Freedom and Determinism. What if the much-vaunted dichotomy between determinism and free will is really a fallacy? For can't free will be a product of determinism? I mean, nature flourishes on both free will and free spirit, and therefore can it not be said that both are determined by the underlining drive to either wilful (instinctual) or spiritual freedom of nature? Certainly there is, as I have sought to logically demonstrate in the past, a distinction between somatic freedom as a product of natural determinism and psychic freedom as a product of, well, a certain supernatural or cultural determinism, with metachemistry and chemistry lining up on the side of free will and free spirit, but physics and metaphysics lining up on the side of free ego and free soul, the former pair effectively female and the latter pair more usually male. Now if this much-vaunted dichotomy between free will and determinism is, as I happen to think, a fallacy, then it could be maintained that not only is freedom a product of determinism, but that determinism works towards freedom, if in opposite gender ways. There is the determinism of free soma, both instinctually and spiritually, on the one hand, and the determinism of free psyche, both intellectually and emotionally, on the other hand. For if females are fundamentally soma preceding and predominating over psyche and males, by contrast, essentially psyche preceding and preponderating over soma, then each gender's freedom is determined by contrary factors which are not only incompatible but fated to war on one another until the victory of one or the other is assured, whether intermittently or permanently. Life is oriented towards freedom, but such freedom is determined by gender and by the underlining interests of nature. Female freedom is more metachemical (fiery) and chemical (watery) than either physical (vegetative) or metaphysical (airy), and therefore females have certain metachemical and chemical predilections, including the ugly periodic bleeding of menstruation and a weak tendency towards tearfulness, really quite alien to males. But, by a similar token, they are less physically and metaphysically free, or knowledgeable, than males, whose bodies are more suited to strenuous physical and intellectual behaviour. The somatic freedom of females in will and spirit does not imply a suppleness of movement for the simple reason that their physiological disposition hampers the kind of overall flexibility to which the male, unaccustomed to pendulous breasts and amply protruding buttocks arching over fleshy seductive thighs, is predisposed with his leaner overall frame. And such a more uniform frame is no less the precondition of a degree of intellectual freedom to which the female, except in rare - and usually physiologically untypical - instances, is completely unsuited and, frankly, indisposed.