CYCLE ELEVEN

1. Women, or rather females (women and devils) are generally more relaxed than males (men and gods) because they are more sensual and less sensible.

2. Males are more inclined, on account of their greater capacity for sensibility, to be 'uptight' than females, who are comparatively 'laid back'.

3. It is the fact of a primary not-self and a secondary self which ensures that females, whether upper or lower class, are generally more 'laid back', or relaxed, than males.

4. With a primary self and a secondary not-self, males are more prone to 'uptightness', not to mention being musically 'up-tempo', than females, who know this to their cost.

5. Males can get so 'screwed up' that only females can 'unscrew' them.

6. No-one in his right mind would chose to be born male, for females, being the primary sex, have all the main advantages, including beauty and strength, not to mention a more direct - or objective - disposition.

7. Truth, believe it or not, is secondary to beauty, as is knowledge to strength.

8. Males do everything they can to compensate for a feeling of inferiority vis-à-vis females. Ultimately, however, nothing they do will convince females that they are superior.

9. I don't myself believe, however, that females are superior to males or males superior to females. Appearance is not superior to essence, nor is quantity superior to quality. Rather, it can be said that appearance is superior to quantity, and essence superior to quality.

10. Therefore while some females are superior (in terms of looks) to other females, some males are superior (in terms of insights) to other males. This is roughly commensurate with appearance being superior to quantity, as beauty to strength, and essence being superior to quality, as truth to knowledge.

11. In other words, the Devil is no less superior to woman than God is superior to man. Or, conversely, woman is no less inferior to the Devil than man to God. For both the Devil and God are noumenal and therefore upper class, whereas both woman and man are phenomenal, and hence lower class.

12. Thus while metachemistry is superior to chemistry, as a higher order of objectivity to a lower order of objectivity, metaphysics is superior to physics, as a higher order of subjectivity to a lower order of subjectivity.

13. In elemental terms, this would translate into fire being superior to water, and air being superior to vegetation (earth).

14. But air is not inferior to fire, nor vegetation to water. The secondary elements, viz. air and vegetation, are not inferior to the primary elements, viz. fire and water. They are simply subjective as opposed to objective.

15. Therefore God is not inferior to the Devil just because He corresponds to a higher order of subjectivity (noumenal) and the Devil to a higher order of objectivity (noumenal). He is simply subjective as opposed to objective, and thus germane to being as opposed to doing - in short, to truth as opposed to beauty.

16. Likewise man is not inferior to woman just because he corresponds to a lower order of subjectivity (phenomenal) and woman to a lower order of objectivity (phenomenal). He is simply subjective as opposed to objective, and thus germane to taking as opposed to giving - in short, to knowledge as opposed to strength.

17. Therefore no more than one can say that doing is better (superior) or worse (inferior) than being, can one logically argue that giving is better (superior) or worse (inferior) than taking. The one is simply contrary to the other in each of these class contexts, and therefore incapable of being compared on the basis of superiority or inferiority.

18. Only that which is alike or akin can be compared on such a basis, and that brings us back to the distinction between noumenal and phenomenal modes of objectivity on the one hand, and phenomenal and noumenal modes of subjectivity on the other hand, with the noumenal being superior to the phenomenal with which it is akin, i.e. objectively or subjectively.

19. The Devil, then, is no less superior to woman than God is superior to man, since both the Devil and God, corresponding to metachemical and metaphysical realities, are noumenal, whereas both man and woman, corresponding to physical and chemical realities, are phenomenal, which is to say, of mass and volume rather than of time and space.

20. But Devils can be evil or good, depending whether they are sensual or sensible, blessed with freedom or damned with constraints upon freedom, and women likewise, which permits us to further distinguish between what is superior and what is inferior in relation to different manifestations of the same kind of phenomenon - in this case Devils on the one hand, and women on the other.

21. I shall not argue, however, that damned females are superior to blessed females, but rather that, from a female standpoint, blessed females are superior to damned females, since the sensually free stand on a higher plane than the sensibly damned, as eyes in space to heart in time (noumenal) or, alternatively, as tongue in volume to womb in mass (phenomenal).

22. Similarly, Gods can be foolish or wise, depending whether they are sensual or sensible, cursed with freedom or saved to binding, and men likewise, which permits us to further distinguish between what is superior and what is inferior in relation, once again, to different manifestations of the same kind of phenomenon - in this case Gods on the one hand, and men on the other.

23. I shall, of course, argue that saved males are superior to cursed males, since the sensibly bound stand on a higher plane than the sensually free, as brain in volume to phallus in mass (phenomenal) or, alternatively, as lungs in space to ears in time (noumenal).

24. Hence while it is incontestably the case that blessed females are superior to damned females, it is not true that cursed males, their sensual counterparts, are superior to saved males but, rather, the other way around, so that the superiority of male salvation requires the inferiority (from a female standpoint) of female damnation.

25. But, contrary to morality, evil is not inferior to goodness from a female standpoint, and therefore the goodness of females is only something that can be justified in relation to male wisdom, which is that which, from a male standpoint, is superior to folly.

26. How, then, can a creature, be he man or god, whose moral advantage lies in sensibility, which makes him superior to his sensual fellows, sustain a situation in which women or devils are required to live on an inferior basis, in sensibility, to those of their own kind who persist in remaining sensually free.

27. Obviously it can be done, else we would know nothing of civilization and culture, those female and male manifestations of sensibility, but not without what some would regard as the oppression of females.

28. For the female will not naturally remain in a context for long which is inferior not to the male context above but to a sensual hegemony for her kind, be it feminine or diabolic.

29. She will return, as often as possible, to her own higher plane, thereby dragging such males who have anything to do with her back to their lower plane, whether as time under space or as mass under volume, which is equivalent to saying whether as ears under eyes or as phallus under tongue.

30. You cannot have a society or nation or whatever in which only moral criteria obtain, for if we identify morality with sensibility, as seems logically plausible, we are faced with the dilemma that while sensibility works to the hegemonic advantage of males, it only results in subservient disadvantage to females.

31. Conversely, while sensuality - and hence immorality - works to the hegemonic advantage of females it only results in subservient disadvantage to males, who are then so many fools under an evil spell being cast by free females, and the direct freedom, moreover, of the relevant female not-self.

32. The seeds, or genders, are (sex-change exceptions to the rule notwithstanding) immutably what they are - female (and objective) or male (and subjective), and therefore what best suits the one gender, whether on phenomenal or noumenal terms, will prove less than suitable to the other - indeed, something to revolt against in the interests of a hegemonic advantage.

33. Goodness may be indirectly morally desirable from the standpoint of wisdom, or the Wise, but it is not - and never has been - superior to evil. It is no less inferior to evil than wisdom is superior to folly.

34. Therefore goodness, conceived in its proper female context, will always succumb, sooner or later, to the superiority of evil, in which the female is directly free rather than indirectly bound.

35. Goodness cannot defeat evil, for evil is ever that which is more advantageous, in its higher-plane position, from a female standpoint. Evil is not defeated by goodness; it is simply marginalized and/or put on hold by the prevalence of goodness in relation to the hegemony of wisdom as a male solution (in salvation) to the inferiority of folly.

36. Therefore the more wisdom, the more goodness; the more goodness, the less evil; the less evil, the less folly; the less folly, the more wisdom. The more wisdom and goodness, in short, the less folly and evil.

37. But, as human experience and history well attest, wisdom and goodness, male and female sensibilities, are more the exception to the rule, and cannot be sustained beyond a certain limited point. Sooner or later evil and folly will come back into the frame, and the struggle of the one against the other begin afresh. For barbarism and philistinism are at the roots of civilization and culture.

38. But just as folly and evil struggle with each other as free agents, the one indirectly free in self and the other directly free in not-self, so goodness and wisdom are engaged in a perpetual struggle as bound agents, the one indirectly bound in not-self and the other directly bound in self, else goodness would not succumb to evil, or wisdom to folly.

39. Life is a perpetual struggle of the genders which results in a cyclical recurrence on both phenomenal and noumenal levels that both evolves and devolves in perpetuity. This dialectic can be transmuted and modified, but it cannot be eradicated.