201. For, ultimately, you cannot turn (gender-change exceptions to the rule notwithstanding) women into men or men into women. You can only constrain the freedom of the one and enhance the binding of the other, in keeping with the objective/subjective distinction between humanism on the one hand, and nonconformism and transcendentalism on the other, the former watery, and the latter respectively vegetative and airy.

202. Hence the noumenal binding of transcendentalism is not for everyone but only for those who, as supermen, prove themselves capable of it, in due cultural vein.

203. The triadic Beyond will still uphold some kind of civility and some kind of nature 'down below', on the phenomenal tiers of its overall structure, thereby allowing for the inevitable mass and volume shortfalls from space which would, I believe, typify persons of, in particular, Puritan and Anglican denominational backgrounds, in the event of their approaching the development of religious sovereignty, as must be expected, from a phenomenal standpoint.

204. For the triadic Beyond is disposed to accommodate people from both Protestant and Catholic traditions, the former on the phenomenal tiers and the latter on the noumenal one at the top, although, in practice, all tiers would be subsectioned in order to allow for both gender segregation and 'quasi' manifestations, within the prevailing element characterizing any given tier, of the other types of religious praxis.

205. Hence quasi-nonconformism and quasi-transcendentalism within the humanist tier at the bottom; quasi-humanism and quasi-transcendentalism within the nonconformist tier in the middle; and quasi-humanism and quasi-nonconformism within the transcendentalist tier at the top.

206. Some might argue that men who are into chemical substances for purposes of self-realization should simply be put-in with the women in the bottom subsection of each tier - either that or each subsection may have to be further subdivided to allow for continuing gender segregation?

207. Hence, they would argue, rather than confining intellectually- or spiritually-inclined women to the emotional, and hence chemical, subsection of each tier, subdivisions of the physical and the metaphysical subsections would allow them to be intellectual or spiritual independently of their male counterparts.

208. Frankly, I don't believe that one should allow for intellectual or spiritual commitments from women in the triadic Beyond, since that would liberalize it to a degree whereby unsegregated intellectuality and spirituality would be the next thing on the female agenda, with disastrously amoral consequences for all concerned!

209. Once you start de-structuring an ultimate order, things will quickly fall apart and degenerate from the bound to the free, thereby becoming the opposite of what they were intended to be.

210. It is better that the women be confined to the bottom subsection of each tier, wherein chemical realism, naturalism, or idealism would be the norm, and that any intellectual or spiritual predilections some of them may have, whether through delusions of grandeur or in consequence of bourgeois conditioning, should take place, if at all, within the subsection in question, not in further subdivisions of the masculine or supermasculine subsections!

211. Likewise, men with a drug habit that is commensurate with either water, vegetation, or air ... should be encouraged, in the triadic Beyond of 'Kingdom Come' (hopefully a Gaelic federation of Ireland, Scotland, and Wales) to 'kick the habit' through exposure to intellectual alternatives rather than have it re-enforced through confinement in the bottom subsection of each tier, where they would be vulnerable, in any case, to female seduction.

212. Although it might seem fitting, if rather cynically so, to oblige male drug-users to share the same subsection of any given tier with women, in practice I fear that they would simply 'bog down' in chemical freedom to the detriment, if not exclusion, of physical and/or metaphysical binding.

213. Thus just as I do not believe in lowering men to a female level, so I cannot bring myself to believe in raising women to a male one. Such liberalizing tendencies strike me as promiscuous and likely to lead, as they have down in bourgeois civilization, to a break-down of structure and a correlative escalation of freedom - the immoral enemy of everything bound.

214. Women may well be capable of intellectual and/or spiritual achievements and commitments, but not, as a rule, to anything like the same extent as men, since, quite apart from physiological conditioning factors, such subjective pursuits run contrary to their objective grain as women, and can only be of secondary relevance to them in consequence.

215. Although both sexes are subject to biological conditioning, such biological conditioning as women are subject to on the female side of life makes for free will, whereas such biological conditioning as men are subject to on the male side of life makes, by contrast, for natural determinism.

216. Such consequences of biological conditioning also of course 'cut it both ways', but not, as a rule, to anything like the same extent with each gender.

217. For the objective disposition of women will owe its origins to a vacuous precondition (as in stellar and/or lunar primacy), such that is predominantly behind their 'free' mode of biological conditioning, whereas the subjective disposition of men will owe its origins to a plenumous precondition (as in terrestrial and/or solar primacy), such that is preponderantly behind their 'bound' mode of biological conditioning.

218. Aldous Huxley was always quoting the poet Fulke Greville's line about being 'born under one law, [but] to another bound', and although 'one law' obviously has to do with freedom and 'another law' with binding, it is evident that men are more disposed than women, as a rule, to the law of binding, particularly with regard to sensibility.

219. Such, at any rate, would have been the case when Christian criteria were paramount, and men deferred to culture via nature rather than, as in heathenistic and superheathenistic societies, to either civility or barbarity pre-eminently, as has become increasingly the case since approximately the seventeenth century.

220. In 'free societies' like those of Britain (watery phenomenal) and America (fiery noumenal), it can hardly be said of most men that they are 'born under one law, [but] to another bound', particularly in view of the paucity of natural determinism that characterizes the championship of freedom both in relation to the twin objectivities of speech and the press.

221. Both the phenomenal and the noumenal kinds of freedom are 'born under one law', the law of feminine civility on the one hand, and the law of superfeminine barbarity on the other hand, and in neither case is there much respect for binding, or subjectively-conditioned constraints upon either freedom of speech or freedom of the camera-besotted press deriving, by contrast, from adherence to natural and/or cultural binding.

222. Even traditional institutions and manifestations of binding via natural determinism are - where they still exist - ridden roughshod over by the 'free spirits' of Heathen/Superheathen modernity, who do not recognize any law save that to which they were 'once born', compliments of either 'Britannia' or the 'Liberty Belle'.

223. For only the liberties of the tongue and the eyes mean anything to them - the one to dominate the flesh (with its phallic fulcrum) and exclude, as far as possible, the brain; the other to dominate the ears and exclude, as far as possible, the lungs.

224. Both the womb and the heart, on the other hand, are grudgingly tolerated as objective modes of sensibility that owe more to free will than ever they do to natural determinism, bearing in mind their female standings.

225. For natural determinism is a subjective thing, and neither the womb nor the heart are preponderantly subjective, only the brain and the lungs in sensibility and, to a lesser extent, the phallus and the ears in sensuality, neither of which exist independently of the tongue and the eyes, but are bound to their sensual dominion.

226. Thus the phallus is obliged to defer to the tongue, and the ears ... to the eyes, just as men must defer to women wherever freedom is the ruling law, the 'once-born' law of Heathen/Superheathen modernity.

227. In such circumstances it could be argued that men are enslaved by women, since they are bound to them and obliged to defer to their objective hegemony, manifesting freedom.

228. How different from the 're-born' Christian and/or Superchristian types of society in which men have been delivered from such an enslavement to the salvation of either the brain (if phenomenal) or the lungs (if noumenal), and women are accordingly 'pegged down' to the subordinate objectivities and constrained freedoms of the womb (if phenomenal) and/or the heart (if noumenal) in what amounts to a quasi-Christian and/or quasi-Superchristian deference, via sensibility, to the subjective hegemony of moral law, the law not of free will but of natural determinism.

229. Then it can be maintained, with no uncertainty, that men are 'born under one law, [but] to another bound', and women are accordingly obliged to defer to the 'bound law' to which men, more usually as Christians, moralistically subscribe in their self-respecting subjectivity.

230. When, on the other hand, men are deferring to freedom, whether directly as 'free spirits' or indirectly as compromised bound ones, such a 're-born' situation can hardly be said to apply, in consequence of which they are less Christian than effectively Heathen and/or Superheathen, as the case may be.

231. This is certainly the case for most Britons and Americans, who exist in societies dominated by objective factors in which, due to 'once-born' criteria, the female side of life 'pulls rank' on its male side, the latter sensually subordinate to it on due pseudo-Christian (if Anglican British) and/or Subchristian (if Judaic American) terms.

232. Now just as pseudo-Christianity was expressive of an Anglican revolt against Christianity, meaning Roman Catholicism, so pseudo-Christianity became the victim, in due course, of a parliament-inspired anti-Christian revolt by Puritans and Dissenters as the 'free churches', closer in elemental terms to water and fire than to vegetation, gravitated, following civil unrest, to a hegemonic position over the Established Church, shackled, as it was, to the monarch.

233. Thus even the pseudo-Christian Church is compromised by freedom to the extent that, in England, it is subjected to the figureheadship of the reigning monarch, that sensible objectivity, duly constrained, of the 'Blood Royal', which precludes vegetative binding to Christ, since pseudo-Christianity is effectively no less sensual in its bodily vegetativeness, a sinful vegetativeness without confessional contrition, than its anti-Christian antagonists are sensual with regard to a watery and/or fiery tongue.

234. Be that as it may, the anti-Christian or 'free churches' became victims, in the American context, of a Subchristian revolt, which is arguably closer to the Judaic model of fiery airiness in its musicality, since more germane to the ears than to the tongue, and such a context, being fundamentally subjective, is more bound than free.

235. However, American society is no less illustrative of a triangular situation than British society, the only difference being that its triangle is pyramidal rather than inverted, for no sooner is Subchristianity established as the male retort to anti-Christian precedent than it finds itself beset by the twin freedoms of anti-Subchristian Heathenism, the light-based Superheathen freedom of sensual transcendentalism on the one hand, and the blood-based Subheathen freedom (analogous in some respects to the 'Blood Royal') of sensible fundamentalism - the former expressing an affiliation to the eyes and the latter an affiliation to the heart.

236. But it is the Superheathen freedom of the light which is 'top dog' in America, and consequently the Subheathen freedom of the blood is of secondary importance, on the female side of life, to that which rules a metachemical roost, to the detriment, more especially, of the metaphysical 'fall guy', whose Subchristian subjectivity, in submasculinity, is deferentially bound to the anti-Subchristian hegemony of the Superheathen freedom in question.

237. Needless to say, such freedom is symbolized, in America, by the 'Liberty Belle', since that is what correlates with the superfeminine, and hence the Superheathen transcendentalism of the ruling law, the law of maximum freedom for the female side of life in what amounts to the hegemony of sensual materialism over sensual idealism.

238. Such a hegemony has a Biblical parallel, none too surprisingly, in the rule of Jehovah over Satan, the stellar 'First Mover' over the solar 'Fallen Angel', and we need not doubt that uncritical adherence to the Old Testament, the Testament par excellence of American society, will fuel the flames of self-righteous bigotry in relation to it.

239. For the adherent of Superheathen objectivity is no less likely to feel smugly superior, in his 'once-born' law of sensual freedom, to the adherent of Subchristian (Judaic) subjectivity, who is bound to that law, than the adherent of Heathen objectivity will feel smugly superior to the pseudo-Christian subjectivity which characterizes the deferential binding to his freedom, the 'free church' freedom of a watery departure from vegetative sin which governs a parliamentary roost.

240. In both cases, the female side of life, able with the subfeminine factors, both genuine and pseudo, to draw upon the full complement of relevant objective options, is free to dominate its male side, with secular implications, in respect of crime and punishment, for all concerned.

241. One cannot, I repeat cannot be properly Christian (or sensibly nonconformist), much less Superchristian (and sensibly transcendentalist) in either of these circumstances, which is why both Britain and America - despite people of Christian, or Catholic, resolve - are respectively Heathen and Superheathen countries, the one dedicated, through watery dominion, to freedom of speech, the other no-less dedicated, through fiery dominion, to freedom of the (camera-wielding) press.

242. Even Christians, or people of a Roman Catholic persuasion, who live in societies with a heathen and/or superheathen majority, are compromised by the prevailing laws of freedom and vulnerable, in consequence, to proclivities of a realistic and/or materialistic (un)nature which are anything but Christian.

243. Even Christians who happen to live in countries, like Eire, which are overwhelmingly Roman Catholic will be exposed to the ever-present threat of Heathen and/or Superheathen criteria, as and when they succumb, via the media, to Anglo-American influences.

244. Every day that passes, the Christian side of life loses more ground to the un-Christian, or heathenistic, side of it; for the Christian Church can only stand still and mark time, tied, as it is, to the primitive theocracy of the Old Testament, whereas the un-Christian State and/or Kingdom is all the time advancing its immoral agendas in regard to the maximization of freedom under the rule of 'once-born' law.

245. That is why the Superchristian pseudo-Kingdom must come democratically to pass, under the benevolent auspices of Social Transcendentalism, in order to advance the preponderantly moral agenda of the Centre with regard to the maximization of binding, within the triadic Beyond, under the rule of 're-born' law.

246. Such a Superchristian pseudo-Kingdom I have not hesitated to identify, particularly in relation to my projected Centrist idealism of a Gaelic federation (of Ireland, Scotland, and Wales), with 'Kingdom Come', and I am convinced that it is the only solution to the problem of moral decline for Christians (not to mention many pseudo-Christians and anti-Christians) vis-à-vis the rampant immoral threats and dangers of secular freedom.

247. Only thus will the Gael become the 'saviour of idealism' (Connolly) in modern life, and for him a more joyful future lies in wait which will deliver him from the moral dilemma posed by the inability of Christianity to resist the secular encroachments upon religious binding which characterize the times.

248. Even Jews can be delivered from their deferentially 'once-born' binding to Superheathen freedom if they renounce the God-over-Devil delusion of the Old Testament and elect to 'turn their back' upon all Creator-worship, in order to achieve a 're-born' binding to the inner metaphysical self/unself via the inner metaphysical not-self and selflessness within the Centrist parameters of Social Transcendentalism.

249. For only a Superchristian binding can deliver them, or a significant proportion of their number, from official deference towards the Superheathen tyranny of stellar freedom within the pyramidal triangle, where Satan languishes under Jehovah's shadow, as David under Saul and/or Moses, or ears under eyes.

250. One can be delivered from ears to lungs, as from solar to Saturnalian in cosmic backdrop to this metaphysical mode of universality, but it will take a renunciation of deferential acquiescence in the hegemony of illusion, if sensible truth is to be achieved and upheld to a joyful end.

251. As for the Gaels, who of course are my principal concern, I have no doubt that the womb and the brain will play just as much, if not more, of a role in 'Kingdom Come' as the lungs, where the overall triadic structure of the Centre is concerned.

252. In fact, such a structure is unavoidable anyway whatever one's religious background, since idealism requires the support of both naturalism and realism if it is not to become merely a 'castle in the air' or 'pie in the sky', without proper foundation.

253. And neither would the triadic Beyond of a new water (and purgatory), a new vegetation (and earth), and a new airiness (and Heaven), be supportable without reference to the new fieriness (and Hell) of a pseudo-Kingdom, which would be empowered to administer to it, and ensure that it was both protected and advanced throughout all Eternity.

254. Paradoxically, the pseudo-Kingdom would be a sort of classless institution pandering to the first-, second-, and third-class citizens of the Centre, since the overall structure of the triadic Beyond would be such as to suggest that bottom-tier people would be third-class citizens in their humanist adherence to watery realism; that middle-tier people would be second-class citizens in their nonconformist adherence to vegetative naturalism; and that top-tier people would be first-class citizens in their transcendentalist adherence to airy idealism.

255. Hence it is the administrative aside (of the pseudo-Kingdom) that would be classless vis-à-vis the three-tier class structure of the Centre, in which people were effectively lower, middle, and upper class according to their overall position in the element-conditioned hierarchy of the triadic Beyond, both the lower and middle categories being phenomenal and the upper category alone noumenal, as befitting its idealistic nature in what would amount to the most perfect binding of joyful content(ment).

256. Thus, within the Gaelic context, people of Puritan, Anglican, and Catholic denominational background would find, under the unifying adoption of Social Transcendentalism, a tier of the Centre, duly subsectioned, that would mirror, in suitably modified terms, their respective elemental biases, be it for water, vegetation, or air.

257. Thus would the watery 'first' be 'last' (bottom), the watery-vegetative 'last' be 'first' (middle), and the vegetative-airy excluded (from the heathenistic triangle of so-called Protestant solidarity) be elevated (top), as people passed from the Heathen/Christian world of State/Church dialectical relativity to the triadic Beyond via the pseudo-Kingdom of 'Kingdom Come', a Gaelic federation, to repeat, of Ireland, Scotland, and Wales.

258. Anglicans may, as a rule, be pseudo-Christian in their deferential binding to heathenistic freedom (within the inverted triangle of so-called Protestant solidarity), but they could not be described as anti-Christian, after the watery manner of Puritans.

259. For they are still, if only just, on the male side of the gender fence, the side, more specifically, of vegetative binding to masculine subjectivity, as symbolized by the Crucified Christ, and are consequently quite distinct, even in England, from 'the free'.

260. Anglicans may be constrained by monarchic allegiance (where applicable) from embracing the airy-vegetativeness of Roman Catholic binding, but they are not overly disposed to the watery disposition of the 'free churches' in what amounts to an anti-Christian standing of objective aloofness from the vegetative earth.

261. Such an objective aloofness, avowedly feminine, finds its political embodiment in parliament, that champion of 'free speech', which is accordingly affiliated to the free churches in defence, by and large, of anti-Christian (secular) values.

262. Hence the tongue 'pulls rank' over the flesh, as water over vegetation, in the 'once-born' context of parliamentary freedom, and the flesh, duly constrained in England by allegiance to the 'Blood Royal', is obliged to defer to the hegemony of heathenistic freedom.

263. Yet the focus of anti-Christianity and, indeed, of the Antichrist remains on the 'free churches', whose ministers are the living embodiment of that which is ranged, in watery objectivity, against the vegetative earth.

264. There is, and has long been, more freedom for women to become ministers in the 'free churches' than - at any rate, until comparatively recently - in the Anglican or Established one, which (fact) is not altogether surprising in view of their feminine bias towards watery objectivity, as, for instance, in the importance attached to baptism by Baptists.

265. When such a bias becomes passionate, as in Dissenter-type churches, we are, to all intents and purposes, more in the realm of the 'burning Cross' than of the 'scales-of-justice Cross', which effectively characterizes Puritan abstraction, the abstraction born of freedom from bodily vegetativeness.

266. Hence there is more of a Labour parallel, I would argue, than a Conservative one to the fiery-water of passionate objectivity, while down below, at the base of the inverted triangle, one may detect a Liberal parallel to the watery-vegetation that is the object, more usually, of dispassionate verbal attention from 'on high', viz. the Conservatives.

267. Thus do the 'red' and the 'blue' line up against the 'yellowish brown', if not 'brownish yellow', of the parliamentary 'fall guy', just as, outside of parliament, the Dissenter and Puritan churches line up, in their respective approaches to phenomenal freedom, against the Anglican Church, in what amounts to an anti-Christian/pseudo-Christian gender-conditioned dichotomy between free and bound (established) interests.

268. Just as there are what certain blunt-speaking sections of the British people would call two kinds of 'cunt' over one type of 'prick' in the phenomenal context of realistic civilization, with its inverted triangle, so there are what their American counterparts would probably call two kinds of 'motherfucker' over one type of 'sonofabitch' in the noumenal context of materialistic barbarism, with its pyramidal triangle.

269. At least one can detect a dichotomy, in the latter kind of triangle, between the superfeminine-to-subfeminine axis of space-time materialism and the submasculine idealist who gets to play 'fall guy', in sequential time, for those self-righteous individuals whose noumenally objective status sets them apart from the objects of their gender-based and even Bible-conditioned contempt.

270. Not only do those earmarked for 'sonofabitch' denigration get to play the noumenal equivalent of 'pricks', but they are readily identifiable as 'assholes' (bums) to the denigratory 'jerks' who dominate them from 'on high', like motherfuck*** avengers of the 'Liberty Belle'.

271. Be that as it may, we need not doubt that, politically considered, there is a sort of Republican/Democrat distinction between the noumenally objective and their subjective scapegoats, some of whom will appear to the former as 'reds under the bed' or otherwise subversive of the political status quo, though they would be the last to recognize the superfeminine 'beam' in their own eye when condemning the submasculine 'mote' in the eye of their political antagonist.

272. In fact, so self-righteously convinced are they of their ideological superiority to the submasculine 'fall guy', that they will not hesitate to attribute all manner of Satanic practices to him which show that where they are 'God fearing' in their loyalty to Jehovah, he is a 'God-denying' atheistic 'sonofabitch' who cannot be trusted with the running of a 'free society'.

273. Certainly not to the extent, I would wager, of sending laser cannons into space and maintaining the need for a 'star-wars' type scenario to keep America free from communist subversion and any other external threats to its much-vaunted liberty.

274. No doubt, communism isn't really the solution to the 'Liberty Belle' but only another symptom of the overall problem of Superheathen modernity, wherein the submasculine seeks to displace the superfeminine and/or subfeminine and rule (if rather more bindingly so) in her stead.

275. Either way, a 'once-born' situation is the Superheathen result, and if this is closer, in religious terms, to Judaism than to either Hinduism or Mohammedanism, it is still far from being even remotely Buddhist. It will not have entirely escaped the superfeminine tyrant but simply have exposed her for what she is, and stigmatized as fascist anything that pertains to her libertarian will.

276. 'Rebirth' from sensuality to sensibility is not achieved simply by replacing one 'once-born' system with another, neither in parts of the world where it sort of works on a communistic basis nor in those parts, like America, where there are too many stars in the night sky.

277. 'Rebirth' requires a 'change of heart', a moral resolve on the part of people to 'change their ways' and 'turn their back' on the past, whatever that 'once-born' past may happen to have been. It is not something that can be enforced, neither militarily nor ideologically through propaganda.

278. Neither does 'rebirth' follow from a revolution, except perhaps where there is need of a counter-revolution to get things back on an evolutionary track in relation to the desire for a new order of binding that will displace the disorder of freedom to which the 'once born' once subscribed, before becoming disillusioned with it.

279. People who find themselves in a predominantly free and objective society may well have to undergo some kind of counter-revolution to re-establish a desire for binding, but those who are habituated to a bound society will already be in a subjective position, and have only to step it up, voluntarily, to achieve their heavenly ends.

280. It is of course possible to be exposed to binding, if not actually bound, against one's (free) will, and this we call being enslaved, as and when persons with an objective disposition are encouraged to live with binding in relation to a moralistic society.

281. It is also possible to be exposed to freedom, if not actually free, against one's (bound) will, and this we call being dispossessed, as and when persons with a subjective disposition are encouraged to live with freedom in relation to an immoral society.

282. The Enslaved and the Dispossessed will generally be exceptions to the rule however, since the majority of people in any given type of society will normally be either free or bound, according to either their democratically or theocratically expressed wishes.

283. Those who were once free but subsequently find themselves living in a bound society may well consider themselves enslaved to the Bound, whereas those who were once bound but subsequently find themselves living in a free society may well consider themselves dispossessed by the Free.

284. Either way, there will be a gender antagonism between the Enslaved and the Bound on the one hand, and between the Dispossessed and the Free on the other hand, an antagonism which may or may not lead to freedom or to binding, depending on the context, for the minorities concerned.

285. A 'just society' will seek to ameliorate, as far as possible, the plight of the Dispossessed for the sake of the Free, whilst a 'wise society' will tolerate a certain degree of freedom for the sake of the Bound.

286. No society can be entirely free or entirely bound, given the gender basis for the dichotomy between freedom and binding, free will and natural determinism, but all societies will evince a bias towards one or the other, according to their ethnic bent.

287. Thus both Britain and America are 'free societies' to the extent that heathenistic criteria predominate with regard, in the one case, to 'freedom of speech' and, in the other case, to 'freedom of the press', but they also contain bound elements in relation to Christian sensibility, some of whom may well feel themselves to be of the Dispossessed.

288. Thus Ireland, to take but a single example of a Christian (Roman Catholic) country, is by and large a 'bound society' to the extent that Christian criteria preponderate with regard, for example, to 'binding to pregnancy' (as Marian requirement) and 'binding to Christ' (through the Mass), but it also contains free elements in relation to Heathen sensuality, some of whom may well feel themselves to be of the Enslaved.

289. Being enslaved in the above sense is not of course the same as being incarcerated, and neither is being dispossessed the same as being unemployed or otherwise incapacitated through redundancy, ill-health, accident, etc.

290. Anyone can be incarcerated, whether of an objective or of a subjective disposition overall, just as anyone can be unemployed and thus obliged, contrary to the imprisoned, to live with more freedom than he/she would ordinarily want.

291. The main difference, it seems to me, between the Incarcerated and the Unemployed is that whereas the former are obliged to live in binding (chains) against their will, usually as punishment for crime, the latter are obliged to live in freedom (want) against their will, as ungraceful surplus to sinful requirement.

292. Those who are obliged to live contrary to their will are thus by no means identical with those who find themselves living in societies in which the majority of people are illustrative of a contrary order of will, whether bound or free.

293. Considered morally, binding may be more desirable than freedom, but morality is a subjective consideration which will accordingly suit men more than women, as a rule, and thereby necessitate, at its 're-born' best, some Christian-type arrangement of society, contrary to Heathen practices.

294. For any fool can be deferentially bound to freedom in the 'kingdom without', but only that man who is 're-born' into subjective sensibility will be delivered (from such self-defeating deference) via binding to Christ and/or the Holy Spirit through his phenomenal self and/or noumenal self, which will accordingly be enhanced.

295. In the first instance, the perfect form of knowledge in vegetative sin; in the second instance, the perfect content(ment) of joy in airy grace - all the difference, in short, between the Church and the Centre of 'Kingdom Come', man and superman.

296. Sin is the death-in-life (of the earth) and grace the Life Eternal (of Heaven), the difference between the Crucified and the Resurrected, the ego and the mind of phenomenal subjectivity and noumenal subjectivity, with especial reference, in 'rebirth', to sensibility.

297. By contrast, crime is the Death Eternal (of Hell) and punishment the life-in-death (of purgatory), the difference between the Condemned and the Avenged, the id and the soul of noumenal objectivity and phenomenal objectivity, with especial reference, in 'once-born' contexts, to sensuality.

298. In fact, one could broaden the scope of this perspective to distinguish, in elemental terms, the fire of Eternal Death from the water of life-in-death on the one hand, that of female objectivity, while likewise distinguishing the vegetation of death-in-life from the air of Eternal Life on the other hand, that of male subjectivity.

299. Thus Eternal Death and life-in-death are metachemical and chemical actualities that have reference to materialism and realism, both of which are free proclivities, whereas death-in-life and Eternal Life are physical and metaphysical actualities that have reference to naturalism and idealism, both of which are bound proclivities.

300. Hence freedom is commensurate with death, whether absolutely, in the noumenal objectivity of space-time materialism, or relatively, in the phenomenal objectivity of volume-mass realism, both of which are free of life, through fire and water, and are thus dead.