A Revaluation of Meritocracy and Plutocracy. I have long associated autocracy with aristocracy as metachemical free soma and bound psyche, associating, by contrast, anti-aristocracy with anti-autocracy as antimetachemical free psyche and bound soma. Likewise I have long associated theocracy with technocracy as metaphysical free psyche and bound soma, while associating, by contrast, anti-technocracy with anti-theocracy as antimetaphysical free soma and bound psyche. Thus autocracy and aristocracy would line up over anti-technocracy and anti-theocracy as metachemistry over antimetaphysics in free soma and bound psyche respectively. Conversely, theocracy and technocracy would line up over anti-aristocracy and anti-autocracy as metaphysics over antimetachemistry in free psyche and bound soma respectively. On the one hand, the upper-classfulness and anti-classlessness of the northwest point of the axial compass; on the other hand, the classlessness and anti-upper-classfulness of the northeast point of the axial compass. Noumenal sensuality and noumenal anti-sensibility vis-à-vis noumenal sensibility and noumenal anti-sensuality. So much for the noumenal positions. Turning now to their phenomenal counterparts, I had long associated bureaucracy with plutocracy as chemical free soma and bound psyche, associating, by contrast, anti-plutocracy with anti-bureaucracy as antichemical free psyche and bound soma. Similarly, I had long associated meritocracy with democracy as physical free psyche and bound soma, while associating, by contrast, anti-democracy with anti-meritocracy as antiphysical free soma and bound psyche. Thus bureaucracy and plutocracy would line up over anti-democracy and anti-meritocracy as chemistry over antiphysics in free soma and bound psyche respectively. Conversely, meritocracy and democracy would line up over anti-plutocracy and anti-bureaucracy as physics over antichemistry in free psyche and bound soma respectively. On the one hand, the lower-classfulness and anti-middle-classfulness of the southwest point of the axial compass; on the other hand, the middle-classfulness and anti-lower-classfulness of the southeast point of the axial compass. Phenomenal sensuality and phenomenal anti-sensibility vis-à-vis phenomenal sensibility and phenomenal anti-sensuality. So much for the phenomenal positions. But even though I would still strongly argue in favour of the antiphysical subversion of chemistry to a bound-psychic emphasis at the behest of metaphysics over antimetachemistry and, by axial contrast, of the antichemical subversion of physics to a bound-somatic emphasis at the behest of metachemistry over antimetaphysics, I do not now think in terms of the coupling of bureaucracy with plutocracy or, conversely, of anti-plutocracy with anti-bureaucracy but, rather, of the coupling of bureaucracy with meritocracy and, conversely, of anti-meritocracy with anti-bureaucracy. Likewise, I have ceased to think in terms of the coupling of meritocracy with democracy and, conversely, of anti-democracy with anti-meritocracy, but, rather, in terms of the coupling of plutocracy with democracy and, conversely, of anti-democracy with anti-plutocracy. Hence, to rephrase the phenomenal antitheses, bureaucracy and meritocracy would line up over anti-democracy and anti-plutocracy as chemistry over antiphysics in free soma and bound psyche respectively. Conversely, plutocracy and democracy would line up over anti-meritocracy and anti-bureaucracy as physics over antichemistry in free psyche and bound soma respectively. For it seems to me that there is a close association, in chemistry, between bureaucracy and meritocracy which contrasts, as feminine to masculine, with the equally close association, in physics, between plutocracy and democracy. In religious/political terms it could be said that the meritocracy and bureaucracy of chemistry would contrast with the democracy and plutocracy of physics as feminine Catholicism, or the feminine (nonconformist/realist) aspects of Catholicism with masculine Puritanism, or the masculine (naturalist/humanist) aspects of Puritanism, bearing in mind the gender subversions in overall axial terms that conduce to bound-psychic emphasis (paradoxically) in the one case and to bound-somatic emphasis (no less paradoxically) in the other case. However that may be, I am now as good as logically convinced that the hegemonic factors of the church-hegemonic/state-subordinate axis, whether unequivocally (noumenally) or equivocally (phenomenally) so, are theocracy/technocracy in the case of metaphysics and bureaucracy/meritocracy in the case of chemistry, theocracy linking, however, with anti-plutocracy and technocracy with anti-democracy to bring off the paradoxical psychic emphasis which characterizes primary church-hegemonic/state-subordinate criteria in terms of the salvation of antiphysics to metaphysics, with the counter-damnation (for females) of chemistry to antimetachemistry entailing the link of anti-aristocracy with meritocracy and of anti-autocracy with bureaucracy. Likewise I am now as good as logically convinced that the hegemonic factors of the state-hegemonic/church-subordinate axis, whether unequivocally (noumenally) or equivocally (phenomenally) so, are autocracy/aristocracy in the case of metachemistry and plutocracy/democracy in the case of physics, autocracy linking, however, with anti-bureaucracy and aristocracy with anti-meritocracy to bring off the paradoxical somatic emphasis which characterizes primary state-hegemonic/church-subordinate criteria in terms of the damnation of metachemistry to antichemistry, with the counter-salvation (for males) of antimetaphysics to physics entailing the link of anti-technocracy with democracy and of anti-theocracy with plutocracy. In broad hegemonic axial terms, however, the former axis would seem to indicate a contrast, in positive terms, between bureaucratic politics and theocratic religion, whereas the latter axis, ever antithetical to it, would appear to indicate a contrast, positively, between autocratic science and plutocratic economics. Hence my distinction, the other day, between economics and science in relation to the respective reigns of man (the civility of civilization) and the Devil (a Faustian pact with barbarity), but between politics and religion in relation to the respective reigns of woman (nature) and God (culture). Woman is not, strictly speaking, a ‘breadwinner’ but, rather, one who bureaucratically distributes to each (in the family) according to their meritocratic needs. That is less economic than political, for the plutocratic money-making, which hinges upon democratic rights, is traditionally the preserve of man.