermining and even transmutation of will and spirit into mind and subspirit to a free psyche in which ego and soul are the prevalent factors.

Where free will as an aspect of free nature exists, on the other hand, it is because Nature takes precedence over Psyche and the latter is accordingly transmuted by a prevalent will and spirit into id and superego, thereby manifesting what has been termed psychic determinism to the detriment of any free psyche that may, especially with regard to males, be about to fall into its outflanking disposition.

Therefore either free nature conditioning psychic determinism prevails as a sensual reality or, by sensible contrast, free psyche conditioning natural determinism prevails, as it does whenever males opt for salvation from the folly of natural freedom or, more correctly, psychic determinism to the wisdom of psychic freedom and its corollary ... of natural determinism, and damn females, in consequence, to the goodness of punishing crime, which rather contrasts with the evil of criminal punishment, and no less than the wisdom of graceful sin contrasts, in male sensibility, with the folly of sinful grace, the sort of psyche that plays second-fiddle, as it were, to a sinful nature in which, contrary to male interests, freedom has the better of determinism.

Since life is a gender tug-of-war between incompatible antagonists, the one objective and favouring clearness over unclearness, cultural and/or civilized evil in sensuality over racial and/or generative good in sensibility, and the other subjective and favouring holiness over unholiness, civilized and/or cultural wisdom in sensibility over generative and/or racial folly in sensuality, it stands to reason that neither sex can have or ever has had it entirely all its own way, nor would that be desirable even if it were possible, in view of the human condition, or the way in which people are structured as compromises, to greater or lesser extents, between sensuality and sensibility.

But even if gender remains pretty constant and therefore consistently divisible between female and male interests and predilections, it could be said that the ratio of sensuality to sensibility, or vice versa, is subject to fluctuation and modification on the basis of the ratio of Nature to Civilization, in the environmental sense, and that the degree to which sensual or sensible criteria obtain at the expense of their opposites is therefore not fixed but extensively, if not intensively, and almost infinitely transmutable.

For instance, one can argue for Man, meaning mankind in the broadest possible sense, including those who, strictly speaking, might be more devilish or godly than feminine or masculine, as creatures of Nature to the extent that natural conditions predominate and sensuality is accordingly more prevalent than sensibility, but this would limit one to either certain categories of Man, say primitives or rural-dwellers, or to a certain basic level or even absence of Civilization in which Nature was both extensively and intensively present, and to such an extent that freedom rather than binding, Heathen rather than Christian criteria were everywhere chiefly characteristic of the people(s) concerned.

On the other hand, one can argue for Man, again in the broadest and most comprehensive sense, as creatures of Civilization to the extent that urban conditions predominate and sensibility is accordingly more prevalent than sensuality, and again this would limit one to either certain categories of Man, say urban-dwellers and modern sophisticates, or to a certain advanced level and presence of Civilization in which Nature was only very sparsely or thinly present, and people were accordingly more disposed to binding than to freedom, with a correspondingly enhanced sense of religious values.

For I have argued elsewhere that the dichotomy between Nature and Civilization, rural and urban environments, boils down to a distinction between the 'without' and the 'within', sensuality and sensibility, and that the more Civilization develops at Nature's expense, as it does in fact tend to do, the less sensuality will there be and the more disposed to sensibility in indoor lifestyles do people become, with a corollary that Christian-type criteria tend to prevail over any demonstrably heathenistic or paganistic, or overly sensual criteria.

Thus as we have the power, the freedom and the ability to change our environments, so do we change in proportion to the transposition from outdoors to indoors, from rural to urban, from backwards to forwards, from primitivity to modernity, from jungle to city. Therefore while we cannot categorically maintain that Man is this or that, natural or civilized, we can argue in favour of his transmutation from Nature to Civilization and for a view of Man in relation to the latter which permits us to identify Him with artificial criteria and for enhanced sensibility in proportion to the degree of his Civilization.

Therefore the civilized view of Man will fly in the face of Man as a creature of Nature and render everything said about the latter that smacks of sensual fatalism or fixation to be merely provisional and contingent upon certain circumstances, circumstances which Modern Man, as a creature of Civilization, has largely turned his back on, in the pursuit of ever-higher and deeper ends.

For sensibility is not handed to us on a plate by sensuality, any more than urban civilization is handed to us by a rural environment that, by its very sensual nature, understands little or nothing of the city and would be unwilling and unable, in any case, to envision the development of the latter. Every gain made by Civilization, by sensibility, is done at Nature's expense, and it is with this process of ongoing urbanization that not only do we become more sensible, but that the tables are turned, as it were, on the sorts of freedoms that give females undue advantage over males, and thus make possible to both males and females alike a greater degree of binding, whether directly to self, as with males, or indirectly to self through enhanced constraints upon not-self freedom of action, as with females.

Only thus can we advance towards the 'celestial city' of 'Kingdom Come', in which the male psyche, being truly free, is free to prevail over natural determinism to an extent which brings even the free nature of females into disrepute, and causes them to defer to the graceful sin of wisdom from the punishing criminality of their goodness, whether on absolute or relative terms, depending on the elemental context.

To contrast the rise of males, in salvation, from psychic determinism in sensuality to psychic freedom in sensibility with the fall of females, in damnation, from free nature in sensuality to natural determinism in sensibility, since the distinction between males and females ever hinges upon Psyche-over-Nature in the one case and Nature-over-Psyche in the other, and when males opt for salvation from sensuality to sensibility they progress from a context in which psychic freedom is undermined by the psychic determinism of females acting on behalf of a free nature from hegemonic positions in either sensual metachemistry or sensual chemistry, spatial space or volumetric volume, to one in which psychic freedom is enhanced in proportion to the extent to which they are hegemonic in sensible physics or sensible metaphysics, voluminous volume or spaced space, over the free nature, now constrained towards determinism by an enforced psychic freedom, of females.

Therefore one can contrast the rise of males in Psyche, whether consciously or subconsciously, with the fall of females in Nature, whether unnaturally or supernaturally, and equate the one with salvation from generative knowledge and/or racial truth to civilized knowledge and/or cultural truth, depending on the elemental context, and the other with damnation from cultural beauty and/or civilized strength to racial beauty and/or generative strength, again depending on the context.

Therefore the equation of both knowledge and truth with Psyche is no less demonstrably valid than the equation, on the female side of the gender divide, of both beauty and strength with Nature, since where knowledge and truth appertain to the quality and essence of ego and soul, with especial reference to physics and metaphysics, beauty and strength appertain to the appearance and quantity of will and spirit, with especial reference to metachemistry and chemistry.

Thus one can contrast the molecular wavicles and elemental wavicles of physical form and metaphysical content(ment) with the elemental particles and molecular particles of metachemical power and chemical glory, as one would contrast vegetative and airy contexts of subjectivity on the male side of the gender fence with their fiery and watery objective counterparts on its female side, the side having more reference to beauty and strength than to knowledge and truth, and, in all probability, to photons/photinos and electrons/electrinos than to neutrons/neutrinos and protons/protinos, as germane to the subatomic division between elements and elementinos in relation to sensuality and sensibility.

Indeed, one has to distinguish the metachemical brightness of beauty from the chemical darkness of strength, and further distinguish the hotness of love in relation to beauty from the coldness of pride in relation to strength, while likewise distinguishing the physical heaviness of knowledge from the metaphysical lightness of truth, and further distinguish the hardness of pleasure in relation to knowledge from the softness of joy in relation to truth.

And this applies to sensuality no less than to sensibility, except that where, in sensuality, metachemistry and chemistry are evil in their punishing criminality, in sensibility they are good in their criminal punishment; and that where, in sensuality, physics and metaphysics are foolish in their graceful sin, in sensibility they are wise in their sinful grace.

For a context in which crime predominates over punishment differs markedly from one in which punishment preponderates over crime, just as a context in which sin predominates over grace differs markedly from one in which grace preponderates over sin, and all because in the cases of a predominant crime and sin sensuality is the prevalent factor, while in the cases of a preponderant grace and punishment, by contrast, it is sensibility which is prevalent, and always in association with a male hegemony in which the wisdom of salvation has the upper hand over the goodness of damnation.

In associating beauty with love we are distinguishing the Devil from Hell, whether in relation to primary (natural) or secondary (psychic) orders of each, whereas in associating strength with pride we are distinguishing woman from purgatory, again whether in relation to primary (natural) or secondary (psychic) manifestations of each, though always with contexts in which the not-self is primary and the self secondary, in keeping with the vacuously-conditioned objective dispositions of females to diverge (in sensuality) and/or converge (in sensibility) on a straight-line basis.

In associating knowledge with pleasure we are distinguishing man from the earth, whether in relation to primary (psychic) or secondary (natural) manifestations of each, whereas in associating truth with joy we are distinguishing God from Heaven, again whether in relation to primary (psychic) or secondary (natural) orders of each, though always with contexts in which the self is primary and the not-self secondary, in keeping with the plenumously-conditioned subjective dispositions of males to diverge (in sensuality) and/or converge (in sensibility) on a curved-line basis.

For Psyche, remember, takes precedence over Nature with males, whereas Nature takes precedence over Psyche with females. A male isn't usually drawn to the Psyche of females but, on the contrary, to their Nature, specifically with regard to apparent and quantitative, beautiful and strong factors which have more to do, in their doing and giving, with will and spirit than ever they have to do with ego and soul, taking and being, as affiliated to knowledge and truth.

But in being drawn to the Nature of females the male, whether godly or manly, noumenal or phenomenal, upper class or lower class, sacrifices his Psyche, is accused of 'losing his head ...' and, to be sure, what ensues is indeed a refutation of free psyche and natural determinism in favour of psychic determinism and free nature, as the psychic determinism of the female outflanks his soul and ego in respect of id and superego and subverts his subjective disposition for grace and sin towards the objectivity of crime and punishment, and to an extent whereby it might logically be deduced that his Psyche, duly undermined by determinism, often functions on a quasi-punishing basis and his Nature, duly subverted, according to quasi-criminal predilections owing more to free nature than to natural determinism.

Be that as it may, what happens to the male in sensuality when he falls under the hegemonic influence of females happens on a reverse basis to the female in sensibility, though only when she falls under the hegemonic influence of males and undergoes a paradoxical inversion and transmutation of gender whereby quasi-sinful and quasi-graceful tendencies eclipse the more elementally rigorous realities of crime and punishment, albeit on a no-less tangential basis to what is properly female than in the case of males subjected to undue female pressures in sensuality.

Rather than 'losing his head' to a female it could be said of females in the converse position to their sensual counterparts that they lose their body and effectively gain a head, but the assumption of a preponderant Psyche is, frankly, no less delusory with them than the assumption of a predominant Nature with sensually-disposed males, since the reality of Psyche-over-Nature for males and, conversely, of Nature-over-Psyche for females remains the case whether one has paradoxically sold-out to the opposite sex or not, whether in a falling (male) or a rising (female) fashion, and this contrary to the gender-specific alternatives of rising diagonally from sensuality to sensibility in the case of males or falling diagonally from sensuality to sensibility in the case of females - the former saved, as from foolish Psyche to wise Psyche, generative knowledge to civilized knowledge in the qualitativeness of physics and/or racial truth to cultural truth in the essence of metaphysics, and the latter damned, as from evil Nature to good Nature, cultural beauty to racial beauty in the appearance of metachemistry and/or civilized strength to generative strength in the quantitativeness of chemistry.

One thing we can be sure of is that although in general terms freedom is more usually associated with sensuality and binding with sensibility, there is both freedom and binding, or liberty and determinism, in each context on both male and female terms, as well as with regard to the noumenal/phenomenal distinction between upper- and lower-class planes.

What we must be sure of in our minds is whether the emphasis in any one context is on natural freedom and psychic determinism, whether on primary (female) or secondary (male) terms or, conversely, on psychic freedom and natural determinism, again with primary (male) or secondary (female) implications. For there is all the difference in the world - and even above it - between freedom in the context of Nature and freedom in the context, by contrast, of Psyche, and any emphasis on the one must necessarily exclude or marginalize the other.

When we view life in terms of female righteousness, which is clear in its sensual objectivity, it is obvious that freedom in terms of Nature is of especial significance, and that any contrary freedom to this, such as Psyche, will be undesirable and even discouraged as much as possible.

When, on the other hand, we view life in terms of male righteousness, which is holy in its sensible subjectivity, it is no-less obvious that freedom in terms of Psyche is of especial significance, and that any contrary freedom to this, such as Nature, will be considered undesirable and something to avoid as much as possible.

The former context will be one in which sensual criteria are uppermost in what may well be a largely rural environment, while the latter context should be one in which sensible criteria are uppermost in what will often be a largely urban environment. For Nature and Civilization are the sensual/sensible environmental alternatives, and while females are still largely Nature-over-Psyche in civilized environments and males still largely Psyche-over-Nature in naturalistic ones, the fact remains that Nature will be more prevalent in the sensuality of rural environments and Psyche more prevalent in the sensibility of urban ones, with corresponding distinctions between female hegemonies in the one and male hegemonies in the other.

Only in some town-like balance between rural and urban environments is it likely that a balance will be struck between female and male situations, but such a balance is arguably amoral rather than either immoral in relation to a more prevalent sensuality or moral in relation to a more prevalent sensibility, and likely to make for androgynous-type criteria, of which the political doctrine of liberalism, with its dualistic balance, is a salient example.

Those who value culture and civilization on the necessarily evil righteous terms of beauty and strength, with subordinate male positions having unrighteous reference to foolish forms of truth and knowledge, will esteem natural freedom and its corollary of psychic determinism in what are patently paganistic and/or heathenistic types of society, whereas those who value civilization and culture on the necessarily wise righteous terms of knowledge and truth, with subordinate female positions having unrighteous reference to good forms of strength and beauty, will esteem psychic freedom and its corollary of natural determinism in what can only be Christian and/or Messianic (Social Transcendentalist) types of society.

Either one settles for freedom on the basis of evil and folly, which is of the dark in its hegemonic Nature, or one settles for it on the basis of wisdom and goodness, which is of the light in its hegemonic Psyche. Either one is a child of darkness, for whom the sensuality of a natural freedom is the prevailing ideal and female criteria are accordingly hegemonic, or one is a child of light, given to the sensibility of a psychic freedom in which the male forms of civilization or culture are hegemonic.

Obviously, this dichotomy is to a large extent reflective of a gender struggle, since righteousness for females is contrary, in the clearness of evil, to what it is for males in relation to the holiness of wisdom. But it is also subject to modification in the course of time as Civilization, in the environmental sense, gets the better of Nature, and the ratio of sensuality to sensibility is accordingly reversed from a sensual predominance in rural contexts to a sensible predominance in urban ones, where the indoor lifestyle tends to take precedence - in some cases considerably - over the outdoor one.

Therefore it is possible to view Civilization as an instrument for the advancement of male sensibility over female sensuality, and of the transmutation of environment from rural to urban as a vehicle of male progress towards moral perfection, or a situation in which freedom is overwhelmingly identified not with Nature but with Psyche, and hence both civilized knowledge and, more importantly, cultural truth take precedence over generative strength and racial beauty, their sensible counterparts on the female, or objective, side of the gender divide.

Certainly the Church would seem to have symbolized this interpretation of freedom through recourse to candles, the light of whose flame burns above the body of the candle-proper as a paradigm of Christian morality and the concomitant hegemony of Psyche over Nature, of psychic freedom existing in partnership with natural determinism to the greater advancement of grace, though of a grace always dependent upon the co-existent naturalism of subordinate sin.

Even the Statue of Liberty would seem to be embodying male ideals from the basis, paradoxically, of a female form, as she clutches a book inscribed with the date of American Independence in one hand and holds aloft a torch of freedom in the other - surely something that connotes with psychic freedom rather than psychic determinism, as though in a paradigm of knowledge leading to truth.

Be that as it may, those who uphold psychic freedom do so as a retort to the natural freedom characterizing Heathen societies and as champions of the cause of Civilization over Nature, which is by and large identifiable with Western civilization in the modern age, and especially with civilized knowledge, the relative form of wisdom owing more to cerebral sensibility than to its respiratory counterpart in the absolute realm of cultural truth.

Cerebral sensibility, and hence civilized knowledge, can co-exist, as I have maintained in earlier texts, with both civilized strength and cultural beauty on the sensual side of life, though its partner in sensibility is traditionally and conventionally generative strength, rather like the womb under the brain, or the Mother of Christ under Christ in traditionally Catholic contexts. It is in this fashion that the New Testament co-exists with the Old Testament, for the Saviour of the New Testament differs radically from the First Mover and Creator-God of the Old, viz. Jehovah, as civilized knowledge in relative wisdom differs from cultural beauty (or, more correctly, cultural ugliness in relation to the negativity in inorganic primacy of stellar-plane cosmos) in absolute evil, the absolute evil of clear righteousness.

Therefore no advancement towards cultural truth, as germane to respiratory sensibility, and hence the practice of transcendental meditation, is possible so long as cultural beauty and/or ugliness still remains officially enthroned as 'God', whether negatively in relation to Jehovah in the Old Testament or positively in relation, one could argue, to the Risen Virgin in the New Testament, as we move from explicit inorganic primacy in the one context to implicit organic supremacy in the other, neither of which, being metachemical in their noumenal objectivity, are logically identifiable with divine criteria, and hence with what properly pertains to the realm of God or the godly.

The establishment of a context in which cultural truth is officially upheld and widely practised, even if in conjunction with fresh manifestations of civilized knowledge and generative strength, as previously described by me in relation to a triadic Beyond in 'Kingdom Come', obviously requires that the existing official status accorded to cultural beauty be repudiated and cast upon the rubbish heap of religious history; for salvation from sensuality to sensibility is not possible to metaphysical males, for whom this context is especially applicable, except that they reject the hegemony of cultural ugliness and/or beauty, depending on the metachemical context, one might even say the Testament, and turn from the folly of their own grovelling racial falsity and/or truth to the wisdom of cultural truth, without which there can be no ultimate salvation and therefore no absolute wisdom and holiness, the wisdom and holiness not of men, as in the physical sensibility of civilized knowledge, but of Gods.

Such a metaphysical context as that to which I allude above, coupled, as it would be, to physical, chemical, and (in the administrative aside to the said Beyond) even metachemical realities, is commensurate with 'Kingdom Come', and it can only come to pass in relation to a democratic mandate for religious sovereignty in what would be a paradoxical kind of election, whereby the chosen electorates of a variety of, in particular initially, Gaelic or Celtic countries, with especial emphasis on Ireland, sought deliverance from 'crimes and/or sins of the world' in the interests of their salvation and/or damnation to the graces and/or punishments' of the otherworldly Beyond of 'Kingdom Come' (which I have customarily identified, in previous texts, with a Gaelic federation ...). Such a paradoxical election would be commensurate, I have always maintained, with Judgement, and thus with the end, to all intents and purposes, of the world ... should the People so elect.

And it would guarantee to them not merely deliverance from the mundane darkness of the world as well, moreover, as from the cosmic darkness of (un)natural freedom, as symbolized by the metachemical First Mover, the stellar so-called God Whose supposedly divine status is a Primal Lie that precludes Supreme Truth, but deliverance, more importantly, to the light of the ultimate psychic freedom, as and where applicable.

When we distinguish between natural freedom and psychic freedom, the one as a female ideal in sensuality and the other as a male ideal in sensibility, we are in effect distinguishing between the freedom to be one's not-self and the freedom, by contrast, to be one's self - the former in relation, primarily, to doing and giving, those metachemical and chemical realities par excellence, and the latter in relation to taking and being, those physical and metaphysical realities par excellence, so that, on the one hand, the power and glory of will and spirit and, on the other hand, the form and content(ment) of ego and soul are the principal issues at stake.

Therefore we are distinguishing between an objective/subjective dichotomy in which either Nature triumphs over Psyche or, in the subjective case, Psyche triumphs over Nature, and instead of the emphasis being on beauty and/or strength, as with Nature, it is placed, by contrast, on knowledge and/or truth, and civilized and cultural forms of sensibility accordingly emerge in response to a male hegemony in either or both contexts.

Of course, one can officially uphold civilized knowledge, as the West has traditionally done, and still find oneself unofficially if not, in relation to the Old Testament, officially subscribing to or having to compromise with either or both the cultural and civilized forms of beauty and strength, since gender cuts both ways and an unequivocal endorsement of the one at the total expense of the other would be difficult if not impossible to imagine, particularly in view of the fact that life remains torn, to varying extents, not only between female and male interests, but also between Nature and Civilization, with rural and urban distinctions accordingly co-existing, neither of which are invariably pure.

Therefore both the freedom to be one's not-self and the freedom to be one's self, or true to one's self, continue to compete with one another in the general round of life, irrespective of individual predilections or social pressures, and, quite apart from gender factors, each individual is torn, in varying degrees, between the two options, between the natural freedom of loyalty to one's not-self in sensuality and the psychic freedom of loyalty to one's self in sensibility, even though, in practice, females tend more readily to identify with the former and males with the latter, given the immutability - exceptions to the rule notwithstanding - of gender.

For life is a frictional compromise between females and males, and neither gender can expect to have things entirely all its own way, even when and if things would suggest that, at a given point in time for a particular type of society, Nature has the better of Psyche or Psyche, by contrast, the better of Nature.

In view of the primary status of the metachemical and chemical Elements compared to the secondary status, in subjectivity, of the physical and metaphysical Elements, it could be said that it is more natural for Nature to have the better of Psyche, and for females to accordingly dominate males in contexts largely governed by sensuality.

But even with the fact that, in elemental terms, males are arguably secondary to females, it nevertheless has to be admitted that with the development of Civilization to a point where it not only rivals Nature but effectively begins to outstrip Her, as in fact much urban reality does, such a contention can by no means be taken for granted, since the enhancement of sensibility that follows from the greater interiorization of life through urbanization means that Psyche can regularly have the better of Nature, and not merely on phenomenal and relative terms, as happened in the Christian and largely suburban (town) past, but also - and more importantly - on noumenal and absolute terms, as applicable to the growth of towns into cities and of cities to a point where the official and institutional endorsement of cultural truth as the religious parallel to a sensible environmental absolutism becomes not merely probable but virtually inevitable, in view of the vast environmental disparity obtaining vis-à-vis the types of rural environments which, in the past, were more conducive to the acceptance of cultural beauty, and thus to a variety of religions built around a concept of God owing more to Creation than to recreation or even ultimate being, and never more so than in relation to a sort of rural absolutism the environmental antithesis to the sorts of urban absolutism the modern world is increasingly advancing towards and, in some cases, already extensively and intensively committed to, complements of commercial and residential centro-complexification.

Obviously one cannot condone a situation which, rooted in Old Testament Creatorism and/or Creationism, and in the delusory paradox, moreover, of a First Mover as God, effectively continues to officially prevail as an important - if not, for some people, the most important - manifestation of religion quite as though the city, and the modern city most especially, did not exist and/or was adequately catered for by that degree and type of religious sensibility owing more, in contrast to the sensual primitivity of the above, to towns and suburban environments than to what has since superseded them as the contexts in which the majority, even the great majority, of people now live and work.

Even if a lot - perhaps a majority - of city people are effectively atheist with regard to a Creator God having metachemical associations with a cosmic and/or universal First Mover, as indeed they have every right to be in view of the environmental contexts in which they exist, we cannot pretend that such atheism is an end-in-itself and leave the matter there, as though religion were a closed issue or of no relevance to urban people. It is and should be relevant, but on vastly different terms from how it was conceived in the past, at a time when cities, as we understand them, scarcely existed, and people were much more the playthings of Nature, even to the extent of natural freedom and psychic determinism prevailing to a near absolutist extent, as must have been the case for such primitive and frankly dark and evil concepts of God to have arisen in the first place.

A Creator Who was genuinely godly or divine, and thus metaphysical, would be responsible for no more than either the ears in sensuality or the lungs in sensibility, but even then one is alluding to two quite separate Creators, one appertaining to a metaphysical aspect of sensual cosmos, like the Sun, and the other to its sensible counterpart, like the planet Saturn, neither of which would have any bearing, as cosmic prototypes or blueprints for a more universal or organic reality, on the eyes or the heart, which owe rather more, I contend, to metachemical blueprints or prototypes of the sort that more readily connote, in their stellar and/or Venusian parallels, with cosmic First Movers in sensuality and sensibility respectively, and thus with what this writer/thinker most emphatically regards as diabolic entities, whether or not such entities are hyped as godly, as indeed would seem to have been the case.

Even the notion that Man is fashioned in the image of God makes little sense when one understands that our compositeness as human beings owes as much to diabolic, feminine, and masculine factors, or cosmic preconditions of such, as ever it does to divine ones, and that when the totality of factors have been taken into account one still has to allow for a distinction between sensuality and sensibility, since, as I pointed out earlier, sensibility comes to pass at the expense of sensuality and one can no more expect sensuality to hand sensibility to one on a plate than conceive of only one order of Creator being responsible for both sensual and sensible metaphysical attributes, even without the totality of those elemental alternatives that owe nothing whatsoever to a divine progenitor!

Frankly, primitive religion, religious fundamentalism and/or materialism (certainly in relation to the inorganic primacy of cosmic negativity) is the height of absurdity and childishness, and the sooner we admit that we have grown up sufficiently far, in our city-conditioned sensible alternatives to a simply rural sensuality, not to wish to be dominated by or beholden to such absurdities and falsehoods, the sooner will the greater proportion of humanity be delivered from the natural-freedom-over-psychic-determinism of cultural beauty to the psychic-freedom-over-natural-determinism of cultural truth, and know and experience that joy which happens when the light of enlightenment comes flooding-in, to deliver both the ego and the soul from the crippling delusions of a Nature-bound past.

Let there be more light, but let it be the light of cultural truth shining down from above on a humanity truly liberated from the darkness of ignorance and superstition as they walk towards the sensible pluralism of 'Kingdom Come', as outlined in this and previous texts, and opt, through religious sovereignty, for deliverance from the criminality of those natural freedoms that, in the mentally-cramping punishments of their psychic determinisms, would otherwise continue to preclude the utmost psychic freedom - and moral liberation - from ever coming to pass, to the detriment of all that is ultimately wise and holy, whether in sin or, more importantly, grace.

LONDON 2001 (Revised 2002-08)

Freedom and Determinism PREVIEW