ON THE SUBJECT OF BLESSEDNESS

The notion of God blessing oneself or others is false, since deriving from 'bovarized' notions of God which owe nothing to metaphysics, the elemental context of soul par excellence in which ego has no other business than to get itself, as something godly, into heaven. One might say that God is blessed with Heaven or, put differently, the grace of godly truth is blessed with the holiness of heavenly joy. That is it and that is all it ever could be, in truth.

Hence the graceful truth of metaphysical ego, which is godly, is blessed with the holy joy of metaphysical soul, which is heavenly, and therefore God the Father is blessed with Heaven the Holy Soul. It is even true to say that God the Son is blessed with the Holy Spirit of Heaven, since what metaphysically applies to free psyche also applies to its male gender corollary in bound soma, except that here it is the wisdom of metaphysical will, which is son-of-godly, that is blessed with the holy woe of metaphysical spirit, which is the heavenliness of metaphysical not-self, the spiritual heavenliness that, in relation to humankind, one could identify with the breath as against, for anything son-of-godly, the lungs. Therefore, in the bound somatic state-subordinate metaphysical corollary of a church-hegemonic psychic freedom, it could be said that the Son of God is blessed with the Holy Spirit of Heaven, even though such a spiritual heaven is a far cry from the soulful heaven of perfect self-harmony, which is less a thing of the breath issuing from son-of-godly lungs than of the spinal cord to which the self has attained in the transcendence of brain-stem ego.

However that may be - and we should not forget that, with me, psyche preceding soma as male actuality requires the metaphorical association of father preceding son -, metaphysics is the elemental context of most soul, more (in relation to most) ego, less (in relation to least) spirit, and least will, the 'more ego' and 'most soul' constitutive of psychic freedom and the 'less spirit' and 'least will' of somatic binding. And this ratio-like integrity of metaphysics would be true whether the metaphysics was cosmic and least evolved, natural and less (relative to least) evolved, human and more (relative to most) evolved or cyborg (to slightly anticipate the future) and most evolved, the 'most evolved' according with the definitive manifestation of metaphysics in which the holiness of perfect self-harmony will be most developed because not having to contend, as lesser manifestations of metaphysics do and have done in the past, with subversive vitiation at the hands, so to speak, of either metachemical, chemical, or physical 'bovaryizations' of religion - and hence of the concept of godliness - in relation to the Cosmos, nature, and mankind which have tended to marginalize metaphysics and undermine anything approaching true religion from standpoints rooted in either science, politics, or economics, as the prevailing case may be, often with one or more of these 'bovarized' religions prevailing, to different degrees, at once, and therefore further undermining the possibility of metaphysical self-realization.

For, contrary to metaphysics, metachemistry is the elemental context of most will, more (relative to most) spirit, less (relative to least) ego, and least soul, in consequence of which a society dominated by metachemical religion, in materialist/fundamentalist fiery vein, will grant maximum religious prominence to will at the expense of soul and therefore of anything metaphysical.

Similarly, chemistry is the elemental context of most spirit, more (relative to most) will, less (relative to least) soul, and least ego, in consequence of which a society dominated by chemical religion, in realist/nonconformist watery vein, will grant maximum religious prominence to spirit at the expense of ego and therefore of anything physical.

Likewise, physics is the elemental context of most ego, more (relative to most) soul, less (relative to least) will, and least spirit, in consequence of which a society dominated by physical religion, in humanist/naturalist vegetative (or earthy) vein, will grant maximum religious prominence to ego at the expense of spirit and therefore of anything chemical.

Obviously, although, as noted above, metaphysics is the elemental context of most soul, more (relative to most) ego, less (relative to least) spirit, and least will, it won't be able to achieve its definitive manifestation while the 'bovaryized' modes of religion still prevail and assail it from standpoints in which either will, spirit, or ego take precedence over soul. Only when it is fully self-conscious of what it is and of what it must do to reign supreme will it be able to triumph over the false religions of will (cosmic), spirit (natural), and ego (human), thereby inaugurating the age, commensurate with 'kingdom come', of genuine religion, in which everything will be subordinated to the attainment by males of perfect self-harmony in soul for a metaphysics that is beyond not only anything cosmic and natural, but human as well, a metaphysics, in short, which is effectively cyborgistic and therefore fully metaphysical, in the clear from vitiation at the proverbial hands of anything cosmic, natural, or human, unlike its least evolved, less (relative to least) evolved, and more (relative to most) evolved preceding manifestations.

For metaphysics, to repeat, is the elemental context in which the grace of godly truth in metaphysical ego is blessed with the holiness of heavenly joy in metaphysical soul, and self-transcendence from ego to soul, godliness to heavenliness, truth to joy, brain stem to spinal cord, is accordingly a prerequisite of metaphysical perfection. The true God-nurture does not bless others but is content with his own blessedness, which is to be blessed with the joyful redemption of godly ego in heavenly soul, that is to say, in the heavenliness of perfect self-centredness.

This is the destiny of the saintly, which institutionally will require the complementarity of pseudo-metachemical angels whose bound soma and free psyche, conditioned by metaphysical pressures, will nonetheless be at variance with the free psyche and bound soma of the metaphysical, since reflective of a female rather than male ratio of noumenal absolutism, as described by me in other writings, not least those associated with my philosophy-proper, whereby soma will always predominate over psyche and due attention must therefore be paid to the neutralization of will and spirit in relation to soma if a degree of free ego and soul is to materialize as the secondary church-hegemonic complement of the metaphysical ego and soul reigning a plane above in what would be time over pseudo-space, eternity over pseudo-infinity, like St George with his foot on the prostrate form of a slain dragon commensurate, in tight dress-like vein, with what is properly angelic.

But such angels are not blessed with gender sync, like their male counterparts, but are decidedly counter-cursed with the bound soma and free psyche of what results from a male hegemonic control. For the blessedness of the metaphysical can only be maintained at the expense of the cursedness, or, in relation to church-hegemonic axial criteria, counter-cursedness of the pseudo-metachemical. That which, in metaphysics, has been saved from the world of pseudo-physics is destined to prevail over the counter-damnation of the chemical to pseudo-metachemistry. Such is the logic of deliverance of the sinful/foolish meek and pseudo-criminal/pseudo-evil pseudo-vain from their worldly phenomenality to the otherworldly and pseudo-netherworldly noumenality of the graceful/wise righteous and the pseudo-punished/pseudo-good pseudo-just.

ALE AND STOUT

Anyone familiar with my philosophy will know that I distinguish the southwest from the southeast points of the intercardinal axial compass on the basis of an equivocal female hegemony in chemistry over an upended male position of antiphysics-cum-pseudo-physics (which from now on we shall simply refer to as pseudo-physics) from an equivocal male hegemony in physics over an upended female position of antichemistry-cum-pseudo-chemistry (which shall likewise be simplified to pseudo-chemistry), thus in effect distinguishing water over pseudo-earth (or pseudo-vegetation) from earth (or vegetation) over pseudo-water or, in vulgar parlance, piss over pseudo-shit from shit over pseudo-piss, the former pairing akin, in sartorial terms, to a flouncy skirt over flared pants and the latter akin to tapering pants over a tapering skirt, as though in a distinction, generally speaking, between sensuality and sensibility or, more correctly, sensuality and pseudo-sensibility on the one hand, and sensibility and pseudo-sensuality on the other, the centrifugal and the centripetal, a context governed by objectivity in female vein and one governed, in male vein, by subjectivity, even if the respective lower-plane positions have to be more representatively characterized as pseudo-subjective and pseudo-objective in keeping with their gender orientations.

So what does all this have to do with ale and stout beers? Let me answer that query in the following way. Taking our gender and sartorial parallels from the above, we should be able to argue, with some justification and overlooking for the moment populist notions that would tend to intuitively confirm this, that bottles parallel skirts and cans parallel pants (or jeans), since bottles tend to be transparent (and water-affirming) whereas cans are somewhat opaque (and earthy), a distinction, after all, between female and male criteria. Therefore we should be able to distinguish bottles over cans on the one hand, that of the southwest point of the intercardinal axial compass, from cans over bottles on the other hand, that of the southeast point of the said compass, as though in a distinction, once again, between flared skirts and flared pants vis-a-vis tapering pants and tapering skirts.

But what is it, you may wonder, that leads one to infer a flared or a tapering parallel to the respective types of bottles and cans? Not necessarily the shape of the bottle or can, nor even of the top or widget. What seems to satisfy this requirement is less the medium in which beer is stored than the nature of the beer itself, i.e. whether it lends itself to a watery (piss) or to an earthy (shit) correlation, which, so far as I am concerned, is precisely the distinction between light ale and/or lager and stout and/or brown ale, to simplify the options.

In other words, chemistry over pseudo-physics = bottled light ale over canned light ale, whereas physics over pseudo-chemistry = canned stout over bottled stout, the former pairing exemplifying the overall influence of female criteria and the latter ... that of males, as, I would argue, would that between lager and brown ale.

Therefore a female-dominated distinction between, for instance, bottled light ale and canned light ale has to be distinguished from a male-dominated distinction between canned stout and bottled stout, the former pairing susceptible to identification with flared phenomenal (relative as opposed, like say dresses to absolute) clothing and the latter to what tapers as though from the hegemony not of water (piss) but of earthiness (shit).

Now what is particularly interesting about this finding, if I may so put it, is that traditionally the southwest point of the intercardinal axial compass, in which volume is hegemonic over pseudo-mass, would be identifiable, in overall axial terms, with church-hegemonic (catholic) criteria, whereas the southeast point of the said compass, in which mass is hegemonic over pseudo-volume, would be identifiable, in overall axial terms, with state-hegemonic (puritan or protestant) criteria, which is also, as far as these lower-order points of the axes in question are concerned, to make a distinction between Gaelic football and Association football, since the traditional noumenal, or upper-order, poles to these points tend to encompass hurling in the catholic case and rugby in the protestant one, where the religious correlations would be rather more Roman Catholic with, certainly in Eire, an Old English rather than Gaelic connotation and, in England and Britain generally, Anglican rather than Puritan.

Be that as it may, the British Isles has long been a rather paradoxical place, where people tend to be at cross-purposes with themselves in so many contexts, not least in terms of beer-drinking habits, which has seen people of Irish Catholic descent traditionally favouring stout (the beer of the parliamentary/puritan southeast point of the intercardinal axial compass) and people of English Protestant, if not puritan, descent favouring ale, not least in its light or lager-like manifestation, which, as I have argued, is relative to the catholic southwest point of the said compass and not at all to anything dominated, in physical fashion, by male criteria.

So not only is it paradoxical but extremely ironic that so many Catholic Irish should identify their beer-drinking habits with an English-derived beer while many of their English and even British counterparts favour light ale or lager, as if it connoted with something puritan and male! I think I have shown, with correlations based in a degree of logic, that this is simply not the case, and I could also add to the misery of these 'where ignorance is bliss' people by pointing out that, in overall elemental terms, rock 'n' roll connotes with the catholic, or lapsed catholic, southwest point of the intercardinal axial compass while classical, not least in a strings-oriented symphonic mode, connotes with the protestant if not puritan southeast, and therefore with all that is axially contrary, on phenomenal (lower order) terms to female hegemonic criteria. Put simply, the southwest is about spirit and pseudo-ego, while the southeast is about ego and pseudo-spirit. This is precisely the distinction between chemistry and pseudo-physics on the one hand, and physics and pseudo-chemistry on the other, our flared skirt and pants pairing vis-a-vis their tapering counterparts in pants and skirts. So light ale is - or should be - the beer of piss-drenched singing rock 'n' rollers and stout the beer of shit-tight scroll-reading orchestral bow-scrapers. Wow!

Perhaps we should leave a more detailed examination of the distinctions between light ale and lager on the one hand and stout and brown ale on the other to another time, before things become way too complicated!

SARTORIAL PARALLELS TO ST GEORGE AND THE DRAGON DO NOT CHANGE PLACES

In a society that was a combination, St George and the Dragon-like, of metaphysics and antimetchemistry-cum-pseudo-metachemistry, corresponding, in sartorial terms, to tapering zippersuits and tapering dresses, you would not find metaphysics and pseudo-metachemistry changing places, still less would you find the antifemales of antimetachemistry being encouraged to become quasi-metaphysical, since the ratio of soma to psyche with them would be three:one, the reverse of what it would - or should - be for their metaphysical counterparts, the males proper, and therefore instead of three parts truth and joy to one part illusion and woe you would have three parts illusion and woe to one part truth and joy - an unacceptable ratio from the standpoint of the metaphysical proper, since likely to give metaphysics a bad name in relation to what would be the immoral forms of grace and wisdom, with the ratio emphasis decidedly on the latter in quasi-metaphysical guise.

So just as females would not be encouraged to get above themselves - the sartorial parallel for the metaphysical above is of course the zippersuit - in a genuinely metaphysically-led society, so they would be pinned to their rightful position as antimetachemical-cum-pseudo-metachemical corollaries of a metaphysical hegemony, the sartorial mean of this context being a tapering dress. One would not have the hype so often encountered in Western society traditionally, least of all from a standpoint that tends to allow females to play at being God and to assume, with brushed-back hair, subjective pretensions way above, in the event of male dominance, a more befitting anti-objective status. They would be encouraged to know their place and to keep to it. They would be the proverbial Dragon that, duly neutralized, the proverbial Saint has firmly under his foot, in order that the truth and joy of metaphysics can have its way without threat from without, from free females who, unlike their neutralized counterparts, will always seduce males from their Y chromosomal centre through beauty and love (coupled in bound psyche to a degree of ugliness and hate) in the long-term interests of maternal resolution in the world.

In contrast to the neutralized angel who is pseudo-metachemical, pseudo-female, one could say, with beauty and love in free psyche and ugliness and hate in bound soma, the free, or metachemical, female is decidedly the proverbial whore of free soma and bound psyche, with a three:one ratio of beauty and love to ugliness and hate, the positivistic basis of life that accords with the 'increase and multiply' ethos of Devil the Mother hyped as God the Father in Old Testament vein. And just as the angel is led and controlled by the Saint, so the whore holds dominion over the demonic 'fall guy' who is less a devil than an antigod, at least in antimetaphysics; though he can become quasi-metachemical and therefore quasi-devilish if he is of a disposition that prefers to outdo the female at her own game (though this will only be in ugliness and hate) rather than to accept his subordinate place in what we can describe as a pseudo-metaphysical position under metachemistry wherein truth and joy become identified with free soma and illusion and woe with bound psyche, the reverse, in other words, of the metaphysical position proper, and one whose ratio of three:one will favour the illusion and woe of bound psyche even as metachemical pressure from above is encouraging him to identify, falsely, with the truth and joy of free soma, a paradox that, in quasi-metachemical guise, becomes one part beauty and love to three parts ugliness and hate in the immoral forms of evil and crime, with a gender emphasis, as noted, on crime.

Be that as it may, a sensibly led society will never encourage people to identify with anything metachemical or antimetaphysical-cum-pseudo-metaphysical, still less quasi-metachemical, wherein sartorial distinctions between flouncy dresses and flared zipper- or boiler-suits would - or should - be the mean, since its own commitment, if noumenal, to metaphysics and antimetachemistry-cum-pseudo-metachemistry will ensure the opposite - namely, as stated above, a kind of tapering zippersuit vis-a-vis tapering dress sartorial mean in which the saintly are hegemonically in control of the angelic, like St George over the Dragon which, if prostrate and therefore pseudo-metachemically neutralized, will correspond to the angelic tapering-dress pseudo-female whose prostration is the guarantee of metaphysical freedom for the male.

Such a society, which I have long identified with 'Kingdom Come' and construe as exemplifying religious sovereignty as the ultimate form of sovereignty that the people of certain countries, avowedly church-hegemonic traditionally, will have to be given the opportunity of voting for in relation to a paradoxical utilization of the democratic process, can only be one in which the metaphysical and the antimetachemical-cum-pseudo-metachemical will begin the process of saving the antiphysical-cum-pseudo-physical and counter-damning the chemical, or delivering from the southwest point of the intercardinal axial compass to the northeast point of it those who would otherwise continue to languish, morally and culturally, under metachemical and antimetaphysical-cum-pseudo-metaphysical pressures, thereby hastening the day when their deliverance will be so permanent and irreversible (supra-human) that the others will be put out of business for want of sufficient prey and come crashing down their own axis, northwest to southeast on the intercardinal axial compass, to join those who had formerly financed their exemplifications of somatic license, namely the antichemical-cum-pseudo-chemical and the physical. Other changes will have to follow but, eventually, even they will find the prospect of axial transference and, with due modifications, salvation and counter-damnation from the southwest to the northeast points of the said compass attractive, if only because they will have nothing to lose and everything to gain.

But that is getting a long way ahead of myself and of this particular weblog. Let me repeat its principal contention: that the saintly and angelic of the metaphysical/pseudo-metachemical northeast point of the intercardinal axial compass are as far removed, in noumenal (or space/time) terms from the whorish and demonic of the northwest point ... as it is noumenally possible to be, and that the saintly is no less likely to be male and the angelic pseudo-female than the whorish is female and the demonic pseudo-male. Alpha and omega, to speak in general terms, are absolutely incommensurate, appertaining to different axes, the former state-hegemonic and the latter church-hegemonic, and therefore they remain as hegemonically far apart as evil/crime and grace/wisdom, both of which are moral in their opposite ways - the evil/crime metachemically so and the grace/wisdom metaphysically so, with a paired distinction, in consequence, between superheathen/subchristian vanity and superchristian/subheathen righteousness or, put in equivalent terms, supersensuous/subconscious vanity and superconscious/subsensuous righteousness, the moral vanity of the clear and the moral righteousness of the holy, the former female and the latter male.

Between those extremes there is no mutual respect, no seeing eye to eye, because it is a gender distinction, fundamentally, between the beauty and love of evil (coupled, on a subordinate ratio basis, to the ugliness and hatred of crime) and the truth and joy of grace (coupled, on a subordinate ratio basis, to the illusion and woe of wisdom), with Mother/Daughter vanity at alpha odds with Father/Son righteousness. Only the complete triumph, with 'Kingdom Come', of the latter can put an end to the former's reign. Only the saintly god and angelic pseudo-devil can 'see off' the whorish devil and demonic pseudo-god, but to do so they must save and counter-damn like never before; for the antiphysical-cum-pseudo-physical 'last' (under chemistry) must become the metaphysical 'first' (over antimetachemistry-cum-pseudo-metachemistry) if deliverance from the alpha-dominated world is truly to obtain, a deliverance rendered all the more imperative in view of what takes advantage of it not only in its immediate vicinity (i.e. the chemically hegemonic) but from the standpoint of what rules the other axis, the secular fruit, in this day and age, of the schismatic heresy that first spawned state-hegemonic criteria and gave rein to the aforementioned exemplification of somatic license which is everywhere the primary servant of the superheathen virtue of beauty and love which is the vanity of moral evil and born enemy of moral grace.

WHY EVIL CONDITIONS CRIME AND GRACE CONDITIONS WISDOM

In general terms, the free conditions the bound, so that one can say that binding is determined by freedom, irrespective of gender, and therefore of whether, in female vein, soma conditions psyche or whether, in male vein, psyche conditions soma.

The conditioning of psyche by soma in both metachemistry and chemistry, the hegemonically female elements par excellence, means that crime is conditioned by evil and is, in effect, if not a consequence then certainly a corollary of evil, the only difference between these two elements being that, in metachemistry, evil and crime, corresponding to beauty and love in free soma and to ugliness and hatred in bound psyche, are genuine, whereas in chemistry, more the element of spirit than of will, evil and crime, corresponding to strength and pride in free soma and to weakness and humility in bound psyche, are pseudo, since here the emphasis on overall axial terms tends to be on psyche as opposed to soma, even with a relative predominance of soma over psyche in chemistry, due in large part to the antiphysical subversion of chemistry at the behest of a degree of metaphysics over antimetachemistry on what we have elsewhere described as, and know to be, the church-hegemonic/state-subordinate axis of that which stretches, on intercardinal axial terms, from the south-west to the north-east points of the axis in question.

The conditioning of soma by psyche in both metaphysics and physics, the hegemonically male elements par excellence, means that wisdom is conditioned by grace and is, in effect, if not a consequence then certainly a corollary of grace, the only difference between these two elements being that, in metaphysics, grace and wisdom, corresponding to truth and joy in free psyche and to illusion and woe in bound soma, are genuine, whereas in physics, more the element of ego than of soul, grace and wisdom, corresponding to knowledge and pleasure in free psyche and to ignorance and pain in bound soma, are pseudo, since here the emphasis on overall axial terms tends to be on soma as opposed to psyche, even with a relative preponderance of psyche over soma in physics, due in large part to the antichemical subversion of physics at the behest of a degree of metachemistry over antimetaphysics on what we have elsewhere described as, and know to be, the state-hegemonic/church-subordinate axis of that which stretches, on intercardinal axial terms, from the north-west to the south-east points of the axis in question.

However, the upended subordinate gender corollaries of these mutually exclusive hegemonic elements follow the pattern, under pressure from the hegemonic gender, of their gender opposites, not of themselves, whether as soma apparently conditioning psyche in antimetaphysics and antiphysics respectively or, across the hegemonic gender divide, as psyche seemingly conditioning soma in antimetachemistry and antichemistry respectively, so that, irrespective of their respective gender ratios of psyche to soma or of soma to psyche, the subordinate gender mimics, as far as possible, the criteria applying to their gender betters, pseudo-sin no less a corollary of pseudo-folly in antimetaphysics and sin no less a corollary of folly in antiphysics ... than pseudo-goodness is a corollary of pseudo-punishment in antimetachemistry and goodness corollary of punishment in antichemistry. For, speaking generally, there can no more be sin without folly than ... goodness without punishment, just as, from the standpoint of the hegemonic gender in any given elemental position, there can no more be crime without evil in free soma than, across the gender divide, wisdom could possibly exist or obtain without a gracious precondition in free psyche.

Notwithstanding the distinctions between moral evil and crime or, again generally, moral grace and wisdom and their immoral counterparts (already touched upon in a series of previous weblogs), the chief distinction between the hegemonic gender's conditioning of the bound by the free and their gender subordinate's conditioning of it under pressures from those a plane above them in either of the respective noumenal or phenomenal elemental positions will be that, in the former case, the ratio of free to bound will always favour the free, whether noumenally on a three-to-one basis or phenomenally on a two-and-a-half to one-and-a-half basis, whereas in the latter case the ratio of free to bound will always be contrary to the free, whether noumenally on a one-to-three basis or phenomenally on a one-and-a-half to two-and-a-half basis, with predictably unattractive consequences.

But this is effectivley a separate subject, so I shall leave it there for the time being, only remarking, in conclusion, that the subversion of chemistry by antiphysics at the behest of metaphysics over antimetachemistry in the one axial case and the subversion of physics by antichemistry at the behest of metachemistry over antimetaphysics in the other axial case provides a compromise solution whereby a male-oriented bound psyche, corresponding to sin, and a female-oriented bound soma, corresponding to goodness, will correspond to the greater part of each subordinate gender's respective ratio of psyche to soma or of soma to psyche, i.e. the two-and-a-half (as opposed to the one-and-a-half), at the expense, axially speaking, of the hegemonic gender and without the benefit, traditionally, of either genuine salvation to free psyche in metaphysics or, in the case of the antichemical, genuine undamnation, to speak paradoxically and contrary to the will of godliness, to free soma in metachemistry, the reason being that neither axis can exist independently of the other while an elemental fudge at either pole continues to be the general rule and to keep them in some kind of axial relativity whose respective modes of consistency and stability are held up as guarantors of continuity, and therefore as justifying their respective poles. I do not doubt the credibility of such a claim, but I have a different mindset and approach to axial relativity which the reader may already have familiarized himself with in other writings by me and accordingly come to the conclusion that I am no apologist for the axial status quo.

PHYSICAL MORALITY AND QUASI-PHYSICAL IMMORALITY

Morality, as we have seen, can be metachemical, chemical, physical, or metaphysical, corresponding to the hegemonic gender and therefore to either female or male, sensual or sensible, heathen or christian alternatives, to speak in generalities. Beauty and love coupled to ugliness and hatred in metachemistry is one sort of morality, that of moral evil and crime, whereas strength and pride coupled to weakness and humility in chemistry is another sort of morality, that of moral pseudo-evil and pseudo-crime.

Conversely, knowledge and pleasure coupled to ignorance and pain in physics is one sort of morality, that of moral pseudo-grace and pseudo-wisdom, whereas truth and joy coupled to illusion and woe in metaphysics is another sort of morality, that of moral grace and wisdom.

Both metachemistry and chemistry, corresponding to female elements (fire and water), are about free soma and bound psyche, moral virtue and moral vice of a heathenistic order.

Both physics and metaphysics, corresponding to male elements (earth and air), are about free psyche and bound soma, moral virtue and moral vice of a christianistic order.

There are, however, other possibilities that have to be considered. Antichemistry under physics is an antimorality in anti-chemical guise but can become either a pseudo-morality in pseudo-chemical guise or, with some 'females' aspiring towards the physical, an immorality in quasi-physical guise, wherein the female ratio, duly upended under male hegemonic pressure, of two-and-a-half parts soma to one-and-a-half parts psyche becomes two-and-a-half parts ignorance and pain to one-and-a-half parts knowledge and pleasure - the opposite of the male position and the reason why a distinction can be made between moral pseudo-grace and wisdom in physical free psyche and bound soma and, from the standpoint of the antifemale opting for a quasi-male rather than pseudo-female position, immoral pseudo-grace and wisdom in quasi-physical free psyche and bound soma, the latter, remember, more characteristically 'female' and the reason why, in this context, females outdo males in ignorance and pain while underdoing them, so to speak, in knowledge and pleasure - always and everywhere.

But this is only one point of the intercardinal axial compass, namely the physical/antichemical southeast. The other three points could be addressed (as the chemical/antiphysical southwest already has been in a previous weblog) in a similar, albeit independent, manner. As could the endeavour by some physical males to become quasi-pseudo-chemical, entertaining pseudo-strength and pride in pseudo-chemical free psyche and pseudo-weakness and humility in pseudo-chemical bound soma, but on a ratio basis the opposite of their female or, rather, pseudo-female, counterparts - rather more two-and-a-half parts pseudo-strength and pride to one-and-a-half parts pseudo-weakness and humility than vice versa ... in view of their gender actuality favouring psyche over soma on an approximately two-and-a-half to one-and-a-half basis.

So rather than a relatively predominating emphasis on what's negative and bound, like their quasi-physical counterparts coming up from below, a relatively preponderating emphasis on what's positive and free, namely pseudo-chemical free psyche, gives them an amoral advantage over their pseudo-moral equivalents, which rather contrasts with the immorality of their quasi-physical gender-bender counterparts whose bias, as noted, can only be for ignorance and pain.

Yet this descent from above, a plane up at the southeast point of the intercardinal axial compass, is still less viable, from a male standpoint, than the moral pseudo-grace and wisdom which characterizes their physical hegemony. Being morally physical is preferable, from a male standpoint, to being amorally quasi-pseudo-chemical, just as being pseudo-morally 'chemical' is preferable, from a female standpoint, to being immorally quasi-physical. It is also arguably preferable to being anti-morally anti-chemical, the initial 'fall gal' position from which one can gravitate either to pseudo-morality in pseudo-chemistry (strength and pride falsely in free psyche and weakness and humiliation falsely in bound soma) or, if pretentiously righteous and insufficiently 'the anti-pseudo-vanity angel', to immorality in quasi-physics, seeking to become knowledgeable and pleasurable vis-a-vis ignorance and pain, but having to contend with a gender ratio that, with few exceptions, will always favour ignorance and pain in bound soma at the expense of knowledge and pleasure in free psyche, the opposite not only of the physical male, but of those chemical females whose ratio of strength and pride in free soma to weakness and humility in bound psyche is most decidedly two-and-a-half to one-and-a-half, two-and-a-half parts realist pseudo-evil to one-and-a-half parts nonconformist pseudo-crime.

Let us leave it there, finally!

CHEMICAL MORALITY AND QUASI-CHEMICAL IMMORALITY

Morality, as we have already argued, can be metachemical, chemical, physical, or metaphysical, corresponding to the hegemonic gender and therefore to either female or male, sensual or sensible, heathen or christian alternatives, to speak in generalities. Beauty and love coupled to ugliness and hatred in metachemistry is one sort of morality, that of moral evil and crime, whereas strength and pride coupled to weakness and humility in chemistry is another sort of morality, that of moral pseudo-evil and pseudo-crime.

Conversely, knowledge and pleasure coupled to ignorance and pain in physics is one sort of morality, that of moral pseudo-grace and pseudo-wisdom, whereas truth and joy coupled to illusion and woe in metaphysics is another sort of morality, that of moral grace and wisdom.

Both metachemistry and chemistry, corresponding to female elements (fire and water), are about free soma and bound psyche, moral virtue and vice of a heathenistic order.

Both physics and metaphysics, corresponding to male elements (earth and air), are about free psyche and bound soma, moral virtue and vice of a christianistic order.

There are, however, other possibilities that have to be considered. Antiphysics under chemistry is an antimorality in anti-physical guise but can become either a pseudo-morality in pseudo-physical guise or, with some 'males' aspiring towards the chemical, an immorality in quasi-chemical guise, wherein the male ratio, duly upended under female hegemonic pressure, of two-and-a-half-parts psyche to one-and-a-half-parts soma becomes two-and-a-half-parts weakness and humiliation to one-and-a-half-parts strength and pride - the opposite of the female position and the reason why a distinction can be made between moral pseudo-evil and crime in chemical free soma and bound psyche and, from the standpoint of the antimale opting for a quasi-female rather than pseudo-male alternative, immoral pseudo-evil and crime in quasi-chemical free soma and bound psyche, the latter, remember, more characteristically 'male' and the reason why, in this context, males outdo females in weakness and humiliation while underdoing them, so to speak, in strength and pride - always and everywhere.

But this is only one point of the intercardinal axial compass, namely the chemical/antiphysical southwest. The other three points could be addressed (as the metaphysical/antimetachemical northeast already has been in the previous weblog), in a similar, albeit independent, manner. As could the endeavour by some chemical females to become quasi-pseudo-physical, entertaining pseudo-knowledge and pleasure in pseudo-physical free soma and pseudo-ignorance and pain in pseudo-physical bound psyche, but on a ratio basis the opposite of their male or, rather, pseudo-male, counterparts - rather more two-and-a-half parts pseudo-knowledge and pleasure to one-and-a-half parts pseudo-ignorance and pain than vice versa ... in view of their gender actuality favouring soma over psyche on an approximately two-and-a-half to one-and-a-half basis.

So rather than a relatively preponderating emphasis on what's negative and bound, like their quasi-chemical counterparts, a relatively predominating emphasis on what's positive and free, namely pseudo-physical free soma, gives them an amoral advantage over their pseudo-moral equivalents, which rather contrasts with the immorality of their quasi-chemical gender-bender counterparts whose bias, as noted, can only be for weakness and humiliation (the male equivalent, more often than not, of female humility). But this is still less viable than the moral pseudo-evil and crime which characterizes their chemical hegemony.

Being morally chemical is preferable, from a female standpoint, to being amorally quasi-pseudo-physical, just as being pseudo-morally 'physical' is preferable, from a male standpoint, to being immorally quasi-chemical. It is also arguably preferable to being anti-morally antiphysical, the initial 'fall guy' position from which one can gravitate either to pseudo-morality in pseudo-physics (knowledge and pleasure falsely in free soma and ignorance and pain falsely in bound psyche) or, if sufficiently pseudo-vain and insufficiently 'the pseudo-artist', to immorality in quasi-chemistry, seeking to become strong and proud vis-a-vis weak and humble but having to contend with a gender ratio that, with few exceptions, will always favour weakness and humiliation in bound psyche at the expense of strength and pride in free soma, the opposite not only of the chemical female, as noted above, but of those physical males whose ratio of knowledge and pleasure in free psyche to ignorance and pain in bound soma is most decidedly two-and-a-half to one-and-a-half, two-and-a-half parts humanist pseudo-grace to one-and-a-half parts inaturalist pseudo-wisdom.

Let us leave it there, turning our attention, in the next weblog, to the phenomenal antitheses of the above - namely, to mass and antivolume, physics and antichemistry.

METAPHYSICAL MORALITY AND QUASI-METAPHYSICAL IMMORALITY

Morality, as noted in the previous weblog, can be metachemical, chemical, physical, or metaphysical, corresponding to the hegemonic gender and therefore to either female or male, sensual or sensible, heathen or christian alternatives, to speak in generalities. Beauty and love coupled to ugliness and hatred in metachemistry is one sort of morality, that of moral evil and crime, whereas strength and pride coupled to weakness and humility in chemistry is another sort of morality, that of moral pseudo-evil and pseudo-crime.

Conversely, knowledge and pleasure coupled to ignorance and pain in physics is one sort of morality, that of moral pseudo-grace and pseudo-wisdom, whereas truth and joy coupled to illusion and woe in metaphysics is another sort of morality, that of moral grace and wisdom.

Both metachemistry and chemistry, corresponding to female elements (fire and water), are about free soma and bound psyche, moral virtue and vice of a heathenistic order.

Both physics and metaphysics, corresponding to male elements (earth and air), are about free psyche and bound soma, moral virtue and vice of a christianistic order.

There are, however, other possibilities that have to be considered. Antimetachemistry under metaphysics is an antimorality in anti-metachemical guise but can become either a pseudo-morality in pseudo-metachemical guise or, with some 'females' aspiring towards the metaphysical, an immorality in quasi-metaphysical guise, wherein the female ratio, duly upended under male hegemonic pressure, of three parts soma to one part psyche becomes three parts illusion and woe to one part truth and joy - the opposite of the male position and the reason why a distinction can be made between moral grace and wisdom in metaphysical free psyche and bound soma and, from the standpoint of the antifemale opting for a quasi-male rather than pseudo-female position, immoral grace and wisdom in quasi-metaphysical free psyche and bound soma, the latter, remember, more characteristically 'female' and the reason why, in this context, females outdo males in illusion and woe while underdoing them, so to speak, in truth and joy - always and everywhere.

But this is only one point of the intercardinal axial compass, namely the metaphysical/antimetachemical northeast. The other three points could be addressed (as the metachemical/antimetphysical northwest already has been in a previous weblog) in a similar, albeit independent, manner. As could the endeavour by some metaphysical males to become quasi-pseudo-metachemical, entertaining pseudo-beauty and love in pseudo-metachemical free psyche and pseudo-ugliness and hatred in pseudo-metachemical bound soma, but on a ratio basis that is the opposite of their female or, rather, pseudo-female, counterparts - rather more three parts pseudo-beauty and love to one part pseudo-ugliness and hatred than vice versa ... in view of their gender actuality favouring psyche over soma on an approximately three-to-one basis.

So rather than an overwhelming emphasis on what's negative and bound, like their quasi-metaphysical counterparts coming up from below, an overwhelming emphasis on what's positive and free, namely pseudo-metachemical free psyche, gives them an amoral advantage over their pseudo-moral equivalents, which rather contrasts with the immorality of their quasi-metaphysical gender-bender counterparts whose bias, as noted, can only be for illusion and woe.

Yet this descent from above, a plane up at the northeast point of the intercardinal axial compass, is still less viable, from a male standpoint, than the moral grace and wisdom which characterizes their metaphysical hegemony. Being morally metaphysical is preferable, from a male standpoint, to being amorally quasi-pseudo-metachemical, just as being pseudo-morally 'metachemical' is preferable, from a female standpoint, to being immorally quasi-metaphysical. It is also arguably preferable to being anti-morally antimetachemical, the initial 'fall gal' position from which one can gravitate either to pseudo-morality in pseudo-metachemistry (beauty and love falsely in free psyche and ugliness and hatred falsely in bound soma) or, if pretentiously righteous and insufficiently 'the anti-vanity angel', to immorality in quasi-metaphysics, seeking to become true and joyful vis-a-vis illusory and woeful, but having to contend with a gender ratio that, with few exceptions, will always favour illusion and woe in bound soma at the expense of truth and joy in free psyche, the opposite not only of the metaphysical male, but of those metachemical females whose ratio of beauty and love in free soma to ugliness and hatred in bound psyche is most decidedly three-to-one, three parts materialist evil to one part fundamentalist crime.

Let us leave it there, turning our attention, in the ensuing weblog, to the phenomenal planes below space and time, whether as space/antitime or time/antispace, to volume and mass, beginning with volume/antimass and proceeding, in the subsequent weblog, to mass/antivolume, so that are initial attention will be on chemistry and antiphysics.

METACHEMICAL MORALITY AND QUASI-METACHEMICAL IMMORALITY

Morality can be metachemical, chemical, physical, or metaphysical, corresponding to the hegemonic gender and therefore to either female or male, sensual or sensible, heathen or christian alternatives, to speak in generalities. Beauty and love coupled to ugliness and hatred in metachemistry is one sort of morality, that of moral evil and crime, whereas strength and pride coupled to weakness and humility in chemistry is another sort of morality, that of moral pseudo-evil and pseudo-crime.

Conversely, knowledge and pleasure coupled to ignorance and pain in physics is one sort of morality, that of moral pseudo-grace and pseudo-wisdom, whereas truth and joy coupled to illusion and woe in metaphysics is another sort of morality, that of moral grace and wisdom.

Both metachemistry and chemistry, corresponding to female elements (fire and water), are about free soma and bound psyche, moral virtue and vice of a heathenistic order.

Both physics and metaphysics, corresponding to male elements (earth and air), are about free psyche and bound soma, moral virtue and vice of a christianistic order.

There are, however, other possibilities that have to be considered. Antimetaphysics under metachemistry is an antimorality in anti-metaphysical guise but can become either a pseudo-morality in pseudo-metaphysical guise or, with some 'males' aspiring towards the metachemical, an immorality in quasi-metachemical guise, wherein the male ratio, duly upended under female hegemonic pressure, of three parts psyche to one part soma becomes three parts ugliness and hate to one part beauty and love - the opposite of the female position and the reason why a distinction can be made between moral evil and crime in metachemical free soma and bound psyche and, from the standpoint of the antimale opting for a quasi-female rather than pseudo-male alternative, immoral evil and crime in quasi-metachemical free soma and bound psyche, the latter, remember, more characteristically 'male' and the reason why, in this context, males outdo females in ugliness and hate while underdoing them, so to speak, in beauty and love - always and everywhere.

But this is only one point of the intercardinal axial compass, namely the metachemical/antimetaphysical northwest. The other three points could be addressed in a similar, albeit independent, manner. As could the endeavour by some metachemical females to become quasi-pseudo-metaphysical, entertaining pseudo-truth and joy in pseudo-metaphysical free soma and pseudo-illusion and woe in pseudo-metaphysical bound psyche, but on a ratio basis the opposite of their male or, rather, pseudo-male, counterparts - rather more three parts pseudo-truth and joy to one part pseudo-illusion and woe than vice versa ... in view of their gender actuality favouring soma over psyche on an approximately three-to-one basis.

So rather than an overwhelming emphasis on what's negative and bound, like their quasi-metachemical counterparts, an overwhelming emphasis on what's positive and free, namely pseudo-metaphysical free soma, gives them an amoral advantage over their pseudo-moral equivalents, which r,ather contrasts with the immorality of their quasi-metachemical gender-bender counterparts whose bias, as noted, can only be for ugliness and hatred. But this is still less viable than the moral evil and crime which characterizes their metachemical hegemony.

Being morally metachemical is preferable, from a female standpoint, to being amorally quasi-pseudo-metaphysical, just as being pseudo-morally 'metaphysical' is preferable, from a male standpoint, to being immorally quasi-metachemical. It is also arguably preferable to being anti-morally antimetaphysical, the initial 'fall guy' position from which one can gravitate either to pseudo-morality in pseudo-metaphysics (truth and joy falsely in free soma and illusion and woe falsely in bound psyche) or, if sufficiently vain and insufficiently 'the artist', to immorality in quasi-metachemistry, seeking to become beautiful and loving vis-a-vis ugly and hateful but having to contend with a gender ratio that, with few exceptions, will always favour ugliness and hatred in bound psyche at the expense of beauty and love in free soma, the opposite not only of the metachemical female, as noted above, but of those metaphysical males whose ratio of truth and joy in free psyche to illusion and woe in bound soma is most decidedly three-to-one, three parts transcendental grace to one part idealistic wisdom.

Let us leave it there, turning our attention in the next weblog to the noumenal antitheses of metachemistry and antimetaphysics - namely, metaphysics and antimetachemistry.

RELATIONSHIPS OF PSYCHOLOGY TO PHYSIOLOGY AND VICE VERSA

You cannot understand psychology without physiology or, conversely, physiology without psychology, since the two aspects of the totality of factors somatic and psychic 'hang together' as complementary entities, though with different ratios, depending on gender and class.

Females, I have long argued, are more physiology than psychology; males, by contrast, more psychology than physiology, since in the one case soma precedes psyche (and literally predominates over it) as, in metaphorical terms, mother preceding daughter, whereas in the other case, that of males, psyche precedes soma, (and consequently tends to preponderate over it) as, in metaphorical terms, father preceding son, thereby indicating that the genders are in effect opposites, with correspondingly opposite concepts of self.

Self for the female is basically somatic; for the male its is essentially psychic. Therein lies the roots of the gender friction and so-called 'war of the sexes'. Self is whatever is free and the female, if left to her own sensuous devices, will opt for somatic freedom and psychic binding, the latter corresponding to the not-self, whether as metachemical bound psyche to metachemical free soma or as chemical bound psyche to chemical free soma, the former element corresponding to fire and the latter to water. By contrast, the male, if left to his own devices, will more than likely opt for psychic freedom and somatic binding, the latter corresponding to the not-self, whether as physical bound soma to physical free psyche or as metaphysical bound soma to metaphysical free psyche, the former element corresponding to earth (vegetation) and the latter to air.

Therefore self for the male is the opposite of what it is for the female, psyche taking precedence over soma as psychology or physiology in one of two class/elemental ways: either relatively (two-and-a-half:one-and-a-half) as more psyche/less soma, or absolutely (three:one) as most psyche/least soma, the former corresponding to a conscious/unsensuous (nurtural/unnatural) disposition in physics, the element of the ego par excellence, the latter to a superconscious/subsensuous (supernurtural/subnatural) disposition in metaphysics, the element of the soul par excellence.

With the female, on the other hand, soma takes precedence over psyche as physiology over psychology in one of two class/elemetal ways: either absolutely (three:one) as most soma/least psyche, or relatively (two-and-a-half:one-and-a-half) as more soma/less psyche, the former corresponding to a supersensuous/subconscious (supernatural/subnurtural) disposition in metachemistry, the element of the will par excellence, the latter to a sensuous/unconcious (natural/unnurtural) disposition in chemistry, the element of the spirit par excellence.

Of course, there are more than four elemental positions at stake when it comes to axial polarities of either a state-hegemonic/church-subordinate or a church-hegemonic/state-subordinate order, since the hegemonic triumph or prevalence of the one gender presupposes and necessitates the upending and subordination of the other, whether as antimetaphysics under metachemistry at the northwest point of the intercardinal axial compass (state-hegemonically polar to the southeast point of it), as antiphysics under chemistry at the southwest point of the said compass (church-hegemonically polar to the northeast point of it), as antichemistry under physics at the southeast point of the said compass (state-hegemonically polar to the northwest point of it), or as antimetachemistry under metaphysics at the northeast point of the intercardinal axial compass (church-hegemonically polar to the southwest point of it). But even the antipositions under the hegemonic ones, whether noumenally unequivocal or phenomenally equivocal, absolute or relative, reflect ratios of soma to psyche or of psyche to soma, depending on the upended gender, that correspond to their class/elemental positions, and are therefore distinct from the controlling gender a plane above them in each class/elemental instance.

Antimetaphysics is not a context, like metachemistry, of a supersensuous/subconscious integrity but, rather, one which, under female hegemonic pressure, will be anti-subsensuous and anti-superconscious, thereby allowing a paradoxical deference to supersensuousness/subconsciousness to obtain from within a position that, being essentially male, would never be capable of such an integrity itself. Conversely antimetachemistry, across the noumenal axial divide, is not a context, like metaphysics, of a superconscious/subsensuous integrity but, rather, one which, under male hegemonic pressure, will be anti-subconscious and anti-supersensuous, thereby allowing a paradoxical deference to superconsciousness/subsensuousness to obtain from a position that, being fundamentally female, would never be capable of such an integrity itself.

And what applies to the noumenal positions applies no less to their phenomenal counterparts, antiphysics not being a context, like chemistry, of a sensuous/unconscious integrity but, rather, one which, under female hegemonic pressure, will be anti-unsensuous and anti-conscious, thereby allowing a paradoxical deference to sensusousness/unconsciousness to obtain from a position that, being essentially male, would never be capable of such an integrity itself. Conversely, antichemistry, across the phenomenal axial divide, is not a context, like physics, of a conscious/unsensuous integrity but, rather, one which, under male hegemonic pressure, will be anti-unconscious and anti-sensuous, thereby allowing a paradoxical deference to consciousness/unsensuousness to obtain from a position that, being fundamentally female, would never be capable of such an integrity itself.

But, of course, subversion of the equivocally hegemonic positions by their upended subordinate counterparts at the behest of the axially polar unequivocally hegemonic positions results in a switch of emphasis from soma to psyche in the chemical/antiphysical case and from psyche to soma in the physical/antichemical case, in order that either church-hegemonic/state-subordinate criteria stemming from a degree of metaphysics over antimetachemistry or, by contrast, state-hegemonic/church-subordinate criteria stemming from a degree of metachemistry over antimetaphysics can be axially established and duly maintained, to the advantage of axial stability and continuity.

For the Catholic southwest point of the intercardinal axial compass is no more heathenistic in somatic emphasis than the Puritan southeast point of it is overly christianistic, so to speak, in psychic emphasis. Free psyche to bound psyche in the one axial case, free soma to bound soma in the other, would seem to be the guarantors of either church-hegemonic or state-hegemonic criteria, for both genders.

But that is another subject and one I have said much about in the past and could say a lot more about in the present article, were I not minded of the principal topic of this weblog, which is of the ratios between psyche and soma or soma and psyche, according to gender and class. We do not understand female psychology unless we are aware of the physiology that conditions it, making for subconsciousness in relation to supersensuousness in metachemistry and for unconsciousness in relation to sensuousness in chemistry. Likewise, we shall not understand male physiology unless we are aware of the psychology that conditions it, making for unsensuousness in relation to consciousness in physics and for subsensuousness in relation to superconsciousness in metaphysics.

Needless to say, both these class positions are incompatible, since you cannot be conscious/unsensuous and superconscious/subsensuous at the same time or in the same person, any more than females could transcend their class distinctions and be both supersensuous/subconscious and sensuous/unconscious at the same time or in the same person.
But, then, compatibility is not an issue from an axial standpoint, which ensures that either antichemistry is polar to metachemistry and physics polar to antimetaphysics or, across the axial divide, that antiphysics is polar to metaphysics and chemistry polar to antimetachemistry. The physical and the metaphysical are not ethnically aligned. Nor are their chemical and metachemical counterparts. Rather, they are competitors for the sensible or, in the female case, sensual upper hand, excluding one another from their respective axial integrities.

ST GEORGE AND THE DRAGON THE WAY I SEE IT

I am a great believer in St George and the Dragon, in what should be the metaphysical hegemony of the male over the female at the northeast point of the intercardinal axial compass, pretty much like metaphysics over antimetachemistry, or a velcro-cum-zipper suit, to coin a sartorial parallel, over a tight, tapering dress, the zippersuit-wearing saintly metaphysician with his foot firmly on the prone dragon of the dress-wearer, as though keeping it/her down and in its/her proper place.

Unfortunately, St George can be - and often is - reduced by the Puritan manifestation of Protestantism, not least in England, to physics over antichemistry at the southeast point of the said compass, in which case the sartorial paradigm is one of straight pants and tight skirt, as germane to phenomenal relativity, the lower-order parallel to noumenal absolutism.

But this George would be considerably less than saintly! For physics is subject to subversion to somatic emphasis at the expense of psyche by antichemistry in polarity to the unequivocally hegemonic factor on what is, after all, a state-hegemonic/church-subordinate axis - namely metachemistry, which, unlike its subordinate counterpart antimetaphysics, is also on the female side of the gender fence, so to speak, if from the standpoint of that which is sovereign in its free soma and bound psyche, corresponding, in sartorial terms, to a flouncy dress and, in religious terms, to Anglicanism (as does antimetaphysics). No, St George can only be a Roman Catholic emblem traditionally, and metaphor for something which England officially abandoned centuries ago, even as early as with Henry VIII, switching axes in the heretical process.

But even Catholicism doesn't really do justice to metaphysics, since it tends to fudge things down to antimetachemistry, making one aware of tapering dresses existing independently - and quite falsely - of zipper-suit pressures, so to speak, a plane above, and therefore as though that, the tapering dress, were the non plus ultra of things!

I'm afraid to say that above the Christian 'sacred heart' are the 'sacred lungs', so to speak, of metaphysical bound soma, roughly corresponding to the Crucifixional paradigm for what is, after all, a manifestation of bound soma in the Son (the metaphor of Father preceding Son having real value only in relation to the male actuality of psyche preceding soma), but such a parallel has never been encouraged probably from fear that TM, or transcendental meditation, would get out of the bag of 'sacred lungs' at the expense of that which anchors Western civilization to itself as a Son-like extrapolation, namely the middle-eastern take on God which is actually less metaphysical than metachemistry hyped as metaphysics in the sense of Devil the Mother hyped as God the Father, the 'best of a bad job' and effective starting point of civilization.

Thus if you are anchored, as an extrapolation, to an ancient and rather primitivistic lie, the 'best of a bad job', in back, of Western civilization, you are not in a position to have the full gamut of metaphysics, which exists independently of things metachemical, including beauty and its spiritual corollary, love. You end up with this Christian, Catholic fudge of a truncated metaphysics (the bound soma of the Son) done down antimetachemically (to 'sacred heart') without the benefit of TM, which presupposes a rejection of 'Creatorism' ... in the sense of Devil the Mother (or free soma metachemically) in what some would regard as an atheistic (which it is not) independence of the Old Testament.

So, alas, the postulate of resurrection from below, say southwest to northeast on church-hegemonic axial terms, is a nonsense, since you don't get to metaphysics or become metaphysical on that basis. You are, as a male, metaphysical to begin with, at least when full of youthful idealism, but - philosopher exceptions to the rule notwithstanding - you can get picked off by beauty to antimetaphysics under metachemistry, deferring to beauty as from a 'fall guy' position a plane down from metachemistry at the northwest point of the intercardinal axial compass. This is the typical artist's position.

The typical male position, however, is a fall, following or accompanying female resolution in maternity, down to antiphysics under chemistry at the southwest and rather Marian (Woman the Mother) point of the said compass, and from there there is no way back to metaphysics bar salvation for the antiphysical by the metaphysical and, correlatively, counter-damnation for the chemical by the antimetachemical, a bit like the prone dragon that the proverbial Saint has his foot upon, as though keeping it down and in its place.

But this whole process of salvation coupled to counter-damnation is a drastic remedy for what is perceived to be a worldly imperfection for males, and one that has other than altruistic motives, since those who eventually get to do the saving and counter-damning of the respective gender positions at the southwest point of the intercardinal axial compass will have other things in mind than their prospective metaphysical and antimetachemical deliverance!

But that is another story. Suffice it to say that St George and the Dragon is a decent traditional metaphor, if interpreted in this way, for the northeast point of the intercardinal axial compass, where one could even expect to find choppers (suitably badgeful rather than ringful) and jump jets, their - dare I say it? - antimetachemical counterparts, as though germane not merely to a mastered dragon but, to expand the metaphor, to a lion that lies down with the lamb in tight-dress under zipper-suit fashion, and serves to support and complement what must be, for all eternity, a metaphysical hegemony.

BITCHES AND BASTARDS

Everyone is familiar with the terms 'bitches' and 'bastards', but until quite recently I hadn't realized just how indicative of an alpha/omega dichotomy they are, whether on the noumenal basis of diabolic and divine or, lower down, on the phenomenal basis of feminine and masculine - a sort of ethereal/corporeal distinction between the diabolic and divine 'above' (noumenal) and the feminine and masculine 'below' (phenomenal). Be that as it may I don't believe bitches and bastards 'hang together', like two aspects of the same sensual, or alpha-stemming, coin. For my philosophy has taught me that metachemistry and antimetaphysics 'hang together' at the northwest point of the intercardinal axial compass, so to speak, and that means that you don't have God and the Devil there but, on the contrary, Devil and Antigod, or Devil the Mother (hyped as God the Father) and the Antison of Antigod ('done down' as the Devil), to take the freely somatic (as opposed to bound psychic) aspects and terminological parallels of these two contexts, contexts corresponding, it will not be forgotten, to metachemistry and antimetaphysics, that is, to heat and antilight, to protons and antiphotons, to space and antitime, to Vanity Fair and Anti-Celestial City, to .... well, why not bitches and antibastards? For that is precisely the point I am making. It is not the proverbial 'bastard' that is ruled by 'the bitch' but, on the contrary, 'the antibastard', the lover-boy or mummies-boy or anti-rightist common type who knows, in his heart of hearts, that 'bastards' are right-wing, or sensibly removed from his own sensuality (or antisensibility) across the axial divide that divides the metachemical and antimetaphysical from the metaphysical and antimetachemical or, 'down below', the chemical and antiphysical from the physical and antichemical. Therefore 'the antibastard' does not like 'bastards', whether physical (and Christian) or metaphysical (and Superchristian). But which is worse - a world ruled by bitches (in which 'antibastards' have their subordinate positions corresponding to antimetaphysics and/or antiphysics) or a world lead by bastards (in which 'antibitches' have their subordinate positions corresponding to antimetachemistry and/or antichemistry)? I don't have any doubt as to the answer to that almost rhetorical question. The world ruled by bitches is fundamentally naturalistic and hence barbarous and philistine in its sensual bias; the world led by bastards, on the other hand, is essentially nurturalistic, as it were, and hence civil and cultural in its bias towards sensibility. The former is the basis out of which the latter emerges - precisely as civilization. Call me a bastard if you will, but just remember what the alternative to living under bastards is! If you are a son-of-a-bitch then you are not a bastard, neither physical (and phenomenal) nor metaphysical (and noumenal), but either an antiphysical subordinate of a chemical bitch or an antimetaphysical subordinate of a metachemical bitch, the former femine and the latter diabolic. Being an 'antibastard' isn't as cool as some people think but rather someone who, by allowing himself to be dominated by bitches, effectively acquiesces in the two worst of all possible worlds - the noumenal world ruled by metachemistry and/or the phenomenal world ruled by chemistry, the former superheathen (and anti-superchristian), the latter heathen (and antichristian). Of course, in axial terms the one is no less incompatible with the other than are the Christian and Superchristian worlds with each other, since what appertains to the northwest point of the intercardinal axial compass is polar to what appertains to its southeast point and therefore axially incompatible with the polarity between the southwest and northeast points of the said compass, the fomer polarity constitutive of state-hegemonic/church-subordinate axial criteria, the latter of church-hegemonic/state-subordinate axial criteria. That, however, is another subject, so I won't belabour the point here. Suffice it to say that the only bitches and bastards that are truly incompatible are those across the axial divide that divides the noumenal northwest from the northeast and the phenomenal southwest from the southeast. For society cannot be ruled by bitches and led by bastards at the same time. Only on inter-class terms is there any compromise, as in relation to a given axis, but then the noumenal bitches tend to overrule the leadership of the phenomenal bastards on the one axis, while the phenomenal bitches tend to be overruled by the noumenal bastards on the other axis. Make sense? It does to me at any rate.