1.   If one were to characterize the state-hegemonic axis descending from noumenal sensuality to phenomenal sensibility and, contrariwise, the church-hegemonic axis ascending from phenomenal sensuality to noumenal sensibility in terms of different numbers, I think the female orientation towards soma of the former axis and the male orientation towards psyche of the latter axis would encourage us to differentiate between 0 and 8 in connection with the one and 6 and 9 in connection with the other, though only as a preliminary to a more comprehensively exacting distinction between the primary aspects of each axis and their secondary, or subordinate, complements.

2.   For what has been called the state-hegemonic axis is no more reducible to a distinction between fire and water in respect of the descent from noumenal sensuality to phenomenal sensibility than its church-hegemonic counterpart can be reduced to a distinction between vegetation (earth) and air in respect of an ascent from phenomenal sensuality to noumenal sensibility, and therefore we can no more settle for a pat distinction between 0 and 8 in relation to the one axis than between 6 and 9 in relation to the other.

3.   Rather it seems to me that just as the state-hegemonic axis descends in primary terms from metachemistry to antichemistry, fire to antiwater, and in secondary terms from antimetaphysics to physics, anti-air to vegetation (earth), so it could be said to numerically descend from 0 to -8 or, in view of the relativity of the phenomenal, -88 in primary state-hegemonic terms and from -9 to 66 in secondary state-hegemonic terms, the former of course female and the latter male.

4.   Conversely we shall argue that just as the church-hegemonic axis ascends in primary terms from antiphysics to metaphysics, antivegetation to air, and in secondary terms from chemistry to antimetachemistry, water to antifire, so it  could be said to numerically ascend from -66 to 99 or, in view of the absolutism of the noumenal, 9 in primary church-hegemonic terms and from 88 to -0 in secondary church-hegemonic terms, the former of course male and the latter female.

5.   Therefore far from a simple polarity between 0 and 8 on the state-hegemonic axis, one would have a polarity between 0 and -88, metachemical and antichemical, upper-class free soma and anti-lowerclass bound soma on the one hand, and between -9 and 66, antimetaphysical and physical, anti-classless bound psyche and middle-class free psyche on the other hand, taking the more representatively characteristic aspects of each gender separately, irrespective of to what extent everything male in state-hegemonic society is obliged to defer to criteria dominated, in female fashion, by soma, whether free in noumenal sensuality or bound in phenomenal sensibility.

6.   Likewise, if from a contrary standpoint, far from a simple polarity between 6 and 9 on the church-hegemonic axis, one would have a polarity between -66 and 9, antiphysical and metaphysical, anti-lowerclass bound psyche and classless free psyche on the one hand, and between 88 and -0, chemical and antimetachemical, lower-class free soma and anti-upperclass bound soma on the other hand, once again taking the more representatively characteristic aspects of each gender separately, irrespective of to what extent everything female in church-hegemonic society is obliged to defer to criteria dominated, in male vein, by psyche, whether bound in phenomenal sensuality or free in noumenal sensibility.

7.   For the genders remain more or less what they are by nature (in soma) or nurture (in psyche) irrespective of contrary pressures being applied by the hegemonic or subversive gender, as the case may be, and will still be fundamentally at cross-purposes with one another despite an appearance of complementarity and seeming unanimity in partnership.  A male emphasizing, under sensual female pressures, soma contrary to his gender actuality (of psyche preceding and predominating over soma) and a female emphasizing, under sensible male pressures, psyche contrary to her gender actuality (of soma preceding and predominating over psyche) will still be fundamentally what they are by nurture or nature, and therefore at cross-purposes with their fundamental dispositions and always capable, if insufficiently subordinated, of revolting against their upended predicament, be it psychically oppressive or somatically repressive, bad from a male standpoint or, no less certainly, bad from a female standpoint.

8.   That said, the struggle by virtuous males to achieve and maintain a sensible hegemony over females duly upended and rendered somewhat at cross-purposes with their underlying gender actuality is an honourable and even noble one, and there would not be much civilization or, more specifically, culture and civility in existence, whether at a human or, in anticipation of the future, post-human and effectively cyborg stage of existence were males of a sensible stamp not disposed to such a struggle, whether on the phenomenal basis of Puritanism or on the comparatively noumenal basis of Roman Catholicism and, hopefully to a greater extent in the decades and centuries to come, of what I call Social Theocracy and view as an altogether higher and psychically freer form of religious sensibility to either what precedes it on the church-hegemonic axis or, indeed, to what exists as the sensible resolution of the state-hegemonic axis when such an axis is disposed, as in Britain traditionally, to descend from noumenal sensuality to phenomenal sensibility, as from Monarchy to Parliament in political terms and from Anglicanism to Puritanism in religious terms, terms which, with Britain, tend to confirm a church-subordinate complement to what, certainly since Henry VIII, has been a state-hegemonic mean.

9.   However that may be, the 'enemy', if I may so put it, from any male-led sensible position is always that which appertains to sensuality; for it is the outer and in some sense darker manifestation of life which, in its barbarism and/or philistinism, stands closer, in effect, to death, to the negation of civility and, above all, culture in terms of the denial of psychic freedom from standpoints rooted in free soma.  And such standpoints can only be, now as before, the product of a female hegemonic and subversive dominance of society such that is naturally disposed to everything barbarous and philistine, everything inveterately of nature and, behind nature, of the Cosmos.

10.  Therefore our choice of numerical symbols like 0 and 88 is not arbitrary but significant, it seems to me, of the vacuous nature of things female which, appertaining to a XX-chromosomal cosh, wages a seemingly unceasing and merciless war against the male side of life, not least on ego and soul, in the interests of freedoms which objectively pertain to the will and the spirit in their somatic quest for sensual dominion. 

11.  These days it could be said that civilization, certainly in the West and especially in America, is more characterized by barbarity and philistinism than by civility and culture, in reflection of what has been a drift from traditions dominated by males to more open and even - for this is almost inevitable - alpha-oriented heathenistic norms the product, in no small part, of female domination in respect of secular values generally.  For if you give a creature whose underlying chromosomal structure corresponds to XX, to a double negative in photonic and electronic terms, an inch, it won't be long before, lacking a 'Y' dimension, she will take a proverbial mile, and what has the appearance of greater democracy will in fact amount to a covert if not in the more wildly Western examples overt autocracy, in which females effectively 'call the shots', whether or not from the openly vacuous vantage-point of cathode-ray tube technology.  And the result, not surprisingly, is the height and depth of superficiality, of banality, of crudity and cruelty and immorality, as vice openly parades its freely somatic darkness all over the place with seeming impunity and increased opportunity.  The result, in other words, is anything but desirable from a male standpoint!  For the male that is under female domination is no male at all but effectively anti-male, whether as an antigod under the Devil, like the Antison of Antigod under Devil the Mother, or as antiman under woman, like the Antison of Antiman under Woman the Mother, to take the somatic, and therefore more prevalent, examples from each context.

12.  He will, in fact, be dancing to a female tune, call it antimetaphysically somatic in the antigodly context or antiphysically somatic in the antimanly context, the former more to be pitied than the latter, since the latter will, at least traditionally, have had the benefit, no matter how imperfectly, of a metaphysical hegemony over antimetachemistry to axially link with and thus have the female-dominated criteria of phenomenal sensuality switched from what would otherwise be a heathenistic - and unregenerately black - emphasis on free soma to one favouring, albeit as the product of female conditioning, bound psyche, and thus have the possibility of some degree of salvation in relation to an accommodation with free psyche of a metaphysical, not to mention in the female case antimetachemical, order, whereas the antimetaphysical male is simply a 'fall guy for infinite slag' who has no possibility of salvation whatsoever and is fated to remain in noumenal subordination to a metachemical hegemony more interested, in traditional state-hegemonic fashion, in axially linking with its gender counterpart in the phenomenally sensible 'below' in order both to protect its own free soma and guarantee to the axis in question a somatic consistency and continuity which would not otherwise be guaranteed, in the event of the physical hegemony over antichemistry being free from antichemical subversion at the behest of metachemistry and able to pursue a more rigorously-determined freely psychic course at the puritanical expense, needless to say, of bound soma, not least the antichemical soma that, with metachemical backing, is able to 'turn the tables' on such male-conditioned criteria to the extent that a somatic emphasis becomes the phenomenally sensible mean, whether physical or antichemical, with consequences already described.

13.  Therefore being a man, as opposed to a phenomenally sensual antiman, is not as advantageous a position as it might at first appear; for all such men are fated, sooner or later, to be subverted by antiwomen to the lasting advantage of the devils who rule a noumenally sensual roost from a metachemical hegemony over antimetaphysics, as over anything antimetaphysical and, as noted above, antigodly, with consequences that make for a profoundly cynical attitude to psychic freedom when such freedom is not, as in phenomenal sensibility, co-opted to the service of bound soma, as in the application of knowledge to strength.  Frankly, the puritanical are not much use to the struggle for culture against philistinism when, as physical or masculine males, they have been co-opted to the struggle of civility against barbarity, of bound soma against free soma, and such a struggle is for ever in the pocket of that which, as barbarity, makes its civility possible in the first place, being the axial guarantor, as already noted, of state-hegemonic consistency and continuity.  Such a 'struggle' is indeed a very relative and conditional affair, since it is fundamentally part-and-parcel of the axial integrity which makes for the aforementioned stability and dare not or, more to the point, cannot oppose such stability, no matter how much it might see itself as standing in opposition to autocracy and as, in some sense, the guarantor of constitutionality if not, in the estimation of radical parliamentarians, democratic freedom and progressive change!

14.  But in reality the concept of democratic freedom is a misnomer; for the somatically bound are manifestly not free, like their noumenal counterparts in metachemistry and even antimetaphysics, and such freedom as obtains in relation to puritanism, as to church-subordinate criteria in general, being psychic, is decidedly secondary to the bound soma which constitutes the parliamentary aspect of state-hegemonic society and ensures that the democratic, whether left, right, or centrist, remain bound, or loyal, to the reigning monarch, whose somatic freedom is alone sovereign, if constitutionally held in check by parliamentary procedure.

15.  Thus the democratic, in what remains a phenomenally sensible extrapolation from noumenal sensuality, are anything but free, being, together with their antibureaucratic counterparts in antichemistry, the bound somatic antithesis to the freely somatic autocrats and, for antimetaphysical males, antitechnocrats who rule a state-hegemonic roost in the interests of matriarchal values, values characterized, in metachemical free soma, by the criminal acquiescence of bound psyche in evil to the greater glory or, rather, power of the State, as conceived primarily in terms of its authoritarian rather than parliamentary manifestation, and therefore in relation to the reigning monarch as overall Head of State.

16.  Freedom is not, nor ever could be, a principal characteristic of 'the world', whether in its phenomenally sensible or, across the ethnic divide, phenomenally sensual manifestations, since it is necessary to the well-being of 'the world' that it remains primarily bound vis-à-vis the relevant axial controlling emphasis towards either free soma, as in the case of the state hegemonic, or free psyche, as in the case, by contrast, of the church hegemonic.  Therefore democracy is no more free than antibureaucracy vis-à-vis the controlling autocracy and antitechnocracy of the noumenally sensual Behind, just as, in church-hegemonic society, plutocracy is no more free than antimeritocracy vis-à-vis the controlling theocracy and anti-aristocracy of the noumenally sensible Beyond - theocracy linking with antimeritocracy and anti-aristocracy with plutocracy in no-less psychically free to bound terms than autocracy with antibureaucracy and antitechnocracy with democracy in the free to bound somatic terms of the state hegemonic.

17.  Such phenomenal freedom as exists in traditional church-hegemonic and state-hegemonic societies is ever subordinate to the prevailing binding, be it somatic in phenomenal sensuality or psychic in phenomenal sensibility, and therefore no more than the axial counterpart to the respective manifestations of bound soma and bound psyche that are themselves subordinate, at least theoretically, to the prevailing noumenal ideals, be such ideals psychic by dint of a metaphysical hegemony over antimetachemistry in noumenal sensibility or somatic by dint of a metachemical hegemony over antimetaphysics in noumenal sensuality.

18.  Therefore, unlike its Catholic counterpart, Puritan freedom is bound, sooner or later, to be subordinated to parliamentary binding, as follows from the antichemical subversion of physics to a bound somatic emphasis the logical antithesis to such freedom as somatically proclaims its triumph over the world from the netherworldly heights of the noumenally sensual Behind, with particular reference to its monarchically hegemonic manifestation in metachemistry.

19.  Of course, my thinking all along has been to divide Catholicism between phenomenal sensuality and noumenal sensibility, and to contrast this with a division, in Protestantism, between Anglicanism and Puritanism, the former affiliated, in bound-psychic church-subordinate vein, to Monarchism and the latter, in free-psychic church-subordinate vein, to Parliamentarianism, so that damnation in relation to a descent from free soma to bound soma in state-hegemonic terms would have to be contrasted with counter-salvation from bound psyche to free psyche in respect of any correlative descent from Anglicanism to Puritanism.

20.  Much of this I still find highly plausible and therefore no concern for revisionary alarm.  Where I erred, I now believe, was in dividing Roman Catholicism itself between phenomenal sensuality and noumenal sensibility with no reference whatsoever to the place of Eastern Orthodoxy in such a division, credible as any such division must remain up to a point, and that precisely one that excludes the overall status, if you will, of Eastern Orthodoxy within not merely the Christian but, more specifically, Catholic fold.  For Orthodoxy is much older than Protestantism and certainly closer to Roman Catholicism without being, in any sense, un-Christian, or pagan.  Therefore it behoves us to allot it a position at the foot of the church-hegemonic axis as though in reaction to the more idealistic standing of Roman Catholicism, a reaction which has to allow for its want of confessional transcendentalism and/or antifundamentalism in respect of verbal absolution for penitential contrition, and which therefore places it closer, in a manner of speaking, to a paganistic backdrop, not least in terms of its greater reliance than Romanism on iconography as though in heliotropic deference of the earth to some sublimated solar diffusion of light and colour.

21.  I shall say little about topographical features more characteristic of the Orthodox East than of the Roman West, nor about climatic differentials, although both of these factors, not least in relation to the flat steppes and intensely cold winters of Eastern Europe, could doubtless be cited as contributory to the phenomenally sensual status, overall, of Eastern Orthodoxy vis-à-vis its Latin counterpart, a counterpart which has always made the confessional of paramount importance in the salvation of souls by a redemptive grace emanating, via the priestly intercessor between the confessee to sinful behaviour and the Christian Lord Himself, from a post-resurrectional Saviour as conceived of from a specifically Catholic and therefore implicitly transcendentalist if not antifundamentalist point of view, one which it would be difficult if not impossible to concretize in view of the abstract nature of all things transcendent and the product, in no small degree, of faith, faith, not least, that what once achieved resurrectional transcendence of the flesh will return, duly transformed, as the Second Coming to save more efficaciously from worldly sin that which, without his intervention, would remain dependent on priestly intercession and - I have to say - mere verbal absolution.

22.  Yet if Roman Catholicism is higher, in comparative terms, than Eastern Orthodoxy, by dint of its implicit transcendentalism and lesser overall commitment to fundamentalism, as especially applicable to the Old Testament, then it is arguably to Catholicism what Puritanism is to Protestantism, that is to say, the sensible pole of an axis which has a sensual antithesis - phenomenal in the case of Eastern Orthodoxy, noumenal in the case of Anglicanism, so that we may contrast to the Anglican-to-Puritan antithesis of church-subordinate society within a state-hegemonic axial framework an Orthodox-to-Roman antithesis of church-hegemonic criteria which would traditionally have co-existed with state-subordinate criteria within an axial context far more Christian, in its Catholicism, than secular or heathenistic in character.

23.  However that may be, I don't doubt that few societies are ever wholly consistent with either a Christian or a secular disposition, and there are grounds enough within Roman Catholicism, never mind Eastern Orthodoxy, for ambivalence and even ambiguity to creep into the overall equation and make it easier for periods of state ascendancy to occur whether or not the Church played any role in their encouragement.  Few societies are ever independent of outside intervention, and virtually all societies, when they are not riven by ideological or denominational disparities, have sizeable minorities whose ethnic allegiance may well be at variance with the overall societal bias of their particular country, be it state hegemonic, as in the case of Britain, or church hegemonic, as in the case of Ireland, with especial reference to Eire as that part of Ireland outside the United Kingdom.

24.  Nevertheless a distinction between state-hegemonic societies and church-hegemonic societies, as in the case of the United Kingdom and Eire, is generally discernible and characteristic, moreover, of alternative gender standpoints - female and therefore effectively matriarchal in the case of the former, male and therefore no-less effectively patriarchal in the case of the latter, where, as already noted, things generally ascend from phenomenal sensuality to noumenal sensibility, as though from sin to grace.

25.  That, of course, would be only a part of the story, even without church/state relativities to bear in mind; for of course gender is a factor that complicates the overall picture, making for a different set of criteria in respect of, for instance, chemical to antimetachemical ascendancy as the subordinate corollary of anything antiphysical to metaphysical.  But then, quite apart from the existence of contrary axial positions in state-hegemonic society, matters are further complicated by the historical distinctions that arise, as noted in my previous text, between genuinely phenomenal and pseudo noumenal positions in respect of traditional worldly societies and the converse situations that characterize the emerging or emergent post-worldly societies which, whether with a netherworldly or an otherworldly bias, are less genuine below and more genuine above, making, as in the American case, for a pseudo-phenomenally sensible to noumenally sensual axial link and for the possibility to come, in countries like Eire, of a pseudo-phenomenally sensual (for we cannot exclude the generality of Roman Catholics from a worldly position despite the benefits of proxy grace through confession) to noumenally sensible axial link the exact counterpart or antithesis to anything the contemporary post-worldly situation embodies.