Ad: Business Education Coaching
A niche market. Online business education that is growing day by day. Profit this year $75 m+. 21 st
Ad: Our clients are our family! 99% guarantee
One stop advisory for Individuals / Families / Businesses and Corporates who need consultancy and ad
What is Madness?
I have written recently (see THE ATOMIC LIMITATIONS OF SANITY) about sanity vis-a-vis pseudo-insanity in metachemistry/pseudo-metaphysics and chemistry/pseudo-physics, the former in each pairing female and the latter … pseudo-male, as well as, antithetical to each of these pairs of apparent complementary dichotomies, their seemingly more essential counterparts in metaphysics/pseudo-metachemistry and physics/pseudo-chemistry, wherein one has a male/pseudo-female dichotomy between insanity in the one case (that of the hegemonic male elements) and pseudo-outsanity in the other (that of the subordinate pseudo-female elements or, rather, pseudo-elements).
In neither instance, alpha/pseudo-omega or omega/pseudo-alpha, did I identify the prevailing order of ‘sanity’ or the subordinate order of ‘pseudo-sanity’ with madness, because in neither instance, noumenal or phenomenal, ethereal or corporeal, did I believe that there was a logical case for such an identification.
But there is, nonetheless, a place for what could be called the madness of abandoning one’s own gender standpoint by approximating, on reverse ratio terms of soma to psyche (female) or of psyche to soma (male), to the opposite gender’s position, whether in terms, therefore, of an amoral descent from ‘above’, i.e. the hegemonic gender position, or, in consequence of that, an immoral ascent from ‘below’, i.e. the subordinate gender position, which has been identified with a pseudo-male and/or pseudo-female status, as the case may be.
Hence an amoral descent from metachemistry to pseudo-metaphysics or from chemistry to pseudo-physics would be no less ‘mad’, in the aforementioned sense, than an immoral ascent, in consequence of that, from pseudo-metaphysics (via antimetaphysics) to metachemistry and from pseudo-physics (via antiphysics) to chemistry, the net result being an amoral/immoral exception to the general moral/unmoral rule of outsanity/pseudo-insanity which takes the form of either quasi-pseudo-insanity (amoral) or quasi-outsanity (immoral), to the detriment of each gender and, not least, the prevalence of morality.
Likewise, an amoral descent from metaphysics to pseudo-metachemistry and from physics to pseudo-chemistry would be no less ‘mad’, in our gender-twisted sense, than an immoral ascent, in consequence of this, from pseudo-metachemistry (via antimetacvhemistry) to metaphysics and from pseudo-chemistry (via antichemistry) to physics, the net result once again being an amoral/immoral exception to the general moral/unmoral rule of insanity/pseudo-outsanity which takes the form of either quasi-pseudo-outsanity (amoral) or quasi-insanity (immoral), to the detriment of each gender.
Therefore madness can and, unfortunately, does exist, but it would have nothing to do with pseudo-insanity, much less insanity, to take but the pseudo-omega and omega ‘male’ alternatives, but solely with amoral and immoral departures from the moral/unmoral norm, which can only have a destabilizing effect on both the hegemonic and the subordinate genders’ standard positions.
Madness, to repeat, is the exception to the general rule, and it is not logically excusable or defensible, especially since its origins lie (amorally) with the hegemonic gender, who will either be abandoning clearness for unholiness or holiness for unclearness, to speak in general terms rather than on specific axial terms relative to the noumenal and phenomenal alternatives.
Admittedly, such an amoral abandonment of the hegemonic position by the moral gender will be less mad, granted its predominating (in free soma) or preponderating (in free psyche) positivity in either class or elemental case, than the immoral madness coming up from the unmoral 'below' in reverse ratio terms to what is proper to the 'above', with, in consequence, more negativity, whether on an absolute or a relative ratio basis, than positivity. But in the end it matters little that the amoral kind of madness is less mad than its immoral counterpart, since, as I have argued in the past, it invites its nemesis in the guise of the immoral retort, and such a nemesis can only be bad for what is moral, whether on female clear or on male holy terms, serving to eclipse its 'sanity', whether outer or inner, with the worst possible kind of madness – that which is quasi-outsane or quasi-insane without being in the least comparable to outsanity and insanity proper, whether noumenal or phenomenal, absolute or relative.