PART TWO: EVALUATIONS
CONTRASTING TYPES OF SANITY AND INSANITY
1. Just as people tend to think of freedom in
terms of sensuality or sensibility rather than both, with emphases upon either
somatic fact in the one case or psychic truth in the other, and contrary
corollaries in terms of illusion and fiction, so they tend to think that sanity
is one thing rather than another, never for a moment imagining that it could be
one thing or another, according to the context prevailing with them or their
society in terms of its characterization as the dominance of one gender by the other.
2. But the reality of the matter is that sanity
can be either fact-based and female or truth-based and male, either sensual or
sensible, like the people of which societies are composed, and that emphasis
upon one type of sanity, according to the prevailing ethos, tends to diminish
if not exclude the other, in consequence of which sanity comes to be
identified, in most people's minds, with the gender bias of their particular
society, be it empirical and fact-based, or rationalistic and truth-oriented.
3. But a sanity that is fact-based and objective
will always be the consequence of somatic freedom, and therefore something
which prevails in female-conditioned societies as an expression of that freedom
to be loyal to itself in terms of the precedence of psyche by soma in ratios of
either 3:1, viz. most particles/least wavicles, or
2½:1½, viz. more (relative to most) particles/less (relative to least) wavicles, the former, as we have seen, metachemical
and the latter chemical.
4. Consequently factual sanity, which follows
from free soma, will always be the evil and clear mode of sanity par
excellence, in consequence of the barbarous and criminal freedoms of the
will and the spirit per se which follow from the hegemony of females in
societies empirically deferential to the precedence of psyche by soma in either
or both of the above-mentioned ratios.
Factual sanity will be absolute or relative, with a tendency to
emphasize either the evil or clear, powerful or glorious, manifestations of metachemical and/or chemical objectivity, with particular
organic reference to the eyes in the one case and to the tongue in the other,
the former commensurate with freedom of the camera-wielding press, the latter
with freedom of speech, not least of all politically.
5. By contrast, a sanity that is truth-based and
subjective will always be the consequence of psychic freedom, and therefore
something which prevails in male-conditioned societies as an expression or,
rather, impression of that freedom to be loyal to itself in terms of the
precedence of soma by psyche in ratios of either 2½:1½, viz. more (relative to
most) wavicles/less (relative to least) particles, or
3:1, viz. most wavicles/least particles, the former,
as we have seen, physical and the latter metaphysical.
6. Consequently truthful sanity, which follows
from free psyche, will always be the wise and holy mode of sanity par
excellence, in consequence of the cultural and graceful freedoms of the ego
and the soul per se which follow from the hegemony of males in societies
rationalistically deferential to the precedence of soma by psyche in either or
both of the above-mentioned ratios.
Truthful sanity will be relative or absolute, with a tendency to
emphasize either the wise or holy, formal or contented, manifestations of
physical and/or metaphysical subjectivity, with particular organic reference to
the brain in the one case and to the lungs in the other, the former
commensurate with freedom of thought, the latter with freedom of conscience,
which has more to do with emotions than thoughts, whether prayerful or
otherwise.
7. Therefore sanity is divisible, on this gender
hegemonic basis, between the facticity of contexts
where soma predominates over psyche and the self, rooted in the brain stem and spinal
cord, accordingly takes second place to the not-self, i.e. the eyes and/or
tongue, and the truthfulness, by contrast, of contexts where psyche
predominates over soma and the self, centred in the brain stem and spinal cord,
accordingly takes precedence over the not-self, i.e. the brain-proper and/or
lungs. There is the factual sanity of
objective freedom of the press and/or speech on the one hand, and the truthful
sanity of subjective freedom of thought and/or conscience on the other hand,
the former pair evil and the latter pair wise, the former clear and the latter
holy.
8. So much for sanity! What, then, of insanity? Is it not likewise divisible between two main
alternatives, the one male and the other female? I believe, in general terms, it is, and
therefore I can well conceive that the subordination of males in contexts where
somatic freedom is the female rule will make for males who are less than
truthfully sane, if not illusorily insane, in the secondary damned/cursed
extents to which soma is emphasized at the expense of psyche, while,
conversely, I have to concede that the subordination of females in contexts
where psychic freedom is the male rule will make for females who are less than
factually sane, if not fictionally insane, in the secondary saved/blessed
extents to which psyche is emphasized at the expense of soma.
9. But why do males become illusorily insane in
contexts where females are freely hegemonic, and females, by contrast,
fictionally insane in contexts where males are freely hegemonic? Quite apart from the correlation of illusion
with somatic sensuality for males and of fiction with psychic sensibility for
females, the under-plane counterparts, in each case, to the rule of either
somatic fact or psychic truth, males are coerced, in sensuality, to emphasize
soma at the expense of psyche, and thus to acquiesce in a context which is
unrepresentative of their gender reality as creatures for whom psyche,
preceding soma in either relative (physical) or absolute (metaphysical) ratios,
predominates over soma and should, by sensible right, dominate soma, while
females, by contrast, are coerced, in sensibility, to emphasize psyche at the
expense of soma, and thus to acquiesce in a context which is equally
unrepresentative of their gender reality as creatures for whom soma, preceding
psyche in either absolute (metachemical) or relative
(chemical) ratios, predominates over psyche and should, by sensual right,
dominate psyche.
10. Therefore both genders, when not 'true' to
themselves, become contrarily insane to the extent that they wind-up
acquiescing, under hegemonic pressures from the gender to which they are
subordinate, in factors which far from being representative of their gender are
at cross-purposes with it, damning them from the blessings of truthful light in
the male case to the cursedness of illusory darkness, of somatic freedom, and
saving them from the cursedness of factual darkness in the female case to the
blessings of fictional light, of psychic freedom.
11. Consequently while damnation works out hegemonically in barbarous/criminal favour of free females,
whose sanity in harmony with their gender structure is of the factually somatic
variety, it transpires to work against the interest of males, who become
illusorily insane in the philistinism/sinfulness of being somatically at
cross-purposes with their gender in under-plane subservience of either physics
to chemistry in the lower-class context of mass/volume sensual phenomenality or of metaphysics to metachemistry
in the upper-class context of time/space sensual noumenality.
12. Contrariwise, while salvation works out hegemonically in cultural/graceful favour of free males,
whose sanity in harmony with their gender structure is of the truthfully
psychic variety, it transpires to work against the interest of females, who
become fictionally insane in the civility/punishingness
of being psychically at cross-purposes with their gender in under-plane
subservience of either chemistry to physics in the lower-class context of
mass/volume sensible phenomenality or of metachemistry to metaphysics in the upper-class context of
time/space sensible noumenality.
13. Thus either the tongue dominates the phallus
in the phenomenal sensuality of mass/volume or the eyes dominate the ears in
the noumenal sensuality of time/space, while,
contrariwise, either the brain dominates the womb in the phenomenal sensibility
of mass/volume or the lungs dominate the heart in the noumenal
sensibility of time/space.
14. When the female is free she is sane, or
evil/clear, in accordance with the predominance of somatic fact, but the male,
constrained to under-plane subservience, becomes insane, or unwise/unholy, in
accordance with the subordination of psyche to somatic illusion, if not, in
gender-bender cases, to somatic fact as such.
15. When, by contrast, the male is free he is
sane, or wise/holy, in accordance with the predominance of psychic truth, but
the female, constrained to under-plane subservience, becomes insane, or unevil/unclear, in accordance with the subordination of
soma to psychic fiction, if not, in gender-bender cases, to psychic truth as
such.
16. How do males get to be comparatively insane in
relation to the sanity of truth which ordinarily rules their psychic bias? Being creatures for whom psyche predominates
over soma in ratios of either 2½:1½ in physics or 3:1 in metaphysics, the more
(relative to most) wavicle/less (relative to least)
particle and most wavicle/least particle bases in ego
and soul of males, the free psyche of ego and soul is undone through
outflanking by superego and id, spiritualized, or superconscious,
ego and instinctualized, or unconscious, soul, on the
part of somatically free females and rendered bound, or determined by spirit
and will, to an extent whereby it becomes acquiescent in somatic freedom and
able to accept the philistinism and sinfulness of the damned and cursed
realities of an emphasis upon soma, and this contrary to its normal preference
for the truthful sanity of free ego and/or soul in sensibility.
17. Therefore it becomes paradoxically acquiescent
in the illusory vices of physical and/or metaphysical soma and no longer wise
and holy but unwise (foolish) and unholy - in a word, insane. For it has turned against its own gender
reality and must now reap the upended if not upbended
consequences of the insane deference of illusory soma to somatic fact, which is
psychic perdition.
18. How, on the other hand, do females get to be
comparatively insane in relation to the sanity of fact which ordinarily rules
their somatic bias? Being creatures for
whom soma predominates over psyche in ratios of either 2½:1½ in chemistry or
3:1 in metachemistry, the more (relative to most)
particle/less (relative to least) wavicle and most
particle/least wavicle bases in spirit and will of
females, the free soma of will and spirit in undone through inflanking,
as it were, by natwill and subspirit,
intellectualized, or natural, will and emotionalized, or subnatural,
spirit, on the part of psychically free males and rendered bound, or determined
by ego and soul, to an extent whereby it becomes acquiescent in psychic freedom
and able to accept the civility and punishingness of
the saved and blessed realities of an emphasis upon psyche, and this contrary
to its normal preference for the factual sanity of free will and/or spirit in
sensuality.
19. Therefore it becomes paradoxically acquiescent
in the fictional virtues of chemical and/or metachemical
psyche and no longer evil and clear but unevil (good)
and unclear - in a word, insane. For it
has turned against its own gender reality and must now reap the upended if not upbended consequences of the insane deference of fictional
psyche to psychic truth, which is somatic perdition.
20. Life, like it or not, is a gender tug-of-war,
and the gains of the one gender can only be achieved at the expense of the
losses of the other. Males are not meant
to be naturally foolish or unholy, but end-up becoming such under evil and
clear somatic pressures from hegemonic females in sensuality. Conversely, females are not meant to be
naturally - one could, and I guess, should say 'nurturally'
- good or unclear, but end-up becoming such under wise and holy psychic
pressures from hegemonic males in sensibility.
21. The naturalness or 'nurturalness'
of being in harmony with one's gender brings sanity, but it also means that, in
damned/cursed contexts, either barbarism and criminality factually prevail at
the expense of the illusory insanity of philistinism and sinfulness or, in
saved/blessed contexts, culture and gracefulness truthfully prevail at the
expense of the fictional insanity of civility and punishingness.
22. Either evil/clearness has its way, in somatic
freedom, at the immediate expense of unwisdom/unholiness,
the pseudo-curse of psychic binding of males, or wisdom/holiness has its way,
in psychic freedom, at the immediate expense of unevil/unclearness,
the pseudo-blessing of somatic binding of females. For cursedness, remember, is always primarily
a matter of somatic freedom and blessedness, by contrast, primarily a matter of
psychic freedom, and when males are cursed with psychic determinism in
sensuality it is a pseudo-curse that necessarily prevails, albeit in relation
to a secondary order of somatic cursedness in philistinism and sinfulness that
is anything but pseudo, in contrast to the pseudo-blessedness that necessarily
prevails in somatic determinism when females are blessed with the psychic
freedom of civility and punishingness in sensibility,
and then in relation to a secondary order of blessedness in unevil
(goodness) and unclearness that is anything but pseudo.
23. For cursedness can no more be psychic than
blessedness somatic. The cursed are
always somatic and the blessed psychic, even though the secondary orders of
cursedness and blessedness are always the product of the primary orders of
cursedness and blessedness operating through their respective quasi-cursed
(bound psychic) or quasi-blessed (bound somatic) corollaries, since males can
only be undone through psychic outflanking and females, by contrast, through
somatic inflanking, and neither bound psyche nor
bound soma are strictly germane to factual or truthful sanities of either
gender but, rather, their quasi-factual and quasi-truthful accomplices.
