THE HUMAN CONDITION

You cannot understand the human condition, torn as it is between gender conflict, without understanding psychology and physiology, and you can’t understand psychology without physiology or physiology without psychology, since the two aspects of the totality of factors somatic and psychic ‘hang together’, though with different ratios, depending on gender and class.

Females, I have long believed, are more physiology than psychology, males, by contrast, more psychology than physiology, since in the one case soma precedes psyche (and literally predominates over it), whereas in the other case, that of males, psyche precedes soma, (and consequently tends to preponderate over it), thereby indicating that the genders are in effect opposites, with correspondingly opposite concepts of self.

Self for the female is basically somatic, for the male it is essentially psychic. Therein lie the roots of the gender friction and so-called ‘war of the sexes’. Self is whatever is free and the female, if left to her own sensuous devices, will opt for somatic freedom and psychic binding, the latter corresponding to the not-self, whether as metachemical bound psyche to metachemical free soma or as chemical bound psyche to chemical free soma. By contrast, the male, if left to his own devices, will more than likely opt for psychic freedom and somatic binding, the latter corresponding to the not-self, whether as physical bound soma to physical free psyche or as metaphysical bound soma to metaphysical free psyche.

Therefore self for the male is the opposite of what it is for the female, psyche taking precedence over soma as psychology or physiology in one of two class/elemental ways: either relatively (2½:1½) as more (relative to most) psyche/less (relative to least) soma, or absolutely (3:1) as most psyche/least soma, the former corresponding to a conscious/unsensuous (nurtural/unnatural) disposition in physics, the latter to a superconscious/subsensuous (supernurtural/subnatural) disposition in metaphysics.

With the female, on the other hand, soma takes precedence over psyche as physiology over psychology in one of two class/elemental ways: either absolutely (3:1) as most soma/least psyche, or relatively (2½:1½) as more (relative to most) soma/less (relative to least) psyche, the former corresponding to a supersensuous/subconscious (supernatural/subnurtural) disposition in metachemistry, the latter to a sensuous/unconscious (natural/unnurtural) disposition in chemistry.

Of course, there are more than four elemental positions at stake when it comes to axial polarities of either a state-hegemonic/church-subordinate or a church-hegemonic/state-subordinate order, since the hegemonic triumph or prevalence of the one gender presupposes and necessitates the upending and subordination of the other, whether as antimetaphysics under metachemistry at the northwest point of the intercardinal axial compass (state-hegemonically polar to the southeast point of it), as antiphysics under chemistry at the southwest point of the said compass (church-hegemonically polar to the northeast point of it), as antichemistry under physics at the southeast point of the said compass (state-hegemonically polar to the northwest point of it), or as antimetachemistry under metaphysics at the northeast point of the intercardinal axial compass (church-hegemonically polar to the southwest point of it).

But even the ‘antipositions’ under the hegemonic ones, whether noumenally unequivocal or phenomenally equivocal, absolute or relative, reflect ratios of soma to psyche or of psyche to soma, depending on the upended gender, corresponding to their class/elemental positions, and are therefore distinct from the controlling gender a plane above them in each class/elemental instance.

Antimetaphysics is not a context, like metachemistry, of a supersensuous/subconscious integrity but, rather, one which, under female hegemonic pressure, will be anti-subsensuous and anti-superconscious, thereby allowing a paradoxical deference to supersensuousness/subconsciousness to obtain from within a position that would never be capable of such an integrity itself.

Conversely antimetachemistry, across the noumenal axial divide, is not a context, like metaphysics, of a superconscious/subsensuous integrity but, rather, one which, under male hegemonic pressure, will be anti-subconscious and anti-supersensuous, thereby allowing a paradoxical deference to superconsciousness/subsensuousness to obtain from a position that would never be capable of such an integrity itself.

And what applies to the noumenal positions applies no less to their phenomenal counterparts, antiphysics not being a context, like chemistry, of a sensuous/unconscious integrity but, rather, one which, under female hegemonic pressure, will be anti-unsensuous and anti-conscious, thereby allowing a paradoxical deference to sensuousness/unconsciousness to obtain from a position that would never be capable of such an integrity itself.

Conversely antichemistry, across the phenomenal axial divide, is not a context, like physics, of a conscious/unsensuous integrity but, rather, one which, under male hegemonic pressure, will be anti-unconscious and anti-sensuous, thereby allowing a paradoxical deference to consciousness/unsensuousness to obtain from a position that would never be capable of such an integrity itself.

But, of course, subversion of the equivocally hegemonic positions by their upended subordinate counterparts at the behest of the axially polar unequivocally hegemonic positions results in a switch of emphasis from soma to psyche in the chemical/antiphysical case and from psyche to soma in the physical/antichemical case, in order that either church-hegemonic/state-subordinate criteria stemming from a degree of metaphysics over antimetachemistry or, by contrast, state-hegemonic/church-subordinate criteria stemming from a degree of metachemistry over antimetaphysics can be axially established and duly maintained, to the advantage of axial stability and continuity.

For the Catholic southwest point of the intercardinal axial compass is no more heathenistic in somatic emphasis than the Puritan southeast point of it is overly Christianistic, so to speak, in psychic emphasis. Free psyche to bound psyche in the one axial case, free soma to bound soma in the other, would seem to be the guarantors of either church-hegemonic or state-hegemonic criteria, for both genders.

But that is another subject and one I have said much about in the past and could say a lot more about in the present, were I not minded of the principal topic of this article, which is of the ratios between psyche and soma or soma and psyche, according to gender and class. We do not understand female psychology unless we are aware of the physiology which conditions it, making for subconsciousness in relation to supersensuousness in metachemistry and for unconsciousness in relation to sensuousness in chemistry. Likewise, we shall not understand male physiology unless we are aware of the psychology which conditions it, making for unsensuousness in relation to consciousness in physics and for subsensuousness in relation to superconsciousness in metaphysics.

Needless to say, both these class positions are incompatible, since you cannot, as a male, be conscious/unsensuous and superconscious/subsensuous at the same time, any more than females could transcend their class distinctions and be both supersensuous/subconscious and sensuous/unconscious at the same time. But, then, compatibility is not an issue from an axial standpoint, which ensures that either antichemistry is polar to metachemistry and physics polar to antimetaphysics or, across the axial divide, that antiphysics is polar to metaphysics and chemistry polar to antimetachemistry. The physical and the metaphysical are not ethnically aligned. Nor are their chemical and metachemical counterparts.