Since we have expanded our moral/amoral vis-à-vis unmoral/immoral theories from the realm of knives and handguns into that of ale and beer, there would seem to be a case for expanding them into the sartorial realm, already outlined in the main text, of pants and skirts, which, as the reader may recall, we divided between flounced skirts over flared pants at the southwest point of the intercardinal axial compass and tapering pants over straight skirts at its southeast point, a division which, though logically sound, failed to address the possibility – indeed probability – of amoral departures from the moral (hegemonic) positions and, conversely, of immoral departures from the unmoral (subordinate) ones.
This we shall now attempt to do, though not without first of all attempting to correct what now seems to be the error (vis-à-vis the tapering pants/straight skirt dichotomy at the southeast point of our intercardinal axial compass) of conceiving of the southwest as signifying a dichotomy between flounced skirts and flared pants. For surely a straight skirt under tapering pants dichotomy in the one context would suggest the likelihood, if not inevitability, of a straight pants (if with turn-ups) under flounced skirt dichotomy in the other?
I apologize for the logical inconsistency which, to be sure, wasn’t at all apparent to me over the few days of frantic scribble when I originally drafted the main body of the text. But straight pants (with turn-ups) under flounced skirts now seems to me, on calmer reflection, an adequate counterpart to straight skirts (without turn-ups) under tapering pants, especially since one could just as logically equate the former with phenomenal pseudo-subjectivity under phenomenal objectivity as one equated the latter with phenomenal pseudo-objectivity under phenomenal subjectivity.
But what, then, are the respective amoral and immoral, descending and ascending, corollaries of these moral and unmoral positions, corresponding to specific modes of sartorial attire?
Let us start with the more familiar southeast point of our intercardinal axial compass, by contending that an amoral descent from tapering pants in the physically hegemonic position to a quasi-pseudochemical accommodation with straight skirts below (in the pseudo-chemical position) would take the form of tapering skirts, analogous to a descent from the canned stout of the preceding appendix to bottled stout, thereby connoting with a 2½:1½ free psyche to bound soma advantage (amoral) over the resident under-plane unmorality of 1½: 2½ free psyche to bound soma that, being pseudo-chemical, one would have a logical right to equate with straight skirts.
But if the concept and indeed reality of tapering skirts derives its justification from an amoral descent from above (physics), then the reactionary concept of straight pants (without turn-ups) can only derive its justification from an immoral ascent from below (pseudo-chemistry) in the quasi-physical terms of a departure, on the part of pseudo-feminine females, from bottled brown ale to canned brown ale, and with similar undesirable implications vis-à-vis the hegemonic gender and, indeed, position generally.
For straight pants can only cast a shadow, metaphorically speaking, over tapering pants, just as we have argued that canned brown ale would in a sense be bad for the reputation of canned stout, if only because, coming up from below, it signified a phenomenally relative ratio that, being the converse of the hegemonic position, favoured bound soma at the expense of free psyche, and therefore that which could more logically be associated with the dark rather than the bright side of the context in question.
Be that as it may, let us now turn our critical attention away from the southeast towards the southwest point of our intercardinal axial compass, and contend that an amoral descent from flounced skirts in the chemically hegemonic position to a quasi-pseudophysical accommodation with straight pants (with turn-ups) would take the form of flared pants, analogous to a descent from the bottled light ale of the preceding appendix to canned light ale, thereby connoting with a 2½:1½ free soma to bound psyche advantage (amoral) over the resident under-plane unmorality of 1½: 2½ free soma to bound psyche that, being pseudo-physical, one would have a logical right to equate with straight pants (with turn-ups).
But if the concept of flared pants derives its justification and indeed reality from an amoral descent from above (chemistry), then the reactionary concept of straight skirts (with pleats) can only derive its justification from an immoral ascent from below (pseudo-physics) in the quasi-chemical terms of a departure, on the part of pseudo-masculine males, from canned lager to bottled lager, and with similar undesirable implications vis-à-vis the hegemonic gender and, indeed, position generally.
For straight skirts (with pleats) can only cast a shadow, metaphorically speaking, over flounced ones, just as we have argued that bottled lager would be bad for the reputation of bottled light ale, if only, once again, because, coming up from below, it would signify a phenomenally relative ratio that, being the converse of the hegemonic position, favoured bound psyche at the expense of free soma, and therefore that which could more logically be associated with the dark side (symbolized by the pleats of the skirt) rather than the bright.
Therefore straight skirts (with pleats), deriving their justification from below, are no less immoral vis-à-vis flounced skirts than, across the axial divide, straight pants (without turn-ups) are such vis-à-vis tapering pants, and precisely because, in each case, they are the product of an inverse ratio of phenomenal relativity to that which hegemonically obtains in relation to one kind or another (heathen or christian) of preponderating freedom.
But just as these immoral equivalents, straight skirts (with pleats) and straight pants (without turn-ups) are undesirable from the antithetical standpoints of flounced skirts and tapering pants in the respective hegemonic positions of phenomenal relativity (2½: 1½), so we could logically argue that their existences would be less prevalent if not sparked off, so to speak, by an amoral coming down from above, in each axial case, of flared pants and tapering skirts, since here, as in other analogous contexts, one has the logical right to infer that the subordinate gender positions would be much less disposed to an immoral ascent from below if not pressurized by an amoral descent from above on the part of the hegemonic gender, whose moral adherence to flounced skirts (if chemical) or to tapering pants (if physical), as the axial case may be, would otherwise preclude such an undesirable upshot and allow them the satisfaction of keeping the unmoral in their straight pants (with turn-ups) or straight skirts (without pleats but with the possibility of a slit) subordinate gender place.
Ah well, is it any wonder that only philosophers – and then only the greatest – understand the world? I think I have proved my point and shall accordingly terminate this further supplementary appendix without drawing attention to the noumenal, and therefore 3:1 absolute ratio, parallels to the aforementioned phenomenal positions, where dresses and zipper-suits of one sort or another would, I believe, be subject to similar moral/amoral vis-à-vis unmoral/immoral possibilities, albeit rather more in relation to netherworldly and/or otherworldly criteria having to do with a distinction between ‘super’ and ‘sub’ factors in soma or psyche than to anything merely worldly and, hence, phenomenally relative along the lines of a ‘standard’/‘unstandard’ dichotomy of the sort that, reflecting a 2½: 1½ ratio, results in distinctions between sensuous and unconscious or conscious and unsensuous to the exclusion of absolute criteria.