TWO SPECIFIC KINDS OF SALUTING
In relation to the types of saluting germane to metaphysics and pseudo-metachemistry, the respective gender positions at the northeast point of the intercardinal axial compass (with which I ideologically identify), the noumenal subjectivity of metaphysics requires a raised-arm clenched-fist salute, as described in the preceding weblog (see ‘Noumenal and Phenomenal Salutes in Axial Perspective’), that is slightly curved and fairly flexible, with a kind of inwards-turned fist that may well oscillate, or be oscillated, in a slow and graceful curvilinear manner (kind of Mandela-like), whereas the noumenal pseudo-objectivity of pseudo-metachemistry, the pseudo-female position a plane down (pseudo-space under time) from metaphysical subjectivity at the northeast point of the said compass, requires that the bent arm open-hand salute referred to in the aforementioned weblog form a fairly rigid right angle with itself (horizontal upper arm, vertical lower arm) in relation to the vertical displacement of the open hand, palm outwards, which should be held still and remain straight, thereby contrasting, as contiguously-encircled absolute star (pseudo-superstar) to the free absolute cross (supercross), with the almost curvilinear flexibility of the raised-arm clenched-fist salute, as germane to metaphysical males.
Thus a contrast, in overall terms, between the morality of the hegemonic gender position and the unmorality (unclear under holy) of the subordinate gender position, as in other analogous elemental/pseudo-elemental contexts.
What one doesn’t want, from a metaphysical standpoint, is an amoral descent from the noumenal subjectivity of the hegemonic position towards, in gender-bender terms, the unmorality of the subordinate position, since any subjective imposition upon the pseudo-objective position, in this case the right-angled open hand salute, that could be described, in its subjective modification of the said position, as quasi-pseudo-objective, probably in relation to a kind of inwards-turned open hand with slightly curved fingers on a more flexible bent arm, could be logically inferred to create a quasi-subjective backlash as though in response to pressure from above (metaphysics) on the unmoral position, in this case pseudo-metachemical, and such a backlash, resulting in a more rigid raised-arm clenched-fist salute the latter part of which would be parallel with the arm in an upwards and outwards-tending direction, could only be bad for the subjectivity of the metaphysical salute proper, serving to detract from its subjectivity, quite apart from the fact that such a quasi-subjective salute would, coming from a pseudo-objective, pseudo-female position, be immoral, and therefore bad not only for metaphysics, or the reputation of metaphysics, but for the unmorality of the pseudo-metachemical position itself, which would cease to have the significance proper to it.
In short, a descent from above (metaphysics) would be no better in this context, that of noumenal subjectivity paired with noumenal pseudo-objectivity, than the one I believe I described some time ago in my book The Best of All Possible Worlds (2008), where I used the analogy of a sartorial contrast between zipper-suit and dress, contrasting the tapering zipper-suit of metaphysics with the straight dress proper to pseudo-metachemistry, and then logically demonstrating how an amoral descent from above, namely metaphysics, in terms of a tapering dress, could be inferred to result in an immoral backlash from below, namely pseudo-metachemistry, in the form of a straight zipper-suit, the pseudo-objective basis of which would, within a quasi-subjective gender-bender role, somewhat detract from the subjectivity proper to the tapering zipper-suit and thereby undermine its moral right to dominate, hegemonically, the context in question, that of the metaphysical/pseudo-metachemical northeast point of the intercardinal axial compass.
Therefore here, as in other instances, an amoral descent from above (the hegemonic or moral position) should be discouraged, since the only result will be an immoral ascent from below (the subordinate or unmoral position), and such an ascent can only detract from the subjective standing of metaphysics.
Hence, as in other analogous contexts, it is right to remain ‘stuck up’ in the interests of the morality to which one subscribes and in order to keep the subordinate gender position firmly in its unmoral place, kind of neutralized dragon-like (pseudo-dragon) under a saintly heel in the metaphysical/pseudo-metachemical context in question. Failure to do so can only result in defeat and the undermining and even, paradoxically, eclipse of the hegemonic position, with long-term reductionist implications that would have what aesthetes call an art-for-art’s sake air about them.
Therefore beware of raised-arm clenched-fist salutes that are too straight or rigid. They do no emanate from metaphysics. They can have no place in a properly run, structurally differentiated metaphysical/pseudo-metachemical society … such that fully accords with divine/pseudo-diabolic criteria, as germane to what tradition would term ‘Kingdom Come’. The supercross and the pseudo-superstar must remain in an uncompromised, properly differentiated moral/unmoral (holy/unclear) relationship, with no place, in consequence, for amoral and immoral gender-bender intrusions whose effect, whether coming down from above (amoral) or up from below (immoral), can only be subversive of the relationship in question.