GENUINE AND PSEUDO MODES OF MORALITY,
AMORALITY, UNMORALITY, AND IMMORALITY
Although I
have written recently of distinctions at all points of the intercardinal
axial compass between morality, amorality, unmorality
and immorality, with morality and unmorality the
standard distinctions compared to amoral and immoral departures from above or
below, as the gender-specific case may be, I should emphasize that I was
generalizing rather than allowing, more categorically, for further distinctions
between the genuine forms of morality, amorality, unmorality,
and immorality, and their ‘pseudo’ counterparts. For, categorically speaking,
such further distinctions indubitably exist, and they do so with regard to the
absolute standings of morality and immorality vis-à-vis the relative standings
of amorality and unmorality.
Now since
the intercardinal axial compass is divisible between noumenal and phenomenal positions, corresponding to
ethereal and corporeal class distinctions, it should be logically feasible to
contend that only in the noumenal positions, whether
in terms of the metachemical/pseudo-metaphysical
northwest point of the said compass or, contrariwise, in terms of the
metaphysical/pseudo-metachemical northeast point of
it, will both morality and immorality be genuine, since such positions, being noumenal, are absolute, as, in their opposite ways, are
morality and immorality, with a 3:1 ratio of soma to psyche (female) or of
psyche to soma (male).
The amoral
and unmoral positions, by contrast, will be ‘pseudo’, since existing or
transpiring within the absolute parameters of the noumenal. Hence not only will pseudo-metaphysics and
pseudo-metachemistry be symptomatic of ‘pseudo’
manifestations of unmorality, but
quasi-pseudo-metaphysical departures from metachemistry
in the one case, and quasi-pseudo-metachemical
departures from metaphysics in the other case will also be symptomatic of the
‘pseudo’ modes of amorality.
All this,
however, ceases to apply with the southwest and southeast points of the intercardinal axial compass, wherein the phenomenal
relativity (2½:1½) of chemistry over pseudo-physics and, across the axial
divide, of physics over pseudo-chemistry will present the opposite case to
anything noumenal – namely, a fundamental distinction
between the ‘pseudo’ standings of morality and immorality vis-à-vis the genuine
standings of amorality and unmorality, whether in
terms of a 2½:1½ ratio of soma to psyche (female) or of psyche to soma (male).
Hence both
chemistry and physics exemplify pseudo-morality within the paradoxical
standings of their phenomenal relativity, even though amoral departures from
either chemistry to pseudo-physics in terms of quasi-pseudo-physics or from
physics to pseudo-chemistry in terms of quasi-pseudo-chemistry will be anything
but ‘pseudo’ in their accordance with relative criteria.
Just so,
both pseudo-physical and pseudo-chemical modes of unmorality
will be genuine in their relativity, but not the immoral departures from
pseudo-physics (or, more correctly, antiphysics) of a
quasi-chemical nature or from pseudo-chemistry (more correctly, antichemistry) of a quasi-physical nature, given the
absolute requirements of immorality.
Thus while the noumenal positions
provide logical evidence of a contrast between genuine morality and genuine
immorality, whether metachemical/quasi-metachemical
or, across the axial divide, metaphysical/quasi-metaphysical, their phenomenal
counterparts, being relative, will logically attest to a contrast between
pseudo-morality and pseudo-immorality, whether chemical/quasi-chemical or
physical/quasi-physical.
Conversely, while the phenomenal positions provide logical
evidence of a contrast between genuine amorality and genuine unmorality, whether quasi-pseudo-physical/pseudo-physical
or, across the axial divide, quasi-pseudo-chemical/pseudo-chemical, their noumenal counterparts, being absolute, will logically
attest to a contrast between pseudo-amorality and pseudo-unmorality,
whether quasi-pseudo-metaphysical/pseudo-metaphysical or quasi-pseudo-metachemical/pseudo-metachemical.
In each
class and/or gender context, however, there will be a balance, theoretically
speaking, between the genuine and ‘pseudo’ elements, the noumenal
exemplifying the genuineness of morality and immorality vis-à-vis the
pseudo-ness, so to speak, of amorality and unmorality;
the phenomenal, by contrast, exemplifying the genuineness of amorality and unmorality vis-à-vis the pseudo-ness of morality and
immorality.
In sum, the
lower orders, whether chemical/pseudo-physical at the southwest or
physical/pseudo-chemical at the southeast points of the intercardinal
axial compass, are neither as moral nor as immoral as their upper-order
counterparts, while the latter, whether metachemical/pseudo-metaphysical
at the northwest or metaphysical/pseudo-metachemical
at the northeast points of the said compass, will be neither as amoral nor as
unmoral as the lower orders. For morality and immorality, when genuine, are absolute (3:1),
whereas both amorality and unmorality, to be genuine,
can only be relative (
Everything
exists or has the capacity to exist everywhere, but not in the same terms or to
a similar extent. The persistence of
morality, amorality, unmorality, and immorality at
all points of the intercardinal axial compass will
continue to reflect opposing approaches to the genuine and the ‘pseudo’ even
if, ultimately, it can only be a point of philosophical principle approximating
to divine judgement that metaphysics/pseudo-metachemistry
should triumph over everything else, and that genuine godly/heavenly morality
should avoid any pseudo-amoral departure from itself (in quasi-pseudo-metachemical terms) in order to keep the pseudo-unmorality, corresponding to the
pseudo-devilish/pseudo-hellish nature of pseudo-metachemistry,
in its gender-subordinate place, the better to avoid the probability of an
immoral quasi-metaphysical backlash from pseudo-metachemistry
(or, more correctly, from antimetachemistry, its
anti-diabolic starting point) that would be extremely bad for metaphysics
proper, a context, be it not forgotten, with a 3:1 ratio (noumenal)
of free psyche (in truth and joy) to bound soma (in illusion or woe) that could
only suffer, possibly fatally, from a 3:1 ratio of bound soma (quasi-illusion
and quasi-woe) to free psyche (quasi-truth and quasi-joy) coming up, via antimetachemistry, from the pseudo-metachemical
‘below’, where, a plane down at the northeast point of our intercardinal
axial compass, the pseudo-female absolutism of 3:1 bound soma to free psyche
would normally or habitually take the form of pseudo-ugliness and pseudo-hatred
to pseudo-beauty and pseudo-love – something pseudo-diabolically acceptable
from a truly divine standpoint in metaphysics.
So as long
as pseudo-metachemistry is not encouraged
(pseudo-amorally) to depart from itself in the aforementioned immoral manner,
all will be well for metaphysics, the proverbial St George with his foot firmly
planted on the neutralized dragon … of noumenal
pseudo-femaleness, the pseudo-lion that not so much lies down with as under the
heel of the genuine lamb, the lamb of God whose moral raison d’être, in truth,
is the joy of heavenly peace in total self-unity.
