CONCERNING A FALSE CONCEPT OF GOOD AND EVIL

People tend, erroneously, to think of evil and good as equivalent to black and white, or bright and dark, or light and shade, as though they were two sides of the same elemental coin, say the beauty and love of metachemical free soma vis-à-vis the ugliness and hate of metachemical bound psyche, the absolute (noumenal) female actuality of metachemistry (corresponding elementally to fire), so that the positive aspect of the duality is identified with good, and the negative aspect thereof with evil.  Wrong! 

Applied to the airy element of metaphysics, truth and joy, corresponding on whatever evolutionary level to God the Father and Heaven the Holy Soul, would equate with good, and illusion and woe, corresponding on whatever evolutionary level to the Son of God and the Holy Spirit of Heaven, would equate, by contrast, with evil.

But would Christians accept as gospel that they have a tradition of worshipping evil … in the form of the Son of God and the Holy Spirit of Heaven, i.e., the bound soma of metaphysics which in simple black and white terms would equate with the latter, i.e., with what is dark, negative, vicious, etc.  I rather doubt it!  Even if the other elements, like chemistry and physics, corresponding to water and earth (vegetation), didn’t also expose, when analyzed in such fashion, the absurdity of such a theory or approach to good and evil, metaphysics and even metachemistry should suffice to do so; though in the latter case the discrepancy would be somewhat less obvious if only because traditional or conventional religion is less disposed to dealing with terms equivalent to the above (God the Father, etc.) like Devil and Mother and Hell the Clear Spirit, never mind the Daughter of the Devil and the Clear Soul of Hell.

For the idea that beauty and love, being positive, must be good would be difficult for an average person to disprove even if he or she were not also of the opinion that ugliness and hate, the other side of the metachemical coin, were patently evil. In reality, however, ugliness and hate are not evil but that which, appertaining to metachemical bound psyche, corresponds to crime as something conditioned by the evil of free metachemical soma, i.e. beauty and love, as the negative converse of a positive precondition, soma preceding and predominating over psyche on a 3:1 basis in the noumenal absolutism of this particular female element.

Therefore evil precedes and predominates, in metachemistry, over crime, as beauty and love over ugliness and hate on the aforementioned ratio basis which ensures that, come what may, evil corresponds to the brightness of free soma and crime to the darkness of bound psyche, with goodness and its corollary punishment having nothing whatsoever to do with such a dichotomy because axially polar, in pseudo-chemistry, to metachemistry as physically-conditioned bound soma to free psyche, the physical, or masculine-male element, equivocally hegemonic over pseudo-chemistry in the phenomenal relativity of the context in question (at the southeast point of the intercardinal axial compass) in such fashion that the pseudo-feminine pseudo-element is disposed to exist on a basis contrary to female nature to the extent that its soma remains bound (and good) while its psyche becomes free (and punishing … from a female standpoint naturally intended, be it not forgotten, for free soma and bound psyche), and therefore establishes an axial polarity with metachemistry in terms of the goodness of bound pseudo-chemical soma vis-à-vis the evil of free metachemical soma on the one hand, that of primary state-hegemonic criteria, and the punishment (or punishingness) of free pseudo-chemical psyche vis-à-vis the crime of bound metachemical psyche on the other hand, that of primary church-subordinate criteria, the pseudo-metaphysical pseudo-divine male position pseudo-elementally subordinate to metachemistry and the physical masculine-male position equivocally hegemonic over pseudo-chemistry constitutive, by contrast, of secondary state-hegemonic (soma) and church-subordinate (psyche) criteria on an axis that, stretching from the northwest to the southeast points of the intercardinal axial compass, is ever contrary to (and in schismatic opposition with) the church-hegemonic/state-subordinate axis of chemistry over pseudo-physics and metaphysics over pseudo-metachemistry that stretches from the southwest to the northeast points of the said compass virtually as an Irish Catholic alternative to British Protestant criteria.

Be that as it may, evil and good are not, like virtue and vice or negativity and positivity, two sides of the same (elemental) coin, but, as argued above, are axially polar, and then, where their pristine (or female) manifestations are concerned, on unequal moral terms, the terms of moral evil and crime (3:1) vis-à-vis unmoral good and punishment (2½:1½) which contrasts not only with their amoral and immoral counterparts (a different subject), but with the unmoral pseudo-folly and pseudo-sin of pseudo-metaphysics, and the moral pseudo-grace and pseudo-wisdom of physics, the moral positions always hegemonic and the unmoral ones gender-subordinate, while amorality corresponds to a descent from above (the moral elemental positions) and immorality to an ascent from below (the unmoral elemental or, rather, pseudo-elemental positions), about which I have theorized at some length elsewhere and will not further elaborate on here in consequence.

But just imagine the consequences of applying the erroneous notions of bright-good and dark-evil to pseudo-chemistry!  The punishing factor, corresponding to free psyche, would be regarded as good, and the good factor, corresponding to bound soma, as evil!  This is, of course, a contradiction in terms.  For goodness is bound, negative, vicious, and dark here, whereas punishment is free, positive, virtuous, and bright, if only on a 1½ as opposed to a 2½ ratio basis (given the phenomenal female gender actuality of 2½-soma:1½-psyche), and then only because of masculine-male, i.e. physical, hegemonic pressure, wherein the ratio of free psyche to bound soma is 2½:1½, and less in relation to psychic punishment and somatic goodness than to (in contrast with the genuineness of metaphysics) pseudo-grace and pseudo-wisdom, the knowledge and pleasure of physical free psyche and the ignorance and pain of physical bound soma, both of which, corresponding to an equivocally hegemonic element, are moral, if with virtuous and vicious, bright and dark, implications. 

Pseudo-chemistry, of course, is not about the free psyche of knowledge and pleasure, and the bound soma of ignorance and pain, but about pseudo-weakness and pseudo-humility (bound soma) and pseudo-strength and pseudo-pride (free psyche), the former pseudo-chemical pairing corresponding to primary phenomenal state-hegemonic criteria and the latter to primary phenomenal church-subordinate criteria at the southeast point of the axis in question, polar, be it not forgotten, to evil and crime, and thus to the primary noumenal state-hegemonic actualities of beauty and love on the one hand, and the primary noumenal church-subordinate actualities of ugliness and hate on the other hand, the latter owing more, in all probability, to the Old Testament than ever they do to the New, not least in respect, traditionally, of a King James biblical opposition to and/or contrast with the Gideon New Testament pretensions to religious independence of the Puritans.