PART ONE: NOTES ON SOCIETY

(And its relationship to the Individual)

1. Societies are composed of individuals, but individuals come in many shapes and sizes, with varying commitments to individualism or, alternatively, to the rejection of individualism in the framework of some kind of collectivism, whether with a phenomenal or a noumenal, a lower- or an upper-class bias. Not all persons are partial to individualism, and indeed the more backward the society the fewer individuals, in any higher sense, there will be in it and the more the collective will obtain, whether in relation to metaphysics or physics, with a bias, more usually, towards the latter.

2. When persons reject individuality they do so from a variety of motives, but not invariably on a basis that wishes to demean or detract from individualism. Some societies, it is true, oppose individualism in terms of self-development of ego and/or soul by, principally, male individuals, and we may characterize such societies as matriarchal and given to a female disposition for the not-self, which is to say, for the subordination of the self in either ego or soul, or some modification thereof, to the will and/or spirit, the wilful (instinctual) and spiritual freedoms of the not-self, so that, with them, soma takes precedence over psyche, 'matter' over 'mind', nature over nurture, and a concept of freedom is upheld in relation to the former at the expense of the latter, which will simply be subverted and subsumed into its service.

3. For, in truth, that which rules through the will and/or spirit of the not-self requires the acquiescence of the self in self-denying service if it is to have its somatic way. A subservient ego and/or soul is a prerequisite of the spirit and/or will having its way in relation to the advancement of somatic freedom on either a competitively metachemical or chemical basis.

4. Such societies, whether with an upper-class metachemical bias (that subordinates metaphysics to itself in the hegemony of spatial space over sequential time, eyes over ears) or with a lower-class chemical bias (that subordinates physics to itself in the hegemony of volumetric volume of massive mass, tongue over phallus) will not be too partial to individualism, to the development of self in ego and/or soul principally by males, but will seek to thwart it at every turn and maintain an ethic, fundamentally immoral and vicious, of competitive collectivism, or of a collectivism primarily on the part of subordinate males that defers, in foolish submission, to female competitiveness, which is usually more collectivistically competitive, whether literally in terms of competing females or of males who have effectively betrayed their sex, their gender, and 'gone over' to the enemy camp, as it were, on either chemical or metachemical terms in the hope of a share of the competitive spoils and a taste of wilful and/or spiritual power through rule of a necessarily predatory order.

5. Bent males are less prevalent, it is probably true to say, than their foolish counterparts, but, even so, there is never any shortage, seemingly, of males who will 'sell out' to female hegemonies in objectively somatic competitiveness when it suits their purposes to do so, with scoundrelly consequences! For while the free female is more naturally criminal and therefore diabolical, the male who betrays his gender for female advantage has become criminal by default or, rather, out of wilful or spiritual perversity, and is avowedly a scoundrel, or someone who could have behaved differently, even as a sinful fool, had he not chosen to effectively become a female and behave in a scoundrelly fashion in objective competition with females proper against the generality of males.

6. No self-respecting male likes such a person, but even when males are not gracefully self-respecting but effectively sinfully notself-deferring under female hegemonic pressures in free soma, they can distinguish themselves from those who have sold-out to the enemy camp and effectively chosen to exploit and belittle them in the interests of free will and/or spirit of a metachemical and/or chemical nature.

7. The male fool is akin, in literary terms, to a poet; the male scoundrel to a dramatist, for the proper sphere of drama is the advocacy of free will and/or spirit, whereas the proper sphere of poetry is the rejection of free ego and/or soul from a paradoxical standpoint which inclines to emphasize soma at the expense of psyche and thus to acquiesce, in secondary vein, in free will and/or spirit of a subjective and necessarily subordinate nature, in metaphysics or physics, to the objective modes of free will and/or spirit more characteristic of drama.

8. But how does this paradoxical standpoint come about in the first place? Precisely on account of the folly of males who allow themselves to be dominated by female will and/or spirit in such fashion that they can no longer properly relate to soul and/or ego, but are obliged to reject it in favour of an id and/or superego-eccentric deference to free soma, both in terms of their own physical and/or metaphysical soma and in relation, more pointedly, to the chemical and/or metachemical soma of females in free will and/or spirit of a more genuine order.

9. For the female is a creature for whom will and spirit in somatic not-self come first, and ego and soul afterwards, and then in terms, when they are sensually hegemonic, of the modification of soul by will and of ego by spirit, so that the bound psyche that defers to somatic freedom is neither properly psychocentric (soulful) nor egocentric (intellectual) in male vein, but of a notself-slavering disposition which can be identified with the id and the superego, the former more metachemical than chemical and the latter more chemical than metachemical.

10. For fire and water are the female elements par excellence, the objective elements hailing from a vacuum, and in the unnaturalness of the one and the supernaturalness of the other only 'bovaryized' modes of soul and ego can exist, to defer, in psychic subordination, to the per se manifestations of will and spirit which characterize free soma of either a metachemical or a chemical, necessarily objective, disposition.

11. Societies characterized by female hegemonies of either a metachemical or a chemical tendency will tend to put an emphasis, consciously or unconsciously, on service of society by the individual rather than of the individual by society, so that the State tends to take precedence over the Church and the latter is, to all intents and purposes, no more than an adjunct to the former, scarcely genuine in any Christian sense but conceived in such a fashion as to permit the State to have its objective way in what usually amounts to unfettered competitiveness with other states and against those who are likely to be collectivistically deferential to the prevailing competition, be it metachemical and fiery or chemical and watery, materialist or realist.

12. The Church, in such circumstances, will not be properly fundamentalist or nonconformist in objectively female vein but, bound to free soma through id- and ego-eccentric subversion, either quasi-materialist or quasi-realist, serving more to rubber stamp state freedom than to stand sensibly apart from any such thing in pursuance of an individualistic and co-operative mission, as in the case of humanist and transcendentalist churches, the former of which subordinates nonconformism to itself and the latter of which subordinates fundamentalism to itself in the course of developing its hegemonic subjectivity.

13. Therefore the somatically free society will be one in which the individual is more likely to be subsumed into the collective and co-operation into competition, making the service of society and, above all, those who rule in such a free society the principal ethic, against which the individual should be judged.

14. When individuals are subsumed into society they very often reflect their rejection of individualism by wearing a uniform. For the uniform is pretty much the same for everyone in any particular field of service, be it military, police, fire, ambulance, hospital nursing, station portering, or what have you, and enables those in uniform to distinguish themselves from the generality of civilians, as well as to be distinguished by civilians as a serving and/or ruling body.

15. In a civil society, it follows that the generality of civilians will be served by a variety of uniformed bodies, each one of which will have put the service of the community, of society, above the individual or, more specifically, the particular individualism of its respective members, and can therefore be depended upon to come to the service of either specific individuals or the community at large, depending on the nature of the uniformed serving body, as and when circumstances dictate.

16. In a non-civil society, however, such civilians as still exist or are presumed to exist will always be vulnerable to co-option by one or other of the ruling uniformed bodies to serve society or the community or, at the topmost level of co-opted service, the nation, that sacred cow which, in the perverse and rather limited minds of state-worshipping Heathens, becomes equivalent to God, to a sort of ne plus ultra of ethical significance which is entitled to demand - and expect - the ultimate sacrifice on the part of all those who can be accounted of the nation, meaning the people, more usually associated with a common ethnicity or culture, who fall within the parameters of the State and its identification with a given country.

17. Sometimes a country is divided into two or more states because of ethnic or ideological or other differences, but more usually the country and the state overlap to such an extent that they become virtually synonymous and interchangeable as two aspects of the nation. Thus the concept of nation takes on an overwhelmingly political and even scientific significance in which country and state, the boundaries of a given country governed by a specific type of state, become the principal mode in which a people is both defined and evaluated. Outside the nation, a people have scarcely any significance.

18. But is this the doctrine of the Church, of any genuine Church? No, not at all! The Church, when free, does not insist upon the Faithful being identical with the nation-state concept of the People but sees the People in an altogether different light, a light not of this world and its state-obsessed reductionism of people to country-based nationality, but standing apart from such a political evaluation to one in which all who pertain to it are brothers or sisters in Christ or the Messiah or the Second Coming or Whoever it may be Who takes the role of religious guide and guarantor of godliness.

19. People who are of the Church - and I use the word in both a Christian and a more-than-Christian sense - are effectively beyond the State and its nationalistic evaluation of people as citizens of this or that country; for they are committed to God or to godliness in one way or another, or at the very least to a reduction of what is ungodly, and any godliness which is genuine is universal in scope and therefore beyond the parameters of nationalism, as of the nation-state.

20. Godly people may live in a given country - everyone lives somewhere - but there is no way that they can either primarily identify themselves or be primarily identified by others of a like-persuasion as nationals, much less nationalists. Nor, for that matter, are they international, since that is merely commerce, on a variety of levels, between the nationals of competing states. They are rather to be thought of and to think of themselves as supra-national, meaning above and beyond the political confines of the nation-state, for whom states are merely a means to a higher end, to a sort of universal church which will have political and indeed scientific and even economic support from a type of state which is bound to the service of the Church and would better be described as a godly 'Kingdom', a 'Kingdom' in which the welfare of the Church takes precedence over every other consideration, including that of state service.

21. Such a church will not be a church in any traditionally Christian sense, even in relation to the more genuinely Catholic manifestation of Christian tradition which hails from Rome but was never exclusively Roman, but more akin to a transmutation of the concept 'church' in line with the transmutation of the concept 'state' until the two meet - and blend - in a 'Kingdom' which is so centrist, or concentric, as to be indistinguishable from the omega point of transcendent universality.

22. The Christian Church, alas, was never airy and metaphysical enough to achieve such a degree of universality, but became bogged down in its own humanistic and sensibly physical limitations, ever beholden to an impersonally more respectable and even prevalent Marian nonconformism in chemical monism, and falling back, for want of sensible metaphysical resolve, on both sensual metaphysics and, worse, sensual metachemistry, the sort of Old Testament situation which is commensurate with the concept of God as First Mover in cosmic polyversality.

23. No, the Christian Church, for all its good intentions, was never progressive enough, never religious enough, to achieve a metaphysical universality, and therefore it failed to deliver the People from the World to the Beyond except in relation to a posthumous afterlife in the grave for those - usually male - most deserving of it.

24. In its relationship with the State, the Church soon became, exceptions to the general rule notwithstanding, a secondary player in the game of life, as of history, until, with the coming of Protestantism and the upheavals of the Reformation, it ceased to be anything but subordinate to state freedom and to the national concept of the People which eclipsed, in ever-more heathenistic vein, the supra-national universality of its Catholic aspirations.

25. Today, even so-called Christians think of themselves primarily in nation-state terms and only secondarily, if at all, as brothers in Christ or sisters in Mary, or something of the sort. Universality bit the dust of secular modernity quite some time ago, and nothing but a burgeoning nationalism, coupled to or opposing the feverish onslaught of an ever-more pluralistically competitive internationalism, came to typify the march of history in Western civilization.

26. The People retreated from paying metaphysical lip service to air to buying-in to and, in many cases, actually selling-out to fire and water, those female elements whose objective bias rules an ungodly roost in which both materialism and realism have the secondary elements or, rather, somatic freedoms of idealism and naturalism firmly in their criminal grip. Had they, or the best among them, been granted the possibility of sensible metaphysics through transcendental meditation, or something of the sort, this might never have happened. For then more than lip service to godliness and its raison d'être of heavenliness would have prevailed!

27. But, alas, the Catholic Church was never interested in godliness as a praxis by the best elements in a people, but only in deference to some false and illusory concept of God which dwelt behind the skies as the Creator of the so-called Universe, meaning the Cosmos, with its fiery polyversality, into which anything potentially or actually divine was subsumed, much as the concept of 'universe' became indistinguishable from the Cosmos, its fiery antithesis!

28. Thus was God, or the concept thereof, 'done down' to that which is the opposite of godliness, not least in respect of the cosmic First Mover and effective Creator, and the deplorable doctrine of 'original sin' was invented and used as an excuse to prevent people from 'doing their own thing' in relation to religious self-development.

29. In reality, however, there is no 'original sin'; for the male side of life is characterized on both phenomenal and noumenal, relative and absolute, levels or manifestations by the precedence of soma by psyche, as of sin, or the potential for sin, by grace, as the Son is preceded by the Father, or the physical and/or metaphysical not-self, viz. brain and/or lungs, by the brain stem and spinal cord of the self, whether with an emphasis on the former (physics) or with an emphasis on the latter (metaphysics), and sin is consequently foreign to males except in respect of their subordination to a female hegemony in sensuality, whereupon what may be called 'original crime' has its freely somatic way on both noumenal and phenomenal, absolute and relative, metachemical and chemical, terms.

30. The Christian Church not only invented the fanciful notion of 'original sin', but overlooked the actual fact of original crime, which is the objective root of everything evil and disposed, in sensually female vein, to somatic freedom. Sin is never original but, sensible illusions notwithstanding, always derived from a sensual temptation that follows from the upending of male priorities in response to a female hegemony the only effect of which is to place the emphasis upon soma at the expense of psyche, and thus to reduce males to a somatic license which is secondary, in and as sin, to the criminal freedoms of objective soma reigning above (gender-bender exceptions to the general rule notwithstanding).

31. The concept of God as First Mover in the Cosmos is the original crime that was done against God and religion by a church obsessed with human, though particularly male, failings, and unable to come to terms with the reality of Truth, which teaches that God is the first mover in the universality of the self, with specific reference to the metaphysical self, and the grace from which a quasi-graceful transmutation of metaphysical soma is sensibly possible, even if such soma remains at bottom illusory and therefore sinful from a properly graceful standpoint centred in truth.

32. God the Father precedes God the Son as the metaphysical brain stem precedes the lungs, and out of the out-breath of Heaven the Holy Spirit comes that resolve, on the part of the Father, to recoil to self more profoundly in terms of the spinal cord of Heaven the Holy Soul, which is the seat of the soul in any ultimate, or metaphysical, sense.

33. Therefore while God the Father is truth, or truthful, God the Son, in the transmuted illusion of quasi-truth, becomes the means whereby inner metaphysical ego can attain to soul, as truth to joy, via the will and spirit of the relevant not-selves, the godly not-self of the lungs of which one is consciously aware and the heavenly not-self of the breath from the transmuted spirituality of which one must recoil in self-transcending self-enhancement, as the focus of selfhood shifts from the brain stem to the spinal cord, as from ego to soul, and that which is subconsciously deepest in life becomes the redemption and resurrection of the conscious self.

34. But God the Father is not to be found in relation to anything other than the metaphysically conscious aspect of the male self which is sensibly committed to the breathing of the lungs as God the Son - that secondary order of God which stands apart from and above mere unconscious breathing as quasi-grace from sin, or quasi-truth from illusion, in that such unconsciousness or, rather, unnaturalness has been infused with conscious awareness and become subject to the attentions of the Father, the ego of the metaphysical brain stem, no longer wilfully unnatural but quasi-natural in partnership with a quasi-subnatural spirituality which follows from the subversion of spiritual supernaturalness by the subconscious as the self recoils to soul in subconsciousness proper and thus achieves its heavenly joy in the psychic depths of the spinal cord, no dupe of spiritual hype, but returned to self in the most unequivocally self-enhancing vein.

35. For even as truth is transmuted into joy, so the illusion and woe of the lungs and the breath are transmuted into quasi-truth and quasi-joy by the prevalence of free psyche in ego and soul, God the Father and Heaven the Holy Soul, and partake of that gracefulness which lifts them above mere sin in the respective guises of God the Son and Heaven the Holy Spirit, the will of which one is consciously aware and the spirit from which one subconsciously recoils in outright rejection of self-annihilation, thereby subnaturally redeeming what would otherwise be superficially supernatural in untempered spirituality.

36. The spirit is not and never can be the true end of life, least of all in religious terms, but a means for the self to achieve its redemption in soul, which is the true end of any life which, in upper-class male vein, is sensibly metaphysical. A religion which is lower-class, or rooted and/or centred in the masses, is no religion at all but the phenomenal subversion of religion along political and/or economic lines, according to whether chemical or physical criteria are paramount. Contrariwise, a religion which is upper-class in objectively female terms, rooted in the metachemical actuality of original crime, is no religion at all, but the noumenal subversion of religion along scientific lines.

37. Whereas worldly religions make a god out of either man or woman, if not, in greater or lesser ratios, both at once, what could be called netherworldly religions make a god out of the Devil, meaning the cosmic First Mover on the metachemical plane of stellar polyversality, this latter subject, in certain religions of this sort, to monotheistic tampering or redefinition, so that polyversal pluralism is infused with a degree of universal monism contrary to its actual nature, and the cosmic is treated as though it were universal - a sure-fire way of subverting any attempt to develop universality more genuinely and, needless to say, independently of cosmic associations; for it must seem to its devotees that the Cosmos is universal and therefore deserving of religious respect in view of the erroneous association, on their part, with monism that concepts like monotheism and Universal Creator falsely engender.

38. Yet the Cosmos is still, after all delusion has been sanctified as religion, the source of science, as of the Devil per se, the fiery Mother of stellar primacy, and no amount of subsuming more genuinely religious notions into it will alter its fundamental nature, nor bring religion one step closer to liberation from scientific delusion and metachemical objectivity. Only a complete rejection of all that through otherworldly metaphysics, wherein the universality of air is acknowledged as the guarantor of universal oneness for those who choose or are able to consciously identify with and utilize it for purposes of self-enhancement, can bring knowledge of God the Father, and thus truth, to light in the individual who devotes himself to transcendental meditation, turning him away not only from Devil the Mother in sensual metachemistry, but from Antigod the Antifather or, more somatically and pertinently, the Antison in sensual metaphysics, the 'fall guy' for diabolic denigration from the so-called God 'on high' who is really the literal devil of the piece, whether in relation to eyes over ears in implicit New Testament reference to a Risen Mother (not Risen Virgin) and a so-called Father (in the paradox of somatic emphasis really an Antison) or, anterior to that, in relation to a stellar 'First Mover' over a solar 'Fallen Angel' in explicit Old Testament reference to the distinction between Jehovah and Satan, not to mention any intermediate, and possibly more Nature-based, distinction, implicit to the Old Testament, between King Saul and David, the outcast shepherd boy and musician who got to play 'fall guy' for diabolic denigration from an 'on high' that, in reality, was anything but divine!

39. Religion cannot be true to itself as long as it is still tied, in fiery pluralism, to the devilish Cosmos, as to the flounced dress of a mother who rules an ungodly roost from a scientific basis in the infinite weakness of metachemical fact, ever open to the most particle/least wavicle ratio of absolutely free soma.

40. Neither will it be true to itself when still tied, in watery monism, to womanly Nature, as to the flounced skirt of a mother who rules an ungodly roost from a political basis in the finite weakness of chemical fact, ever open to the more (relative to most) particle/less (relative to least) wavicle ratio of relatively free soma.

41. Nor, across the gender divide, can religion be true to itself when still tied, in vegetative pluralism, to manly Nurture, as to the tapering pants (trousers/jeans) of a father, if catholic and sensible, who rules an ungodly roost from an economic basis in the finite knowledge of physical truth, ever open to a more (relative to most) wavicle/less (relative to least) particle ratio of relatively free psyche.

42. Only when tied, in airy monism, to the godly Universe or, rather, to godly universality, as to the tapering zippersuit of a father who rules a divine roost from a religious basis in the infinite knowledge of metaphysical truth, ever open to the most wavicle/least particle ratio of absolutely free psyche, will religion become true to itself and thus absolutely genuine, able to proclaim itself free of metachemical, chemical, and physical subversion in the interests of metaphysical universality.

43. For such is the only basis upon which religion can become truly universal, and thus the same for everybody irrespective of their ethnic background. Only on such a basis, moreover, can the world attain to cultural universality and thus true unity of purpose and destiny. Science, politics, and economics can never bring such a universality to pass, no matter how much they may proclaim their credentials for achieving global universality and, hence, unification of the world. Such unification is beyond the scope of their polyversal, impersonal, and personal powers and authority. For it demands a genuinely cultural precondition, and such a precondition can only be delivered by religion, provided it is equally genuine and not 'bovaryized' or subverted by other concerns, whether scientific, political, or economic.

44. Of course, there have been manifestations of culture prior to what could be called the culture of genuine religion, not least of all in connection with the false or 'bovaryized' religions of Nurture, Nature, and the Cosmos, roughly equivalent to physics, chemistry, and metachemistry, or vegetation (earth), water, and fire, or man, woman, and the devil. Culture is as old as humankind itself, and we can note a development of culture, as of religion, from fire and water to vegetation and the borders with its airy apotheosis in the coming phase of religious development in the world which, to speak paradoxically, will really be beyond the world, in its otherworldly transcendentalism and universality.

45. As life would seem to devolve from the metachemical Cosmos to chemical Nature, as from the Devil to Woman, and to evolve from physical Nurture to metaphysical Universality, as from Man to God (the Cyborg of transcendent futurity), we can note a shift from tribal culture to national culture, and from national culture to international culture, and from international culture to the coming - and already incipient - supra-national culture of universal futurity, as though from fire and water on the female, and objective, side of the gender fence to vegetation and air on its male, and subjective, side, the side not of devolution primarily but of evolution, not of centrifugal divergence but of centripetal convergence, not of the objective alpha but of the subjective omega of things.

46. In general terms, one could say that tribal culture, of which the Celtic variety must be adjudged a case in point, is of the Devil; national culture, of which the English variety would be a case in point, is of Woman; international culture, of which the European variety has to be a case in point, is of Man; while supra-national culture, which can only be global in its monistic universality, will be of God, as culture passes through the elements from fire and water on the side of polyversal and impersonal devolution to vegetation and air on the side of personal and universal evolution, this latter the only manifestation of culture that can be accounted genuine and therefore true.

47. All previous modes of culture are either relatively or absolutely false, for they all fall short of the one element that alone guarantees genuine culture - the metaphysical element of air in its sensible manifestation, and thus have more to do with appearances, quantities, or qualities than with essences, the attribute of soul and, hence, of genuine religion. In their concern with doing through will, or with giving through spirit, or with taking through ego, they all fall short of being through soul, which is the cultural precondition of essence and thus of genuine religion. They culturally approach religion from the false perspectives of doing, giving, and taking, and consequently their religious ends in appearances, quantities, and qualities are proportionately false, since conditioned by criteria applicable to either science, politics, or economics, as the case may be, rather than by the criterion of religion, which, being essential, necessitates a beingful culture, which can only be cultivated with the aid of the metaphysical element of air, duly transmuted via transcendental meditation, which is the element corresponding to essence.

48. By contrast, fire is apparent, water quantitative, and vegetation qualitative, and whenever any of these elements is utilized for religious purposes, the outcome can only be a metachemical, chemical, or physical corruption and subversion of religion, broadly commensurate with fundamentalism, nonconformism, and humanism, in the interests, needless to say, of science, politics, or economic, as the case may be.

49. Now although one can speak of civilization, since civilization has a lot to do with fixed abodes and fixed routines embracing a variety of social and individual contracts, in connection with all of these disciplines, including science, and although all disciplines figure to greater or lesser extents in any given civilization, depending on its principal elemental bent, there can be no question that a civilization rooted in science, and hence the metachemical subversion of religion through fundamentalism, will be comparatively barbarous in its wilful commitment to appearances, as to power per se, while a civilization rooted in politics, and hence the chemical subversion of religion through nonconformism, will be comparatively civil in its spiritual commitment to quantities, as to glory per se, and a civilization centred in economics, and hence the physical subversion of religion through humanism, will be comparatively philistine in its egocentric commitment to qualities, as to form per se, but that only that civilization which is centred in religion, and hence the metaphysical subversion and rejection of science through transcendentalism, will be comparatively cultural in its soulful commitment to essences, as to contentment per se.

50. For culture has a lot more to do with being than with doing, giving, or taking, and when not being but doing, giving, or taking are chiefly characteristic of a given culture, then that culture is either barbarously, civilly, or philistinely false, which is to say, either tribal, national, or international rather than supra-national and, hence, true - true to the essential universality of the soul.

51. Therefore civilization cannot be said to have attained to its maximum development or potential until it becomes primarily cultural in metaphysical universality - metachemical polyversality, chemical impersonality, and physical personality being stages of civilized development along the chain of life that leads from polyversal appearances to universal essences via impersonal quantities and personal qualities, as, in cultural terms, from doing to being via giving and taking, or, more abstractly, from will to soul via spirit and ego, as, to revert to religion, from power to contentment via glory and form.

52. No less than in the properly cultural/religious partnership the being of soul aims at the contentment of essence, so with that which is less than fully cultural or religious one must admit that in the barbarous/scientific partnership the doing of will aims at the power of appearance; in the civil/political partnership the giving of spirit aims at the glory of quantity; and in the philistine/economic partnership the taking of ego aims at the form of quality. All of these have a part to play in life, but they cannot play an equal part in any given civilization. Only one partnership will be principally characteristic, and everything else will be subverted by and subordinated to it.

53. When civilization arrives not merely at its most devolved level of monism in the nationalism of chemical impersonality, but at its most evolved level of monism in the supra-nationalism of metaphysical universality, then it will truly have achieved its maximum of chronological development and elemental fulfilment as the omega point of civilization, and everything tribal, national, and international will cease to be relevant or to have any applicability; for then civilization will be truly global in character - the product not of a world state but, on the contrary, of a world church such as the world has never witnessed before, not even in the catholic universality of the middle ages, which was a time when nationalism was the more characteristic manifestation of civilization, and civilization was accordingly monist on largely chemical and feminine terms, with a largely European and impersonal concept and manifestation of universality in consequence.

54. The civilization that I have in mind will be primarily monist on largely metaphysical and divine terms, as led by transcendentalism, and embracing transcendental meditation as the praxis of divine revelation and heavenly redemption for those who, as males of a certain metaphysical stamp, are especially entitled to it. But it will also, this ultimate civilization, be pluralist on physical terms, as characterized by a reformed manifestation of humanism, as well as monist on chemical terms, as characterized by a reformed manifestation of nonconformism, so that there will be vegetative and watery options and commitments beneath the airy commitment of what would be its principal mode of religious praxis, not to mention, in an administrative aside to what in previous texts has been described as the triadic Beyond, to a reformed manifestation of fundamentalism that, in its metachemical pluralism, will pander to the various modes of religious eternity as a serving vehicle for the development, within any given tier of the Beyond in question, of religious sovereignty in the event of a majority mandate, democratically engineered, for what I have argued, all along, to be both the ultimate sovereignty and that which, being beyond worldly sovereignties, is alone commensurate with 'Kingdom Come', conceived as a society in which the emphasis is firmly placed upon psychic self-development for males and somatic notself-curtailment for females, so that each gender acts according to its evolutionary/devolutionary differences and not as though, in wishy-washy liberal fashion, they were equal, or the same.

55. Thus society comes, at length, to reflect an emphasis upon evolution at the expense of devolution, not, as at present, devolution at the expense of evolution, and civilization can thus be said to have attained to its sensible culmination in an omega-oriented universality.

56. Of course, the distinction between devolution and evolution, whether according to gender or in overall historical and chronological terms, is not such that one can categorically envisage progress from the one to the other, since evolutionary progress for males entails what could be called counter-devolutionary regress for females, while devolutionary progress for females entails counter-evolutionary regress for males, the genders being opposite in terms of their respective relationships to soma and psyche, females being creatures for whom soma precedes psyche and predominates over it in either absolute (metachemical) or relative (chemical) terms, males being creatures, by contrast, for whom psyche precedes soma and predominates over it in either relative (physical) or absolute (metaphysical) terms, so that in the one case devolution is primary and evolution secondary, whereas in the other case - that of males - evolution is primary and devolution secondary.

57. Therefore when females are free to be somatically devolutionary in sensuality, males will be counter-evolutionary in bound psyche and only secondarily devolutionary in free soma, the free soma (gender-bender exceptions to the rule notwithstanding) not of metachemistry or chemistry, as with females of an upper- or a lower-class disposition, but of metaphysics or physics, those subjective elements which can only be subordinate to their objective counterparts in sensuality, as in terms of sequential time to spatial space and of massive mass to volumetric volume.

58. Contrariwise, when males are free to be psychically evolutionary in sensibility, then females will be counter-devolutionary in bound soma and only secondarily evolutionary in free psyche, the free psyche (gender-bender exceptions to the rule notwithstanding) not of physics and metaphysics, as with males of a lower- or an upper-class disposition, but of chemistry and metachemistry, those objective elements which can only be subordinate to their subjective counterparts in sensibility, as in terms of massed mass to voluminous volume and repetitive time to spaced space.

59. Thus arise the respective class paradoxes of antigods and antimen under devils and women in sensuality, but of antiwomen and antidevils under men and gods in sensibility, as sinfulness stands in the shadow of crime in the one case, but punishment in the shadow of grace in the other, the case not of devolution in primary and secondary terms but of evolution in primary and secondary terms, both of which are blessed (with psychic freedom) compared with or, rather, contrasted to the cursedness (in somatic freedom) of their devolutionary counterparts.

60. The gender paradox, however, is that counter-evolutionary psychic binding in the case of damned males gets subordinated to secondary devolutionary somatic freedom under the hegemonic pressures of primary devolutionary somatic freedom on the part of damned or, rather, cursed females, so that a devolutionary emphasis becomes the cursed reality of somatic freedom irrespective of whether it is criminal or sinful, primary or secondary.

61. Contrariwise, counter-devolutionary somatic binding in the case of saved females gets subordinated to secondary evolutionary psychic freedom under the hegemonic pressures of primary evolutionary psychic freedom on the part of saved or, rather, blessed males, so that an evolutionary emphasis becomes the blessed reality of psychic freedom irrespective of whether it is graceful or punishing, primary or secondary.

62. Of course, the overall gender reality of soma preceding, and predominating over, psyche in the case of females and of psyche preceding, and predominating over, soma in the case of males remains the case for either sex, irrespective of whether the secondary free emphasis happens to fall on psyche for females in sensibility or on soma for males in sensuality, so that females will tend to direct their secondary evolutionary freedom towards the curtailment of soma in counter-devolutionary vein, while males, by contrast, will tend to direct their secondary devolutionary freedom towards the curtailment of psyche in counter-evolutionary vein, each sex shadowing the other but still operating, to all intents and purposes, in relation to the underlying gender reality which makes psyche more important for males and soma more important for females, irrespective of whether the approach is free or bound, straight or paradoxical.

63. For if it is one thing to advocate and actually embrace will and/or spirit in primary devolutionary vein, it is quite another to turn against soul and/or ego in counter-evolutionary vein, and all because one is not capable, as a male, of emphasizing will and/or spirit to anything like the same extent or in the same way as females, with secondary devolutionary implications.

64. Conversely, if it is one thing to advocate and actually embrace ego and/or soul in primary evolutionary vein, it is quite another to turn against will and/or spirit in counter-devolutionary vein, and all because one is not capable, as a female, of emphasizing ego and/or soul to anything like the same extent or in the same way as males, with secondary evolutionary implications.

65. Thus the genders revert to a devolutionary/counter-evolutionary dichotomy in the contexts of sensuality and to an evolutionary/counter-devolutionary dichotomy in the contexts of sensibility, no matter how much females might prefer to believe in a devolutionary uniformity in the one case and males in an evolutionary uniformity in the other case. Life is never that simple, and the basic distinction between soma preceding psyche in females and psyche preceding soma in males remains unaffected by swings in civilization or society or the individual between sensuality and sensibility, with contrary gender hegemonies.

66. Therefore females will persist in counter-devolutionary goodness even in the most gracefully evolutionary of male-hegemonic societies, their capacity for evolution being merely punishing in its secondary standing, while males, by contrast, will persist in counter-evolutionary folly even in the most criminally devolutionary of female-hegemonic societies, their capacity for devolution being merely sinful in its secondary standing.

67. For females remain primarily somatic and males primarily psychic whatever the situation, and folly is as much in the quasi-devolutionary shadow of evil in relation to bound psyche as punishment is in the quasi-evolutionary shadow of wisdom in relation to bound soma.

68. Consequently evil is the psychic accomplice of crime, but before there can be evil there must first be a will to and/or spiritual capacity for crime in respect of free soma, which conditions psyche according to its instinctively unnatural and/or spiritually supernatural bias. For in sensual metachemistry and chemistry, the objective elements of a somatic predominance, soma precedes psyche and directly conditions it, independently of male anti-somatic pressures, accordingly.

69. Correlatively, sin is the somatic accomplice of folly, but before there can be sin there must first be an emotional capacity for and/or mind to folly in respect of bound psyche, which conditions soma according to its psycho-eccentric (id-inspired) and/or ego-eccentric (superego-inspired) bias. For in sensual metaphysics and physics, the subjective elements of a psychic predominance, psyche precedes soma and indirectly conditions it, via female anti-psychic pressures, accordingly.

70. Conversely, wisdom is the somatic accomplice of grace, but before there can be wisdom there must first be a mind to and/or emotional capacity for grace in respect of free psyche, which conditions soma according to its egocentric and/or psychocentric (soulful) bias. For in sensible physics and metaphysics, the subjective elements of a psychic predominance, psyche precedes soma and directly conditions it, independently of female anti-psychic pressures, accordingly.

71. Correlatively, punishment is the psychic accomplice of goodness, but before there can be punishment there must first be a will to and/or spiritual capacity for goodness in respect of bound soma, which conditions psyche according to its naturally instinctual (ego-inspired) and/or subnaturally spiritual (soul-inspired) bias. For in sensible chemistry and metachemistry, the objective elements of a somatic predominance, soma precedes psyche and indirectly conditions it, via male anti-somatic pressures, accordingly.

72. Thus without coming under the sway of bound psyche directly stemming from free soma in sensually hegemonic females, males would be unlikely to devolve to free soma in secondary, or sinful, vein, but would more than likely remain psychically free, after their sensibly graceful fashions.

73. Conversely, without coming under the sway of bound soma directly stemming from free psyche in sensibly hegemonic males, females would be unlikely to evolve to free psyche in secondary, or punishing, vein, but would more than likely remain somatically free, after their sensually criminal fashions.

74. The criminal freedom of primary cursedness must be contrasted with the evil binding of primary damnation in sensually hegemonic metachemical and chemical females, whereas the foolish binding of secondary damnation must be contrasted with the sinful freedom of secondary cursedness in sensually subordinate (to hegemonic females) metaphysical and physical males.

75. Conversely, the graceful freedom of primary blessedness must be contrasted with the wise binding of primary salvation in sensibly hegemonic physical and metaphysical males, whereas the good binding of secondary salvation must be contrasted with the punishing freedom of secondary blessedness in sensibly subordinate (to hegemonic males) chemical and metachemical females.

76. Somatic freedom is always cursed and psychic binding damned in sensuality, whereas psychic freedom is always blessed and somatic binding saved in sensibility.

77. Therefore crime and sin are cursed on primary and secondary terms, while evil and folly are damned on primary and secondary terms. For crime and sin are of free soma, whereas evil and folly are of bound psyche.

78. Conversely, grace and punishment are blessed on primary and secondary terms, while wisdom and goodness are saved on primary and secondary terms. For grace and punishment are of free psyche, whereas wisdom and goodness are of bound soma.

79. As much difference between crime and sin in relation to primary and secondary orders of free soma ... as between grace and punishment in relation to primary and secondary orders of free psyche.

80. As much difference between evil and folly in relation to primary and secondary orders of bound psyche ... as between wisdom and goodness in relation to primary and secondary orders of bound soma.

81. In sensuality, the somatic freedoms of crime and sin take precedence over the psychic bindings of evil and folly, as cursedness takes precedence over damnation.

82. In sensibility, the psychic freedoms of grace and punishment take precedence over the somatic bindings of wisdom and goodness, as blessedness takes precedence over salvation.

83. Thus does a broadly devolutionary reality germane to free soma contrast with its evolutionary antithesis in free psyche, even when the gender reality of each situation is such that the sinfulness of secondary devolution for males can only be sustained at the foolish cost of counter-evolutionary pressures, while the punishment of secondary evolution for females can only be sustained at the goodly cost of counter-devolutionary pressures.

84. Constrained to the goodness of bound soma by the somatic wisdom issuing from the free psyche of graceful males, females can only punish crime and thus reject evil.

85. Constrained to the folly of bound psyche by the psychic evil issuing from the free soma of criminal females, males can only indulge in sin and thus reject grace.

86. In males, it takes a diagonal rise from the sinfulness of free soma to the gracefulness of free psyche to undo the folly of bound psyche and make possible the wisdom of bound soma.

87. In females, by contrast, it takes a diagonal fall from the evil of bound psyche to the goodness of bound soma to undo the criminality of free soma and make possible the punishment of free psyche.

88. Without male initiative in respect of a deliverance from secondary cursed freedom to primary blessed freedom, there is not much prospect of females being delivered from primary damned binding to secondary saved binding; for unless males are in a position to directly establish primary saved binding at the expense of secondary damned binding, females are unlikely to indirectly uphold secondary blessed freedom at the expense of primary cursed freedom.

89. Females will generally prefer the primary cursed and damned positions of metachemical and chemical sensuality to the secondary saved and blessed positions of chemical and metachemical sensibility; for in the former cases, on either of the class or elemental bases, they are hegemonic over males and effectively 'top dogs', whereas in the latter cases they are subordinate to males and effectively 'underdogs'.

90. Males will generally prefer the primary blessed and saved positions of physical and metaphysical sensibility to the secondary damned and cursed positions of metaphysical and physical sensuality; for in the former cases, on either of the class or elemental bases, they are hegemonic over females and effectively 'top dogs', whereas in the latter cases they are subordinate to females and effectively 'underdogs'.

91. Quite apart from the fact that, hailing from a particle-predominant vacuum in the precedence of psyche by soma, females are more negative by nature than positive by nurture, or from the fact or, rather, truth that, hailing from a wavicle-predominant plenum in the precedence of soma by psyche, males are more positive by nurture than negative by nature, the genders will tend to prefer being 'top dogs' in their respective approaches to primacy than 'underdogs' in secondary vein.

92. In other words, while one can rationally expect males to prefer being blessed with and saved to the positivity of hegemonic sensibility in physics and/or metaphysics, one cannot take it for granted that females will prefer being saved to and blessed with the positivity of subordinate sensibility in chemistry and/or metachemistry; for females are not geared to positivity in the same way or to the same extent as males but, as creatures for whom soma both precedes and predominates over psyche, are more attuned to negativity and thus to a hegemonic sensuality in which, with empirical disregard for reason or rationality, they are 'top dogs' and able to be free after their somatic natures.

93. Ultimately you cannot reason females into being good or punishing in secondary saved and blessed vein, for they will only be that - and then begrudgingly - so long as there is sufficient male resolve in the gracefulness and wisdom of blessed and saved primacy to impose such a subordination upon them. By nature, they are unreasoning adherents, in psychic binding, of somatic freedom and therefore ill-disposed to any diminution of their power and/or glory to suit the psychic advantages, in enhanced form and/or contentment, of males.

94. From a male standpoint, nature is the enemy which must always be vanquished if nurture is to triumph. From a female standpoint, on the other hand, nurture is the enemy which must always be vanquished if nature is to triumph. Either psyche gets the better of soma or vice versa. But if soma gets the better of psyche, then the consequences for civilization will be a diminution of culture and civility, of evolutionary and counter-devolutionary realities, according to gender, and a growth of barbarity and philistinism, of devolutionary and counter-evolutionary realities, to the detriment of psychic well-being in virtuous positivity.

95. Instead of encouraging philosophy and fiction and discouraging drama and poetry, a society in the grip of free soma and bound psyche will tend to encourage drama and poetry and to discourage philosophy and fiction; for will and/or spirit will mean more to it than ego and/or soul, and instead of taking a positive attitude to ego and/or soul it will tend to belittle and undermine them from the negative standpoint of free soma in which, as with genuine drama, whether non-synthetically artificial or synthetically artificial in typically modern (cinematic) vein, power and/or glory will ride roughshod over any form and/or contentment which is not either evil (female) or foolish (male).

96. But where, by contrast, form and/or contentment is either graceful (male) or punishing (female), then power and glory will be constrained to wisdom (male) and goodness (female), and nothing demonstrably sinful or criminal be encouraged. For then it will be philosophy and fiction that rule a sensible roost, whether on upper- or lower-class terms, and anything approximating to genuine drama or poetry be considered sensually irrelevant to the civilized ideals.

97. But what is upheld in theory does not necessarily transpire in practice; for females will be no less opposed, low down in their predominantly somatic natures, to the fictional insanity of narrative prose vis-à-vis the truthful sanity of philosophy ... than males will be opposed, high up in their predominantly psychic natures or, rather, nurtures, to the illusory insanity of poetry vis-à-vis the factual sanity of drama. Neither gender can ever be content with a situation in which, due to hegemonic pressures from the opposite gender, they are obliged to be at cross-purposes with themselves - males emphasizing soma at the expense of psyche in the illusory insanity of a sinful fall from grace in either metaphysical or physical sensuality, females emphasizing psyche at the expense of soma in the fictional insanity of a punishing rise from criminality in either chemical or metachemical sensibility.

98. The 'gender war', or tug-of-war, persists even when society achieves some kind of mean on either a sensual or a sensible basis and regards anything contrary as an exception to the general rule, and largely because no society, not even these days, is ever entirely one thing or the other.

99. But freedom for either gender is what is most worth fighting for, whether in terms of the factual sanity of free soma for females in metachemical and/or chemical sensuality or in terms of the truthful sanity of free psyche for males in physical and/or metaphysical sensibility. Freedom is more significant than binding, because it corresponds to those situations in which each gender is most true or loyal to its prevailing gender reality, be it the somatic predominance which follows from the precedence of psyche by soma in the cases of upper- and lower-class females, wherein freedom is criminal and therefore somatically factual, or the psychic predominance which follows from the precedence of soma by psyche in the cases of lower- and upper-class males, wherein freedom is graceful and therefore psychically truthful.

100. Hence the cry of all peoples for freedom, even though freedom does not come in a single guise or mode but is primarily divisible between fact and truth, objective soma and subjective psyche, female and male actualities, with corresponding sensual/sensible distinctions between cursedness and blessedness, criminality and gracefulness, not to mention vice and virtue on primary terms.

101. For the secondary terms of vice and virtue, as of cursedness and blessedness, involve not criminality and gracefulness but, as we have seen, sinfulness and punishingness, and therefore a male rejection of grace on the one hand and a female rejection of crime on the other, the hand of a secondary order of psychic freedom compared to the blessed primacy for males of grace in hegemonic sensibility.

102. However that may be, freedom is anything but secondary, overall, to binding, but that which requires binding if it is to have its way, whether in terms of psyche to soma in the case of sensually hegemonic females, or of soma to psyche in the case of sensibly hegemonic males, with correlative bindings for the opposite gender whose subordination to the prevailing freedom will require the paradoxical insanities, from their respective gender standpoints, of an illusory commitment to free soma in the case of males and of a fictional commitment to free psyche in the case of females, neither gender being able to escape the underlying reality, however, of their basic or fundamental structure, which makes for a yearning for free psyche on the part of psychically bound males and a yearning for free soma on the part of somatically bound females.

103. Such a yearning may, if the system is too watertight to permit of outright rebellion, express itself indirectly through a censorious or cynical fixation on ego and/or soul on the part of psychically bound males who are unable or unwilling to advocate or indulge spirit and/or will as paradoxically as before, while their female counterparts in the somatic binding of sensibility may be drawn to a censorious or cynical fixation on will and/or spirit in the face of a gender reluctance to advocate or indulge ego and/or soul as paradoxically as may previously have been the case.

104. Growing disillusioned with the secondary instinctual or spiritual freedoms of sin, sensual males turn to a negative exploration of soul and/or ego which may well lead towards a sensible rejection of folly in the name of grace in due course, while sensible females, growing disillusioned with the secondary intellectual or emotional freedoms of punishment, turn critically towards a negative exploration of will and/or spirit which may well lead towards a sensual rejection of goodness in the name of crime in due course, negative psyche turning in salvation towards positive psyche in the one case, positive soma turning in damnation towards negative soma in the other case, with predictably subversive consequences for either system should each gender choose the path of revolt which leads from insane binding to sane freedom, as from secondary damnation or salvation to primary blessedness or cursedness, as the sensual/sensible case may be.

105. However, such insane bindings of males to soma in sensuality and of females to psyche in sensibility, with secondary damned and saved consequences, have their sane, or quasi-sane, counterparts in the direct binding of metachemical and/or chemical psyche to free soma in the case of females, and of physical and/or metaphysical soma to free psyche in the case of males, since where each gender is free to be loyal to itself, its own gender reality or structure, it will not be inconvenienced by binding; for such binding will follow directly from the nature or nurture of the gender concerned, making for a quasi-criminal acquiescence in the predominating reality of free soma on the part of females, whose bound psyche will be evil, and for a quasi-graceful acquiescence in the predominating reality of free psyche on the part of males, whose bound soma can only be wise.

106. Therefore binding can be sane as well as insane, depending on the context, and so, too, can freedom be sane or insane, again depending on whether it corresponds to the prevailing gender reality - soma preceding psyche and predominating over it on the part of females, psyche preceding soma and predominating over it on the part of males - or, as in the case of the subordinate sex to each hegemonic gender, goes against the grain, as it were, of that basic reality, males insanely free in relation to soma in sensuality, females insanely free in relation to psyche in sensibility, freedom and binding holding together either sanely in the hegemonic contexts of each gender or insanely when either gender is in a subordinate position - males in sensuality, females in sensibility.

107. Therefore the prospects of establishing and maintaining a totally sane society can only be pretty slim in a world where, barring an amoral and virtually androgynous compromise between sensual and sensible options, the freedoms of fact and truth coupled to the bindings of illusion and fiction, one gender must triumph hegemonically over the other if both societal stability and ideological consistency is to be achieved.

108. Either factual sanity must triumph, in somatic objectivity, at the expense of illusory insanity, its subjective counterpart, or truthful sanity must triumph, in psychic subjectivity, at the expense of fictional insanity, its objective counterpart. Either empiricism must be the scientific and/or political order of the day, or rationalism must be the economic and/or religious order of the day. For you cannot lend equal credence to both, nor expect either one to substantially survive unscathed in contexts where one or the other of the contenders for freedom is institutionally hegemonic and the subordinate gender, be it male or female, is accordingly obliged to modify its approach to subjectivity or objectivity, as the case may be, in relation to the prevailing ideal, be it factual in the case of societies based in the somatic freedom of original crime or truthful in the case of societies based or, rather, centred in the psychic freedom of original grace.

109. Societies tend to be either matriarchal or patriarchal, of the Mother as somatic First Mover or of the Father as psychic First Mover, with consequences for either vice or virtue, crime or grace, cursedness or blessedness, negativity or positivity, as the case may be. For you cannot have a system, and therefore society, in which freedom is factual one moment and truthful the next, the conditions for each requiring the exclusion, to all intents and purposes, of the other and the subordination of the vanquished gender to either an illusory acquiescence in a factual hegemony, as in the case of somatically free societies, or a fictional acquiescence in a truthful hegemony, as in the case of psychically free societies, the former matriarchal and the latter patriarchal.

110. Since the distinction is between vice and virtue in relation to freedom, to an active engagement with somatic freedom, whether primarily for females or secondarily for males, on the one hand, and for a corresponding engagement with psychic freedom, whether primarily for males or secondarily for females on the other hand, it makes a lot of difference as to whether a society is classifiable as broadly matriarchal or broadly patriarchal, all the difference, in short, between the criminal and sinful freedoms of soma, and the graceful and punishing freedoms of psyche.

111. Of course, we could speak of the somatically free society as immoral and its psychically free counterpart as moral, but that would, I believe, be to emphasize binding at the expense of freedom, since it seems to me that while vice and immorality are correlative on the one hand, and virtue and morality correlative on the other, they are really as distinct as freedom and binding, since whereas freedom is active in its hegemonic engagement of either soma in sensuality or psyche in sensibility, binding is passive and, indeed, the passive complement to whatever freedom happens to be hegemonically prevalent in any given society, so that we can distinguish the active nature or nurture, depending on the gender context, of vice and virtue from the passive nurture or nature, again depending on the gender context, of immorality and morality.

112. Therefore we can distinguish the primary vicious nature, in sensuality, of the objective somatic freedom of crime, whether absolute or relative, metachemical or chemical, from the primary immoral nature or, rather, nurture of the objective psychic binding to evil of females, and the secondary vicious nature of the subjective somatic freedom of sin, whether absolute or relative, metaphysical or physical, from the secondary immoral nurture of the subjective psychic binding to folly of males.

113. Contrariwise, we should distinguish, in sensibility, the primary virtuous nurture of the subjective psychic freedom of grace, whether relative or absolute, physical or metaphysical, from the primary moral nature of the subjective somatic binding to wisdom of males, and the secondary virtuous nurture of the objective psychic freedom of punishment, whether relative or absolute, chemical or metachemical, from the secondary moral nature of the objective somatic binding to goodness of females.

114. Nothing is ever that simple or straightforward in life, and the distinction between the active nature or nurture, depending on the context, of freedom in vice or virtue and the passive nurture or nature of binding in immorality or morality is sufficiently illustrative, I think, of the complexities, on both a class and an elemental basis, not to mention in respect of both primary and secondary manifestations of each, that a thoroughgoing investigation of freedom and binding bring to light, notwithstanding the paradoxical pressures for each subordinate gender in the sensual/sensible alternative types of society that an emphasis upon either soma (males) or psyche (females) tend to create, with consequences that have been described in terms of illusory insanity in the case of sinful males and fictional insanity in the case of punishing females, neither of which can be wholly satisfactory to the gender concerned and both of which will consequently invite, and even result in, a revolt aimed at either truthful sanity in the case of males or factual sanity in the case of females, with contradictory consequences.

115. But if metachemical crime is absolutely vicious and metachemical evil absolutely immoral, the former somatically free and the latter psychically bound, both alike are germane to the factual sanity of materialist clearness, to which the illusory insanity of idealist unholiness defers through the secondary vice and immorality of metaphysical sin and folly, the former somatically free and the latter psychically bound on a no-less absolute basis.

116. Similarly, if chemical crime is relatively vicious and chemical evil relatively immoral, the former somatically free and the latter psychically bound, both alike are germane to the factual sanity of realist clearness, to which the illusory insanity of naturalist unholiness defers through the secondary vice and immorality of physical sin and folly, the former somatically free and the latter psychically bound on a no-less relative basis.

117. Contrariwise, if physical grace is relatively virtuous and physical wisdom relatively moral, the former psychically free and the latter somatically bound, both alike are germane to the truthful sanity of humanist holiness, to which the fictional insanity of nonconformist unclearness defers through the secondary virtue and morality of chemical punishment and goodness, the former psychically free and the latter somatically bound on a no-less relative basis.

118. Likewise, if metaphysical grace is absolutely virtuous and metaphysical wisdom absolutely moral, the former psychically free and the latter somatically bound, both alike are germane to the truthful sanity of transcendentalist holiness, to which the fictional insanity of fundamentalist unclearness defers through the secondary virtue and morality of metachemical punishment and goodness, the former psychically free and the latter somatically bound on a no-less absolute basis.

119. That which defers, in illusory insanity, to factual sanity, as idealist and/or naturalist unholiness to materialist and/or realist clearness, does so from the sin and folly of a secondary cursedness and damnation which are under the hegemonic control of the crime and evil of a primary cursedness and damnation, like male collectivity under female competitiveness on either of the aforementioned class and/or elemental bases.

120. That which defers, in fictional insanity, to truthful sanity, as nonconformist and/or fundamentalist unclearness to humanist and/or transcendentalist holiness, does so from the punishment and goodness of a secondary blessedness and salvation which are under the hegemonic control of the grace and wisdom of a primary blessedness and salvation, like female cooperativeness with male individuality on either of the aforementioned class and/or elemental bases.

121. Whereas collectivity defers to the sensual competitiveness of hegemonic females from a subordinate male position, cooperativeness defers to the sensible individuality of hegemonic males from a subordinate female position. Both are insane in their contrary ways, since it is neither in the nurture of males to defer to female competitiveness from a somatic standpoint nor in the nature of females to defer to male individuality from a psychic standpoint. Each sex does so only under duress of contrary pressures from above, and therefore they remain at loggerheads with their respective interests in truthful sanity or factual sanity, male holiness or female clearness.

122. Nevertheless since it is inevitable that one gender must be sane and the other insane if civilization is to achieve a stable and consistent basis in either vice coupled to immorality or virtue coupled to morality, we cannot reasonably expect both genders to be equally sane or, worse, equally insane. Either males must succumb to illusory insanity under pressure of factual sanity, like unoriginal sin under the hegemonic rule of original crime, or females must succumb to fictional insanity under pressure of truthful sanity, like unoriginal punishment under original grace.

123. You cannot have it both ways in official practice, even if, unofficially, exceptions to the general rule will persist in existing, like Protestants in a predominantly Catholic society or Catholics in a predominantly Protestant society, or, in secular terms, Socialists in a predominantly Conservative society or Conservatives in a predominantly Socialist society, both of which may overlap with Liberals proper or constitute, in their mutually antipathetic tolerance, a loose definition of Liberalism such that confirms worldly phenomenality.

124. Whatever the case, societies tend to divide into those in which individuals collectively serve the competitive rule, like bound psyche acquiescing in free soma, or those in which individuals co-operatively defer to the individualistic lead, like bound soma acquiescing in free psyche, the former manifestly given, in British Protestant/Parliamentary fashion, to a bound church and a free state, the latter just as obviously given, in Irish Republican/Catholic vein, to a bound state and a free church.

125. For whether the individual serves society or, conversely, society serves the individual comes down, inevitably, to the nature of society and the nurture of the individuals which constitute it, society dominating the individual when nature is hegemonic in free soma, the individual dominating society when nurture is hegemonic in free psyche, all the difference between the vices of state freedom on the one hand and the virtues of church freedom on the other, as, in secondary terms, between the immoralities of church binding in the one case and the moralities of state binding in the other.

126. For although freedom is more important than binding, as the active is more significant than the passive, whether in negative or positive, somatic or psychic, terms, there can be no freedom without binding, no cursedness without damnation, no blessedness without salvation, no factual sanity without illusory insanity, no truthful sanity without fictional insanity, no crime and/or sin without evil and/or folly, no grace and/or punishment without wisdom and/or goodness, no vice without immorality, no virtue without morality, and therefore no free soma without bound psyche, no free psyche without bound soma.

127. Since free soma depends upon the existence of bound psyche, as state freedom upon church binding, there can be no possibility of free psyche being encouraged in a society given to such cursed freedom, and therefore very little in such a female-oriented and fundamentally vicious society to commend itself to male self-respect.

128. Contrariwise, since free psyche depends upon the existence of bound soma, as church freedom upon state binding, there can be no possibility of free soma being encouraged in a society given to such blessed freedom, and therefore very little in such a male-oriented and essentially virtuous society to commend itself to female self-disrespect or, more directly, notself-respect.

129. Either females triumph over males, as drama over poetry, or males triumph over females, as philosophy over fiction. Anyone who thinks you can have it both ways is a self-deceiving hypocrite and philosophical ignoramus! For the distinction between factual sanity and truthful sanity, free soma and free psyche, is not such that lends itself to mutual compromise, least of all in relation to the upper-class planes of the Devil/Hell and God/Heaven, wherein the distinction is more absolute ... as between ugliness and hate on the one hand, and truth and joy on the other.

130. Males who do not want a society in which blessedness and salvation are the orders of freedom and binding are simply sinful fools who are deserving of the contempt of their gender for having subordinated themselves to crime and evil and, in the worst cases, actually sold out to crime and evil by effectively becoming female in competitive exploitation of the collective. The former may be entitled to pity if they would wish for deliverance but are unable to achieve it, but the latter can only expect male disdain for having betrayed their gender and sought to competitively cash-in on the monstrous vices and immoralities of criminal freedom and evil binding in patently female vein.

131. For no self-respecting male could ever wish to live in a society dominated by females and bereft, in consequence, of moral virtue. His wish, as ever, is that such a society should be consigned to the rubbish heap of criminal/evil history and left to rot as a sad testimony to what happens to males when they fail or are unable to take responsibility for their gender reality as creatures for whom psyche both precedes and predominates over soma, making for a concept of freedom and binding that owes more to blessed grace and saved wisdom than to cursed sin and damned foolishness, so that they adhere, on whatever class basis, to the free church and the bound state rather than to the free state and the bound church, both cursed sin and damned foolishness being no less secondary compared to the primary cursedness and damnation in crime and evil of their female counterparts than blessed grace and saved wisdom are primary compared to the secondary blessedness and salvation in punishment and goodness of their female counterparts in what has been described as fictional insanity, the fictional insanity that defers, on whatever class basis, to truthful sanity, as to the lead of life by psychic positivity.

132. A life in which psychic positivity is strangled and undermined by somatic negativity in criminally vicious vein ... is really no life at all but a sort of living death in which all that is dark and underhand is permitted to proliferate at the expense of that which makes life worth living - namely the graceful virtues of knowledge and truth coupled to their virtuously punishing counterparts in strength and beauty, with corresponding emotional attributes of pleasure and joy, love and pride.

133. A life without virtue in either holiness for males or unclearness for females is a cursed life, and such cursedness permeates and, indeed, typifies modern civilization wherever freedom is conceived and/or perceived in terms of soma, with predictably negative consequences! In such a civilization, necessarily dominated by barbarity and encouraging philistinism in its under-plane victims, society gets the better of the individual; for the individual is subsumed into the collective in such a manner that, whether phenomenal or noumenal, relativistic or absolutist, lower-class or upper-class, of the Many or of the Few, he becomes the passive spectator and active plaything of people who are passive only before the criminal viciousness of their competitive freedoms, evilly acquiescent in the most blatant disregard for human or divine self-respect of which it is possible to conceive.

134. Such a society fails every test of decency, both free and bound, and it is because it is the enemy of life as it should and could be lived that contemporary civilization stands accused before the tribunal of divine judgement as something which must be democratically rejected by the People if they are to be delivered, on both blessed and saved, free and bound, terms from its crimes and sins, not to mention evils and follies, to the graces and punishments, not to mention wisdoms and goodnesses, of the civilization to come, the civilization of 'Kingdom Come' which, through religious sovereignty, will be the life-enhancing opposite and rejection, in culture and civility, of everything which contemporary civilization takes so viciously and immorally for granted.

135. This coming civilization will, indeed, be free in the best possible way, with an evolutionary resolve which will take life, if not necessarily mankind, all the way to the omega point of definitive culture in the service of the highest religion, a religion in which soma is bound and psyche absolutely free in a way and to an extent which can only leave Roman Catholicism firmly in the wake of its Social Transcendentalist commitment to a universality which, being more than chemically monist, will be completely independent of everything cosmic, as its sensibly metaphysical fulcrum allows what is truly germane to God the Father, the conscious manifestation of the metaphysical self, to have its gracefully virtuous way, the way, through transcendental meditation, of a psychocentric transmutation of the metaphysical self in and as Heaven the Holy Soul, the essence of Whose contentment is the beingful supremacy of eternal joy.