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 are one sort of morality, that of moral evil and moral crime, whereas strength and pride coupled to weakness and humility in chemistry are another sort of morality, that of moral pseudo-evil and moral pseudo-crime.
Conversely, knowledge and pleasure coupled to ignorance and pain in physics are one sort of morality, that of moral pseudo-grace and moral pseudo-wisdom, whereas truth and joy coupled to illusion and woe in metaphysics are another sort of morality, that of moral grace and moral 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. 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 position opting for a quasi-female rather than pseudo-male position, 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 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 that is 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 rather contrasts with the immorality of their quasi-metachemical gender-bender counterparts whose bias, as noted, can only be for ugliness and hatred. But it is still less viable, from their standpoint, 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 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.
John O'Loughlin is a self-taught philosopher who has been writing mostly works of a philosophical nature for over three decades. Besides publishing himself through his company Centretruths Digital Media, he has been published by Lulu on the Internet, and considers himself to be the founder of the ideological philosophy of Social Theocracy and/or Social Transcendentalism, the former term having more political and the latter more religious significance, as though a distinction between state and church. Both, however, appertain to what he terms 'the Centre', a concept which transcends state/church relativity as we generally understand it. His works explain and justify Social Transcendentalism in relation to the concept of religious sovereignty, which he regards as the ultimate mode of sovereignty. Mr O'Loughlin is 56 and lives alone in north London.
Disclaimer: All information on this site is provided for informational purposes only! By no means is any
information presented herein intended to substitute for the advice provided to you by any health care or other professional
or organization.
