Since I often write about what is called the intercardinal axial compass stretching from southwest to northeast and from northwest to southeast on a crossed diagonal basis of inter-class and inter-gender polarity, I may as well add some new thoughts to the corpus of axis-inspired ideas which enable one to distinguish church-hegemonic/state-subordinate (southwest to northeast) from state-hegemonic/church-subordinate (northwest to southeast) axial criteria.
What I am especially interested in establishing is that neither axis is corrupt – although the state-hegemonic/church-subordinate one is the secular fruit of schismatic heresy and is therefore open to allegations of religious corruption – and that both axes are corrupt, though not, assuredly, in the same way.
In fact, they are corrupt and not corrupt in opposite ways – the state-hegemonic/church-subordinate axis in terms of male corruption in relation to an overall female dominance, and the church-hegemonic/state-subordinate one in terms of female corruption in relation to an overall male dominance.
But there are two ways of being corrupt, as of course of not being corrupt, and we can define them as absolute and relative, corresponding to noumenal and phenomenal, ethereal and corporeal axial polarities.
Let us take the state-hegemonic/church-subordinate axis first, where male corruption is absolute in pseudo-metaphysics (from out of antimetaphysics) under the female unequivocal hegemony of metachemistry at the northwest point of the intercardinal axial compass, and relative in physics over the female subordination of pseudo-chemistry (from out of antichemistry) at the southeast point of the said compass, the former order of corruption implying free soma and bound psyche under metachemical pressure and the latter … bound-somatic emphasis at the expense of free psyche in relation to pseudo-chemical subversion at the behest of the overall axial dominance of metachemistry - metachemistry and pseudo-chemistry constitutive of primary state-hegemonic/church-subordinate axial criteria, pseudo-metaphysics and physics their secondary state-hegemonic/church-subordinate counterparts.
Thus male corruption is absolute in pseudo-metaphysics and relative in physics, females not corrupted (uncorrupted) in metachemistry where, being unequivocally hegemonic, they are free to be absolutely true to their selves – free soma and bound psyche existing on a three-to-one-basis of mother-to-daughter-like state/church relativity, and only partially corrupted in pseudo-chemistry, since free psyche and bound soma, even with somatic emphasis, only follow from the equivocal hegemony of physics, a male element.
As regards the church-hegemonic/state-subordinate axis, we have the converse situation of relative female corruption in chemistry over the male subordination of pseudo-physics (from out of antiphysics) at the southwest point of the intercardinal axial compass, and absolute female corruption in pseudo-metachemistry (from out of antimetachemistry) under the male unequivocal hegemony of metaphysics at the northeast point of the compass in question, the former order of corruption implying bound psychic emphasis at the expense of free soma in relation to pseudo-physical subversion at the behest of the overall axial dominance of metaphysics, and the latter … free psyche and bound soma under metaphysical pressure - pseudo-physics and metaphysics constitutive of primary church-hegemonic/state-subordinate axial criteria, chemistry and pseudo-metachemistry their secondary church-hegemonic/state-subordinate counterparts.
Thus female corruption is relative in chemistry and absolute in pseudo-metachemistry, males only partially corrupted in pseudo-physics, since free soma and bound psyche, even with psychic emphasis, only follow from the equivocal hegemony of chemistry, a female element, and not at all corrupted in metaphysics where, being unequivocally hegemonic, they are free to be absolutely true to their selves – free psyche and bound soma existing on a three-to-one-basis of father-to-son-like church/state relativity.
Of course, males are relatively corrupted in pseudo-physics and females in pseudo-chemistry, but in overall axial terms it is still males in the one context and females in the other who are the dominant gender, and this is the distinguishing differentiation between church-hegemonic/state-subordinate and state-hegemonic/church-subordinate axial criteria.
Speaking as a male, I can only contend that is it preferable to live in a society in which the female is corrupted, since male dominance makes for the possibility, in metaphysics, of religious truth and joy and, hence, for godliness and heavenliness.
Neither of those factors are germane to state-hegemonic/church-subordinate societies, which, dominated by females, are less religious and more scientific, rooted, it could be argued, in empirical objectivity.
Yet they are also likely to be more economic and less political, which is not female and male respectively but a consequence, by contrast, of equivocal male and female hegemonies in physics (over pseudo-chemistry) and chemistry (over pseudo-physics), economics polar to science or, more correctly, to pseudo-religion … as physics to pseudo-metaphysics, and politics polar to religion or, more correctly, to pseudo-science … as chemistry to pseudo-metachemistry.
But the polarity on the one axis of economics to pseudo-religion is correlative, on secondary state-hegemonic/church-subordinate terms, with the primary state-hegemonic/church-subordinate polarity of pseudo-politics to science … as of pseudo-chemistry to metachemistry, whereas the polarity on the other axis of politics to pseudo-science … as of chemistry to pseudo-metachemistry, is correlative, on secondary church-hegemonic/state-subordinate terms, with the primary church-hegemonic/state-subordinate polarity of pseudo-economics to religion … as of pseudo-physics to metaphysics.
Therefore genuine science and economics only exist in polar relation to pseudo-politics and pseudo-religion respectively, whereas genuine religion and politics likewise only exist in polar relation to pseudo-economics and pseudo-science.
On the church-hegemonic/state-subordinate axis, one can be saved, as a male, from pseudo-economics to religion, as from pseudo-physics to metaphysics, meekness to righteousness, poetry to philosophy, and counter-damned, as a female, from politics to pseudo-science, chemistry to pseudo-metachemistry, pseudo-vanity to pseudo-justice, pseudo-drama to pseudo-prose.
Conversely, on the state-hegemonic/church-subordinate axis one can be damned, as a female, from science to pseudo-politics, as from metachemistry to pseudo-chemistry, vanity to justice, drama to prose, and counter-saved, as a male, from pseudo-religion to economics, as from pseudo-metaphysics to physics, pseudo-meekness to pseudo-righteousness, pseudo-poetry to pseudo-philosophy.
But the latter eventualities, corresponding with state-hegemonic/church-subordinate axial criteria, are only likely to transpire in the event of salvation and counter-damnation taking place to an unprecedented extent on the church-hegemonic/state-subordinate axis, not independently of it, and for that to happen something more than the Catholic tradition would be required, as I have often contended from a radically theocratic standpoint – the standpoint of Social Theocracy, about which I have theorized at some length in a variety of blogs and texts elsewhere.