PART ONE: REVALUATIONS

QUALIFYING FREEDOM

1. Men and women or, rather, males and females (for we would not wish to exclude the upper-class categories of gods and devils) are, by definition, gender opposites - the former characterized by a bias, in physics and metaphysics, vegetation (earth) and air, for subjectivity in relation to a hegemonic psyche, the latter characterized by a bias, in metachemistry and chemistry, fire and water, for objectivity in relation to a hegemonic soma, and therefore we cannot, at risk of philosophic suicide, regard or treat them equally, as though they were the same. For the reality of their differences will remain even if, through philosophical ignorance, we apply identical criteria to both sexes, as to life in general, conveniently or unwittingly overlooking the fact that it is divisible between objective and subjective, female and male, factors, the former of which owe their origin to a vacuum, the latter to a plenum.

2. Males, whether phenomenal in mass/volume or noumenal in time/space, physical or metaphysical, are characterized not only by the predominance of psyche over soma, but by the precedence of soma by psyche, and therefore of particles by wavicles and, in an equivalent subjective sense, of illusion by truth.

3. Females, by contrast, whether noumenal in space/time or phenomenal in volume/mass, metachemical or chemical, are characterized not only by the predominance of soma over psyche, but by the precedence of psyche by soma, and therefore of wavicles by particles and, in an equivalent objective sense, of fiction by fact.

4. Therefore the truth of psychic precedence in more (relative to most) wavicles/less (relative to least) particles for physical males and most wavicles/least particles for metaphysical males, has to be contrasted with the fact of somatic precedence in most particles/least wavicles for metachemical females and more (relative to most) particles/less (relative to least) wavicles for chemical females, as one would contrast men and gods with devils and women, or, in elemental terms, the subjectivity of vegetation and air with the objectivity of fire and water.

5. That which is extrapolated from a particle hegemony in somatic fact will partake of a psychically fictional status in subordinate wavicles, whereas that which is extrapolated from a wavicle hegemony in psychic truth will partake of a somatically illusory status in subordinate particles. The former, being female, will entail a fundamentalist subordination to materialism in metachemistry and a nonconformist subordination to realism in chemistry. The latter, being male, will entail a naturalist subordination to humanism in physics and an idealist subordination to transcendentalism in metaphysics.

6. Therefore far from being equal in significance, materialism and realism, corresponding to somatic metachemistry and chemistry, will be primary modes of soma, and naturalism and idealism, their physical and metaphysical counterparts, secondary modes of soma, while, in psychic metachemical and chemical contrast, fundamentalism and nonconformism will be secondary modes of psyche, and humanism and transcendentalism their primary counterparts in physics and metaphysics.

7. For somatic fact takes precedence, whether on absolute or relative terms, over psychic fiction on the objective, or female, side of life, while psychic truth takes precedence, whether on relative or absolute terms, over somatic illusion on the subjective, or male, side of life - at least in theory and according to the extent to which each gender is being loyal to itself and has not been subordinated to the interests of the opposite gender.

8. The subordination of the one gender to the other, however, tends to be the societal norm, since society cannot properly function if fact and truth have equal weight or importance when, in reality, such somatic and psychic contrasts tend to be in moral opposition, with contrary concepts of freedom attending each. With somatic freedom, the State tends to take precedence over the Church, and scientific and political interests take control of society in the name of the secular objectivities of a female disposition. With psychic freedom, by contrast, the Church tends to take precedence over the State, and economic and religious interests take control of society in the name of the ecclesiastic subjectivities of a male disposition.

9. Some kind of amoral or androgynous cross-breeding is, of course, possible and does occasionally occur, with overly liberal implications. But, by and large, stable societies require either the rule of somatic freedom in secular objectivity or the rule of psychic freedom in ecclesiastic subjectivity, since vacillation between the one and the other is not only socially undesirable but morally and practically undesirable to boot, bearing in mind the need for a specific commitment, one way or the other, if chaos or anarchy is not to prevail.

10. So one cannot simply proclaim a commitment to freedom without begging the question: to what kind of freedom are you committed? at least from anyone who has sufficient philosophical and moral insight to realize that freedom needs to be qualified according to gender, and that there are accordingly two kinds of female, or somatic, freedom on the objective side of life and two kinds of male, or psychic, freedom on its subjective side, neither of which is much given to the idea of sharing freedom with the other or even of admitting that alternatives exist, whether in relation to themselves or, more critically, across the gender divide, where they of course transcend class and become more susceptible to distinctions of fact and truth.

11. Granted that freedom is a meaningless word without due qualification according to gender, we have to allow that societies given to somatic freedom in objective fact will be the natural enemies of those for whom psychic freedom in subjective truth is the ideal, since one cannot have it both ways when the security of each depends upon the exclusion, to all intents and purposes, of the other, be it factual or truthful, female or male, evil or wise, criminal or graceful, of the free state or of the free church.

12. When people speak of freedom without qualification it is either because they are ignorant of the fact that freedom is or can be other than how they conceive of it or, conditioned by one type of freedom within stable societies, are so much a product of their particular type of society that they take its concept of freedom for granted, since such freedom is so much the rule that the exception, if recognizable, hardly warrants consideration. Therefore they talk and act as though only one concept or kind of freedom existed, and would incline to the view that alternative freedoms or, rather, societies, if contrary to their own, might well be the enemies of freedom and likely, in consequence, to enslave them.

13. But to what? That, of course, is another thing, and returning from the hypothetical plane of people in general to the specific plane of this writer's particular theory, we should allow that the rule of one gender over another means that either a lot of males will be corrupted in the case of a female hegemony or, conversely, a lot of females corrupted in the case of a male hegemony, since the one gender's meat is effectively the poison of the opposite gender, whatever they may think or say.

14. Consequently if somatic freedom is objectively paramount in factual darkness, the darkness of criminal evil for females, then males will be corrupted in terms of illusory darkness, the darkness of sinful folly, and accordingly be no better than antigods to devils or antimen to women, bearing in mind the class distinction that exists between the sensuality of time and space in relation to somatic noumenality and the sensuality of mass and volume in relation to somatic phenomenality.

15. However, if psychic freedom is subjectively paramount in truthful light, the light of graceful wisdom for males, then females will be corrupted in terms of fictional light, the light of punishing goodness, and accordingly be no better than antiwomen to men or antidevils to gods, bearing in mind the class distinction that exists between the sensibility of mass and volume in relation to psychic phenomenality and the sensibility of time and space in relation to psychic noumenality.

16. In the one case, that of a somatically free society, the vices of crime and sin, with evil and foolish consequences. In the other case, that of a psychically free society, the virtues of grace and punishment, with wise and good consequences. The antigods and/or antimen of the former types of society will not be devils or women but simply that which, not being properly godly or manly, divine or masculine, exists under the hegemonic rule of devils and/or women, diabolic and/or feminine types of female. Conversely, the antiwomen and/or antidevils of the latter types of society will not be men or gods but simply that which, not being properly womanly or devilish, feminine or diabolic, exists under the hegemonic rule of men and/or gods, masculine and/or divine types of male.

17. This logic should prove that one cannot have it both ways, for life is really a gender tug-of-war between darkness and light, somatic and psychic orders of freedom, and the rule of the one gender by the other is only possible on the basis of the corruption of the opposite gender in terms that remove it from its ideal to a subordinate position at cross-purposes with itself whereby, far from being holy or clear, it is either unholy or unclear, depending on gender. For that which is sensually hegemonic is characterized by the clearness of criminal evil, which rules over the unholiness of sinful folly, whereas that which is sensibly hegemonic is characterized by the holiness of graceful wisdom, which rules over the unclearness of punishing goodness.