1.   That which is sensual and characterized by free soma, whether on primary (female) or secondary (male) terms, is of necessity convolutional, since it reflects a devolutionary divergence from the self to the not-self, from psyche to soma, and accordingly attests to either a criminal (female) or a sinful (male) disposition, the former objectively, and therefore directly, diverging from a vacuum in straight-line fashion, the latter subjectively, and therefore indirectly, diverging from a plenum in curved-line fashion.

2.   That, by contrast, which is sensible and characterized by free psyche, whether on primary (male) or secondary (female) terms, is of necessity involutional, since it reflects an evolutionary convergence from the not-self to the self, from soma to psyche, and accordingly attests to either a graceful (male) or a punishing (female) disposition, the former subjectively, and therefore directly, converging from a plenum in curved-line fashion, the latter objectively, and therefore indirectly, converging from a vacuum in straight-line fashion.

3.   Therefore since convolution is primarily objective it is primarily female and only secondarily male, subjective convolution being a paradoxical approach to free soma which appertains, in male vein, to the physical and metaphysical Elements of vegetation and air rather than to the chemical and metachemical Elements of water and fire.

4.   Likewise since involution is primarily subjective it is primarily male and only secondarily female, objective involution being a paradoxical approach to free psyche which appertains, in female vein, to the chemical and metachemical Elements of water and fire rather than to the physical and metaphysical Elements of vegetation and air.

5.   Females are by nature convolutional and only involutional on the objectively paradoxical terms of psychic emphasis under sensible pressure of male hegemonies in either physics or metaphysics which has the effect of compelling either a strong approach to knowledge in chemistry or a beautiful approach to truth in metachemistry, so that psyche is approached from a fundamentally objective, rather than properly subjective, standpoint.

6.   Males are by nature or, rather, nurture involutional and only convolutional on the subjectively paradoxical terms of somatic emphasis under sensual pressure of female hegemonies in either chemistry or metachemistry which has the effect of compelling either an ignorant approach to weakness in physics or an illusory approach to ugliness in metaphysics, so that soma is approached from a fundamentally subjective, rather than properly objective, standpoint.

7.   For females remain persons for whom soma precedes and predominates over psyche on either the relative or absolute, chemical or metachemical, terms of more (relative to most) particles/less (relative to least) wavicles or most particles/least wavicles even in sensibility, and therefore even under pressure from hegemonic males to emphasize psyche at the expense of soma.

8.   Conversely, males remain persons for whom psyche precedes and predominates over soma on either the relative or absolute, physical or metaphysical, terms of more (relative to most) wavicles/less (relative to least) particles or most wavicles/least particles even in sensuality, and therefore even under pressure from hegemonic females to emphasize soma at the expense of psyche.

9.   Broadly the distinction between soma and psyche, free soma in female sensual hegemonies and free psyche in male sensible hegemonies, is between state and church, and one can believe that the State, when free, attests to a female hegemony and the Church, when free, to a male one, with corollaries of church subordination to the State in the somatic contexts of sensuality, and state subordination to the Church in the psychic contexts of sensibility.

10.  The free state is naturally female, and therefore compulsion tends to be directed at males as persons for whom psyche precedes and predominates over soma and any somatic emphasis on the not-self at the expense of the self, on 'selfless' service, accordingly does not come nurturally, so to speak, but may require some degree of natural compulsion.

11.  By contrast, the free church is, if you will, nurturally male, and therefore compulsion tends to be directed at females as persons for whom soma precedes and predominates over psyche and any psychic emphasis on the self at the expense of the not-self, on 'selfish' devotion, accordingly does not come naturally, so to speak, but may require some degree of 'nurtural' compulsion.

12.  The compulsion directed at males from female hegemonies in objectively free soma tends to oppress what characterizes the male gender in free psyche and therefore to bind it to foolish acquiescence in the sinfulness of somatic freedom conceived, in relation to physics or metaphysics, as a secondary order of convolution and therefore of viciousness which, whilst it might provide some satisfaction to the not-self, affords little comfort to the self, which is likely to become depressive in consequence of having been denied free expression on either intellectual or emotional terms.

13.  By contrast, the compulsion directed at females from male hegemonies in subjectively free psyche tends to repress what characterizes the female gender in free soma and therefore to bind it to modest (goodly) acquiescence in the punishingness of psychic freedom conceived, in relation to chemistry or metachemistry, as a secondary order of involution and therefore of virtuousness which, whilst it might provide some satisfaction to the self, affords little comfort to the not-self, which is likely to become compressive in consequence of having been  denied free expression on either spiritual or instinctual terms.

14.  That which is free is expressive, whether in soma or in psyche, whereas that which is bound is impressive, whether in psyche or in soma, so that we may contrast the primary expressive nature of chemical and metachemical free soma with the primary impressive quasi-nature of chemical and metachemical bound psyche in relation to females, and the secondary expressive nature of physical and metaphysical free soma with the secondary impressive quasi-nature of physical and metaphysical bound psyche in relation to males, the former freedom expressive in crime and the latter freedom expressive in sin.

15.  Likewise we may contrast the primary expressive nurture of physical and metaphysical free psyche with the primary impressive quasi-nurture of physical and metaphysical bound soma in relation to males, and the secondary expressive nurture of chemical and metachemical free psyche with the secondary impressive quasi-nurture of chemical and metachemical bound soma in relation to females, the former freedom expressive in grace and the latter freedom expressive in punishment.

16.  Therefore there is a correlation between expression and freedom, whether for better (virtue) or worse (vice), on both primary and secondary terms, and a like-correlation between impression and binding, whether for better (morality) or worse (immorality), on both primary and secondary terms.

17.  One could argue that somatic expression, being sensual, is predominantly negative, whereas psychic expression, being sensible, is predominantly positive, though this would more apply to the representatively particle and wavicle alternatives within each context than right across the sensual/sensible board.

18.  Likewise, one could argue that psychic impression, being sensual, is predominantly negative, whereas somatic impression, being sensible, is predominantly positive, though this would apply to the particle and wavicle subversions of essentially wavicle and particle alternatives within each context rather than to the nurture of psyche or to the nature of soma as such.

19.  For psyche, when free, is much more wavicle centred than particle oriented, whereas soma, when free, is much more particle based than wavicle oriented. 

20.  The subversion of male psyche in terms of binding, on the other hand, has the effect of rendering such psyche quasi-natural and therefore particle oriented, whether on the instinctual terms of the id conceived as the subversion of soul from the female standpoint of free will, or on the spiritual terms of the superego conceived as the subversion of ego from the female standpoint of free spirit, the former of which will acquiesce in free will as an elemental-particle absolute and the latter of which in free spirit as a molecular-particle relativity, and therefore contrary to the elemental-wavicle and molecular-wavicle orientations of free soul and free ego, respectively, as male realities.

21.  By contrast, the subversion of female soma in terms of binding has the effect of rendering such soma quasi-nurtural, so to speak, and therefore wavicle oriented, whether on the intellectualized instinctual terms of natural will (natwill) conceived as the subversion of will from the male standpoint of free ego, or on the emotionalized spiritual terms of subnatural spirit (subspirit) conceived as the subversion of spirit from the male standpoint of free soul, the former of which will acquiesce in free ego as a molecular-wavicle relativity and the latter of which in free soul as an elemental-wavicle absolute, and therefore contrary to the elemental-particle and molecular-particle orientations of free will and free spirit, respectively, as female realities.

22.  Granted that female bound psyche will be more directly particle oriented and therefore quasi-natural than its male counterpart, which follows from the outflanking of soul and/or ego by the id and/or superego of that which directly stems from free will and/or spirit in females, it will be less partial to depressive tendencies in consequence of its binding, since the female gender reality of soma preceding and predominating over psyche will leave it readily acquiescent in somatic freedom and thus evilly passive, or primarily immoral, before the primary viciousness of criminal activity.

23.  With the male, however, such depressive tendencies in consequence of the oppression of psyche from the directly-bound psychic standpoint of females are more likely to emerge as a symptom of disillusionment with somatic freedom and the foolish acquiescence in the secondary viciousness of sin which, in its activity, renders the bound psyche secondarily immoral, which is to say, of a secondary order of immorality compared to its evil counterpart on the female side of the gender fence.

24.  Should such disillusionment with sinful somatic freedom lead to an emphasis on the folly of bound psyche in relation to free soma, it will not be an ignorant approach to weakness in physics or an illusory (false) approach to ugliness in metaphysics that will obtain so much as either ignorance or illusion, neither of which could be described as quasi-natural in particle-oriented vein but, rather, as pseudo-nurtural in wavicle-centred vein, albeit the wavicles appertaining to disillusioned ego and/or soul will have reference to a context in which either molecular or elemental criteria obtain in relation to sensuality, and thus as pseudo-free expressions rather than genuine free expressions.

25.  Only the rejection of such ignorant or illusory pseudo-free expressions can lead the disillusioned psyche to gravitate to either knowledge or truth in sensibility, as to molecular-wavicle or elemental-wavicle modes of genuinely free expression according to whether physical or metaphysical, lower- or upper-class male criteria ensue.  For neither knowledge nor truth will properly pertain to sensuality, but at best only ignorance or illusion as the necessary preconditions of knowledge or truth should the mind be so determined that sensible psychic freedom is of paramount importance in view of its correspondence to male gender reality and should therefore be pursued at the expense not merely of the folly of sensual psychic pseudo-freedom in ignorance or illusion but, more significantly, of the enslavement of psyche to weakness and ugliness which sinfully follows from psychic binding to free soma at the behest of hegemonic female freedoms in respect of either weakness (chemical) or ugliness (metachemical).