I like this mystery. It isn’t about grand ideas or themes (such as the United States being the way in which gravity speaks to planets, or such as constipation and nightclubs only having the right to exist once so that the universe can know balance), but it hardly represents a conventional or even near to conventional perspective on reality.
To be more specific: the likeability of an IT technician having the right to look and feel sexy while in a supermarket is the stage between the majestic and the mere technical absence of routine – the stage between the majestic and a mere technical absence of routine is the equivalent of a technical absence of normal that is outside of the normal without a period of time.
A technical absence of normal, is a unique technical absence. A unique technical absence is a normal absence – a normal absence that is external to a normal that has no time is a normal absence that is opposed to a normal that has no time.
A normal that has no time is an eternity that is unique: a normal absence that opposes a unique eternity is a presence that opposes a normal style.
So to put it bluntly: an IT technician is a natural enemy of a supermarket, and a natural enemy of supermarket workers and business people who run supermarkets (which I suppose would then mean that the answer is no: an IT technician doesn’t have the right to look or feel sexy while in a supermarket, because it would be inappropriate on the grounds that enemies aren’t supposed to look sexy for one another).
And what I do think about this? It comes across as logical, but more importantly, it creates a segue into a more philosophical concept – namely, that a general style in and of itself can exist to be the embodiment of an opposition to something else, as opposed to just having an opposition to something else as a coincidental aspect of its vocabulary.
To just briefly extend on that last point: a specific example – apart from an IT technician, and their supposed opposition to supermarkets – might be the United States – perhaps the United States also exists to be a literal embodiment against something (and not just an entity that coincidentally involves opposition as an aspect of itself), or perhaps a forest exists to be a literal opposition to something (like DVD boxes, for example).
In all honesty, I find this particular concept very satisfying (as in I’m perfectly happy to agree with it).