A BRIEF EXAMINATION OF THE MORAL DISTINCTIONS BETWEEN PLAY AND WORK

If it is not possible to categorically maintain that soma is invariably dark or black or shaded vis-a-vis psyche, and for the simple reason that brightness is determined by freedom, whether somatic or psychic, and darkness by binding, likewise irrespective of the faculty, then it should be possible to maintain that whatever is bound is dark and whatever is free, by contrast, is bright. Therefore brightness can be associated with either soma or psyche and darkness likewise, the chief determinant being the distinction between freedom and binding. But this distinction can be applied quite categorically to the dichotomy between play and work, since play is invariably free, or associated with freedom, whereas work is contractually obligated and is therefore a manifestation of binding. Since soma can be free or bound, so it can have associations with either play or work. The same holds true of psyche, which is only to be associated with play when free, not when bound. Therefore we can plot a distinction between play and work on the basis of freedom and binding, whether in relation to soma or psyche. Since metachemistry is the element of free soma and bound psyche par excellence, as germane to noumenal absolutism, we can maintain that metachemistry exemplifies somatic play and psychic work, its antimetaphysical corollary likewise, if on secondary terms, exemplifying somatic play and psychic work. Similarly, since chemistry is the element of free soma and bound psyche on phenomenally relative terms, we can maintain that chemistry exemplifies somatic play and psychic work, its antiphysical corollary likewise, if on primary terms in relation, traditionally, to the subversion of chemistry to bound psychic emphasis at the behest, axially considered, of metaphysics over antimetachemistry or, at any rate, of some degree of metaphysics, whether hyped or not, over antimetachemistry. Be that as it may, it should be possible to contend, for sensibility in contrast to sensuality, that since physics is the element of free psyche and bound soma on phenomenally relative terms, we can maintain that physics exemplifies psychic play and somatic work, its antichemical corollary likewise, if on primary terms, traditionally, in relation to the subversion of physics to bound somatic emphasis at the behest, axially considered, of metachemistry over antimetaphysics or, at any rate, of some degree of metachemistry over antimetaphysics. Finally, since metaphysics is the element of free psyche and bound soma par excellence, as germane to noumenal absolutism, we can maintain that metaphysics exemplifies psychic play and somatic work, its antimetachemical corollary likewise, if on secondary terms, exemplifying psychic play and somatic work. Hence the state-hegemonic/church-subordinate axis which stretches from northwest to southeast of the intercardinal axial compass would indicate a primary state-hegemonic polarity between the brightness of somatic play and the darkness of somatic work as far as the female contrast between metachemistry and antichemistry is concerned, but a secondary state-hegemonic polarity between the brightness of somatic play and the darkness of somatic work as far as the male contrast between antimetaphysics and physics is concerned, the contrast between the darkness of psychic work and the brightness of psychic play being primarily church subordinate in relation to metachemistry and antichemistry, but secondarily church-subordinate in relation to antimetaphysics and physics. By complete contrast, however, the church-hegemonic/state-subordinate axis which stretches from the southwest to the northeast of the intercardinal axial compass would indicate a primary church-hegemonic polarity between the darkness of psychic work and the brightness of psychic play as far as the male contrast between antiphysics and metaphysics is concerned, but a secondary church-hegemonic polarity between the darkness of psychic work and the brightness of psychic play as far as the female contrast between chemistry and antimetachemistry is concerned, the contrast between the brightness of somatic play and the darkness of somatic work being primarily state-subordinate in relation to antiphysics and metaphysics, but secondarily state-subordinate in relation to chemistry and antimetachemistry. Hence play-brightness has a work-dark antithesis on state somatic terms and work-darkness a play-bright antithesis on church psychic terms on the former axis, irrespective of whether on primary or secondary terms, while work-darkness has a play-bright antithesis on church psychic terms and play-brightness a work-dark antithesis on state somatic terms on the latter axis, again irrespective of whether on primary or secondary terms. Therefore in terms of metachemistry to antichemistry, evil is bright and goodness dark, for evil corresponds to somatic freedom of metachemistry and goodness to somatic binding of antichemistry, whereas crime is dark and punishment bright, since crime corresponds to psychic binding of metachemistry and punishment to psychic freedom of antichemistry. Likewise, in terms of antimetaphysics to physics, pseudo-folly is bright and pseudo-wisdom dark, for pseudo-folly corresponds to somatic freedom of antimetaphysics and pseudo-wisdom to somatic binding of physics, whereas pseudo-sin is dark and pseudo-grace bright, since pseudo-sin corresponds to psychic binding of antimetaphysics and pseudo-grace to psychic freedom of physics. In terms, by axial contrast, of antiphysics to metaphysics, sin is dark and grace bright, for sin corresponds to psychic binding of antiphysics and grace to psychic freedom of metaphysics, whereas folly is bright and wisdom dark, since folly corresponds to somatic freedom of antiphysics and wisdom to somatic binding of metaphysics. Likewise, in terms of chemistry to antimetachemistry, pseudo-crime is dark and pseudo-punishment bright, for pseudo-crime corresponds to psychic binding of chemistry and pseudo-punishment to psychic freedom of antimetachemistry, whereas pseudo-evil is bright and pseudo-goodness dark, since pseudo-evil corresponds to somatic freedom of chemistry and pseudo-goodness to somatic binding of antimetachemistry. Strange, but it is so.