COMMON AND UNCOMMON IN SENSUALITY AND SENSIBILITY

1. Nations of common sense or, more correctly, sensuality, like the British (particularly English), and of uncommon sense or, again, sensuality, like the Americans, tend not to have too much time for what, from their respective standpoints, must seem like either common sensibility or uncommon sensibility. For they are so hooked on sensuality as to be only moderately capable of sensibility.

2. Nations, on the other hand, of common sensibility, like the Irish (and even Gaels in general), and of uncommon sensibility, like the Indians, tend not to have too much time for what, from their respective standpoints, must seem like common sensuality or uncommon sensuality. For they are so given to sensibility as to be only moderately capable of sensuality.

3. For the heathenistic sensual, freedom is the highest ideal and they will fight tooth and nail to protect the blessed hegemony of evil over folly, of metachemistry over metaphysics (as in the American case in particular), and of chemistry over physics (as in the British case in particular), for they incline, if unconsciously, to take the curse of under-plane enslavement of the male side of things to a female hegemony for granted, being basically ignorant of the extent to which both freedom and enslavement are morally wrong.

4. With the non-heathenistic sensible, on the other hand, binding to self is the highest ideal and they will do everything in their power to protect the saved hegemony of wisdom over goodness, of physics over chemistry (as in the Irish case traditionally), and of metaphysics over metachemistry (as in the Indian case traditionally), for they incline to a male hegemony in their awareness of the extent to which both binding to self for males and constraining of the not-self in females are morally right.

5. Societies, like nations, can accordingly be divided into those for which freedom of the sensual not-self is the ne plus ultra of things and those, on the contrary, for which binding to the sensible self is the ne plus ultra of things - the former with a female bias and the latter with a male one.

6. Those who uphold freedom may kid themselves that it is a righteous ideal but, in reality, it is morally wrong; for it implies the hegemony of evil over folly and the enslavement of males to a female domination in which heathenistic criteria of 'once-born' sensuality are paramount, to the inevitable detriment of male self-respect.

7. Whether the symbolic illustration of this be the 'Liberty Belle' or 'Britannia', a noumenal and metachemical or a phenomenal and chemical manifestation of hegemonic freedom, the result is a crushing victory for evil over goodness, female sensuality over female sensibility, and an equally crushing victory for folly over wisdom, male sensuality over male sensibility, with a consequence that common sensuality in the phenomenal case of evil/folly (Britain) and uncommon sensuality in the noumenal case of evil/folly (America) will tend to prevail at the expense of common sensibility in the phenomenal case of wisdom/goodness (Ireland) and uncommon sensibility in the noumenal case of wisdom/goodness (India).

8. For sensuality, like sensibility, is common when it is phenomenal and relativistic, appertaining to a lower-class mean in volume and mass, whereas sensibility, like sensuality, is uncommon when it is noumenal and absolute, appertaining to an upper-class mean in time and space.

9. The triadic Beyond to which I subscribe as the framework of religious praxis for 'Kingdom Come' would accordingly be divisible between an upper tier of uncommon sensibility in which transcendentalism was in its per se mode, a middle tier of common sensibility in which humanism was in its per se mode, and a bottom tier of common sensibility in which nonconformism was in its per se mode, as well as 'bovaryized' subdivisions on every tier relative to chemical, physical, and metaphysical approaches to mass, volume, and space.

10. Thus would the triadic Beyond cater to an upper-class elite, corresponding to 'the saved few', of the bound in spaced space, a middle-class commonality, corresponding to 'the saved many', of the bound in voluminous volume, and a lower-class commonality, corresponding to 'the damned many', of the constrained in massed mass, give and take subsectional distinctions between per se and 'bovaryized' modes of transcendentalism, humanism, and nonconformism.

11. Either way, one would be talking about a society in which wisdom and goodness were the prevailing ideals, since sensibility permits of a righteous structure in which the female aspect of things is ever subordinate to a male hegemony.

12. And in such a society males would develop their full potential for self-knowledge and self-transcendence, becoming as wise in uncommon or common sensibility as their respectively saved standings as gods or men, transcendentalists or humanists, permitted, with nothing worse than at times begrudging support from 'the constrained good' of the nonconformist modes of metaphysics, physics, and chemistry below, i.e. their female counterparts.