CYCLE ONE

1. When considered in relation to the elements, it could be argued that the Seasons proceed from Summer to Autumn via Winter and Spring, as from fire to air via water and vegetation (earth). For it does seem that there is a definite correlation between Summer and fire, the season of the sun par excellence; between Winter and water, the season of rain and frost and/or snow par excellence; between Spring and vegetation, the season of vegetative growth par excellence; and between Autumn and air, the season of wind and gales par excellence.

2. In gender terms, I would have to identify Summer and Winter with the female aspect of things and, by contrast, Spring and Autumn with their male aspect, the former seasons respectively diabolic (superfeminine-to-subfeminine) and feminine, the latter seasons masculine and divine (submasculine-to-supermasculine) respectively.

3. With regard to religious contexts, one could associate Summer with Hell, Winter with Purgatory, Spring with the Earth, and Autumn with Heaven, though only, of course, in very general and approximate terms.

4. Like fire and water, Summer and Winter are primary seasons, given their female bias towards objectivity, whereas Spring and Autumn, by contrast, are comparatively secondary seasons, given their male bias, through vegetation and air, for subjectivity.

5. In general terms, females correspond to the primary seasons of Summer and Winter, fire and water, while males, by contrast, correspond to the secondary seasons of Spring and Autumn, vegetation and air.

6. With regard to sartorial options, one could argue that dresses correlate with Summer and skirts with Winter, whereas trousers (or some jean-like variant thereof) correlate with Spring and zippersuits with Autumn.

7. I find it difficult, in view of the above contentions, not to regard dresses as being as incompatible with, and therefore irrelevant to, males ... as zippersuits would be incompatible with, and therefore irrelevant to, females, bearing in mind their respective correlations with fire and air, or Summer and Autumn.

8. Likewise, I would have to regard skirts as being as incompatible with, and therefore irrelevant to, males ... as trousers are incompatible with, and therefore irrelevant to, females, bearing in mind their respective correlations with water and vegetation, Winter and Spring.

9. A male in a dress and/or skirt would be as bent, and therefore gender-contradictory, as a female in trousers and/or zippersuit. For, in the one case, a preponderantly subjective creature would be advertising himself objectively, whereas in the other case a predominantly objective creature would be advertising herself subjectively. The former would be underestimating himself, while the latter would be overestimating herself.

10. The Seasons are not equal, any more than people in general are equal. Equalitarianism is almost invariably a doctrine of 'the low' and 'the base' which works to reduce everything, including life itself, to the lowest-common-denominator ... of mundane assessment.

11. Democracy is a product of equalitarianism, as, before it, was Christianity, which sought to elevate 'the humble' to positions of equality, in God's eyes, with 'the noble'!

12. Protestantism did much the same thing as Catholicism in reverse, by reducing 'the noble' to positions of equality, in Christ's eyes, with 'the humble'. In this respect, it paved the way for democracy, which took the process a step further by doing away with 'the noble' altogether, thereby transforming 'the meek' from humble to arrogant.

13. This process has now gone so far that plebeian arrogance is taken for granted by the majority of people in countries where man is the measure of all things, and all things, seemingly, must bow to him.

14. The notion of 'in God's eyes' or 'in God's sight' is a contradiction in terms, since sight is less characteristic of God or what is godly than of the Devil, having affiliations with noumenal objectivity, and thus with what some more conventional souls would identify with 'original sin', but which I prefer to identify with the inception of Cupidian vice.

15. For Cupid, with bow drawn back to fire his arrow diagonally downwards upon the heart, is the perfect illustration of noumenal objectivity, which stretches, in superfeminine-to-subfeminine fashion, from eyes to heart.

16. As a rule, a female does not become a male, nor does a male, with few exceptions, become a female. The one is conditioned by objective criteria originating in a vacuum (the womb) and the other by subjective criteria centred in a plenum (the scrotum). These criteria are effectively immutable.

17. As to the question of whether females are biologically or socially conditioned, it seems to me that they are both biologically conditioned (as alluded to above) and socially conditioned, but that the ratio of the one to the other will vary with the individual, the society, the ethnicity, and even the age in which females live, so that no one factor is ever exclusively prominent.

18. I would argue that in a Christian age, or age stressing sensibility, the conditioning emphasis will be more social than biological, but that in a non-Christian, or heathen, age like the twentieth century, which was overwhelmingly sensual, the conditioning emphasis will be more biological than social. For social conditioning is what pegs females down to a subordinate position to males in deference to the latter's natural determinism, whereas biological conditioning releases females from social constraints and encourages males to defer, by contrast, to free will, a thing having more intimate connections with biological conditioning than many men, and not a few women, might suppose. In fact, it would be no exaggeration to say that free will stems from biological conditioning in relation to a vacuous premise (the womb) that conduces towards objectivity. And in this respect it is quintessentially female.