17
Ordinarily the genders approach sex from
opposite standpoints – the males with intent to appease their subjectivity through
pleasure, the females with intent to appease their objectivity through
reproduction (or the possibility thereof), neither of which approaches are
really compatible with the other, though some degree of compromise, usually
favouring females, is eventually reached.
The synthetic approach to sex, which stems from
a kind of gender-neutral standpoint, is to reduce both the motives of pleasure
and reproduction through recourse to contraception – male and female – so that
neither gender achieves anything comparable to a thesis/antithesis,
pleasure/reproduction dichotomy.
In relation to the perpetuation of diurnal
life, it could be argued that the female virtue of virtually infinite patience
vis-à-vis children stands in sharp contrast to the eternal self-indulgence of males vis-à-vis females.
* * * *
One thing we can of which we can be certain is
that any resurrection of the thesis/antithesis dichotomy from an omega-oriented
standpoint, such as makes for distinctions of good and bad, light and shade,
white and black, etc., stemming from a hegemonically
sensible standpoint, will not be furthered by the English language, that
bastion of synthetic amorality and gender neutrality, but only by languages,
like German and even French, that grammatically recognize gender division and
accordingly differentiate between male and female nouns, as well as both of
these from neuter nouns, which are effectively genderless, whether in relation
to infinitives, the diminutive forms of nouns, fractions, or whatever.
Instead of the 'grey zone' or 'twilight zone'
that, thanks in large part to the English language, currently dominates the
world, we shall have, with gender-based language, the preponderating
resurrection of the light forever sensibly hegemonic over a predominantly dark
or, more correctly, pseudo-dark pseudo-sensual antithesis, like the neutralized
she-dragon, as it were, that would exist in pseudo-metachemical
subordination to metaphysics, as to the 3:1 brightness/darkness of metaphysical
free psyche/bound soma from a standpoint, in pseudo-space under time, in which
the pseudo-darkness/pseudo-brightness of pseudo-bound soma/pseudo-free psyche
would also be 3:1, in keeping with the absolutism of noumenal
and, in the case of pseudo-metachemistry, pseudo-noumenal criteria.
The resurrection of what is, in effect, a 3:1 superthesis/subthesis metaphysical integrity hegemonic over
a 3:1 pseudo-antisuperthesis/pseudo-antisubthesis
pseudo-metachemical integrity will constitute the
resurrection per se, following the salvation of the pseudo-physical to
metaphysics and correlative counter-damnation of the chemical to pseudo-metachemistry, as from an elemental/unelemental
phenomenal atomic hegemony over a pseudo-elemental/pseudo-unelemental
pseudo-phenomenal pseudo-atomic subordination to a superelemental/subelemental
noumenal atomic hegemony over a pseudo-superelemental/pseudo-subelemental pseudo-noumenal pseudo-atomic subordination in which the superelemental will be akin, in metaphysical free psyche,
to the light and the pseudo-superelemental akin, in
pseudo-metachemical pseudo-bound soma, to the
pseudo-darkness (since darkness proper would, as noted above, be the subelemental aspect of metaphysics), the former absolutely
moral (superthesis) and the latter absolutely unmoral
(pseudo-antisuperthesis), with a corresponding
distinction between that which, in metaphysics, is holy and what, in pseudo-metachemistry, is unclear, forever fated to a secondary
church-hegemonic status in the pseudo-brightness of pseudo-free psyche and a
primary state-subordinate one in the pseudo-darkness of pseudo-bound soma.