CYCLE SIXTEEN

1. Where there is maximum ugliness and hatred there can be only minimum beauty and love, and vice versa.

2. Ugliness and hatred, which are two aspects of negative doing, do not exist entirely independently of beauty and love since, in the final analysis, there are no completely absolute noumenal absolutes. Neither, conversely, do beauty and love, as two aspects of positive doing, exist entirely independently of ugliness and hatred.

3. One should distinguish, in both external and internal contexts of doing, most ugliness and hatred/least beauty and love from least ugliness and hatred/most beauty and love, and each of these elemental extremes from the intermediate (molecular) ratios of more (compared to most) ugliness and hatred/less (compared to least) beauty and love, and less (compared to least) ugliness and hatred/more (compared to most) beauty and love.

4. Hence we can plot an overall progression, in relation to doing, from the elemental negativity of most ugliness and hatred/least beauty and love to the elemental positivity of least ugliness and hatred/most beauty and love via the molecular negativity of more (compared to most) ugliness and hatred/less (compared to least) beauty and love and the molecular positivity of less (compared to least) ugliness and hatred/more (compared to most) beauty and love.

5. Where there is maximum weakness and humility, if not humiliation, there can be only minimum strength and pride, and vice versa.

6. Weakness and humility, which are two aspects of negative giving, do not exist entirely independently of strength and pride since, in the final analysis, there are no completely absolute phenomenal relativities. Neither, conversely, do strength and pride exist entirely independently of weakness and humility.

7. One should distinguish, in both external and internal contexts of giving, most weakness and humility/least strength and pride from least weakness and humility/most strength and pride, and each of these elemental extremes from the intermediate (molecular) ratios of more (compared to most) weakness and humility/less (compared to least) strength and pride, and less (compared to least) weakness and humility/more (compared to most) strength and pride.

8. Hence we can plot an overall progression, in relation to giving, from the elemental negativity of most weakness and humility/least strength and pride to the elemental positivity of least weakness and humility/most strength and pride via the molecular negativity of more (compared to most) weakness and humility/less (compared to least) strength and pride and the molecular positivity of less (compared to least) weakness and humility/more (compared to most) strength and pride.

9. Where there is maximum ignorance and pain there can be only minimum knowledge and pleasure, and vice versa.

10. Ignorance and pain, which are two aspects of negative taking, do not exist entirely independently of knowledge and pleasure since, in the final analysis, there are no completely absolute phenomenal relativities. Neither, conversely, do knowledge and pleasure, as two aspects of positive taking, exist entirely independently of ignorance and pain.

11. One should distinguish, in both external and internal contexts of taking, least knowledge and pleasure/most ignorance and pain from most knowledge and pleasure/least ignorance and pain, and each of these elemental extremes from the intermediate (molecular) ratios of less (compared to least) knowledge and pleasure/more (compared to most) ignorance and pain, and more (compared to most) knowledge and pleasure/less (compared to least) ignorance and pain.

12. Hence we can plot an overall progression, in relation to taking, from the elemental negativity of least knowledge and pleasure/most ignorance and pain to the elemental positivity of most knowledge and pleasure/least ignorance and pain via the molecular negativity of less (compared to least) knowledge and pleasure/more (compared to most) ignorance and pain and the molecular positivity of more (compared to most) knowledge and pleasure/less (compared to least) ignorance and pain.

13. Where there is maximum falsity and woe there can be only minimum truth and joy, and vice versa.

14. Falsity and woe, which are two aspects of negative being, do not exist entirely independently of truth and joy since, in the final analysis, there are no completely absolute noumenal absolutes. Neither, conversely, do truth and joy, as two aspects of positive being, exist entirely independently of falsity and woe.

15. One should distinguish, in both external and internal contexts of being, least truth and joy/most falsity and woe from most truth and joy/least falsity and woe, and each of these elemental extremes from the intermediate (molecular) ratios of less (compared to least) truth and joy/more (compared to most) falsity and woe, and more (compared to most) truth and joy/less (compared to least) falsity and woe.

16. Hence we can plot an overall progression, in relation to being, from the elemental negativity of least truth and joy/most falsity and woe to the elemental positivity of most truth and joy/least falsity and woe via the molecular negativity of less (compared to least) truth and joy/more (compared to most) falsity and woe and the molecular positivity of more (compared to most) truth and joy/less (compared to least) falsity and woe.

17. From the most particles/least wavicles and the more (compared to most) particles/less (compared to least) wavicles of negative doing to the less (compared to least) particles/more (compared to most) wavicles and the least particles/most wavicles of positive doing in relation to photons (external) and photinos (internal).

18. From the most particles/least wavicles and the more (compared to most) particles/less (compared to least) wavicles of negative giving to the less (compared to least) particles/more (compared to most) wavicles and the least particles/most wavicles of positive giving in relation to electrons and/or positrons (external) and electrinos and/or positrinos (internal).

19. From the least wavicles/most particles and the less (compared to least) wavicles/more (compared to most) particles of negative taking to the more (compared to most) wavicles/less (compared to least) particles and the most wavicles/least particles of positive taking in relation to neutrons and/or deuterons (external) and neutrinos and/or deuterinos (internal).

20. From the least wavicles/most particles and the less (compared to least) wavicles/more (compared to most) particles of negative being to the more (compared to most) wavicles/less (compared to least) particles and the most wavicles/least particles of positive being in relation to protons (external) and protinos (internal).

21. In general terms, the particle subdivision of an element and/or elementino equates with negativity and the wavicle subdivision thereof with positivity, though, as indicated above, a predominating particle ratio will qualify for a negative definition and a predominating or, rather, preponderating wavicle ratio, by contrast, for a positive definition overall.

22. The objective axes of doing in relation to space-time metachemistry and of giving in relation to volume-mass chemistry should be read from particle to wavicle, as from negative to positive.

23. Conversely, the subjective axes of taking in relation to mass-volume physics and of being in relation to time-space metaphysics should be read from wavicle to particle, as from positive to negative.

24. This is what distinguishes the 'falling' nature or, rather, unnature of the objective axes from the 'rising' nature of the subjective axes, since the former are dominated by a vacuum in due female fashion, while the latter are liberated by a plenum in due male vein.

25. That which is negative is so by dint of its affiliation with the particle aspect of subatomic bodies, whereas that which is positive is so by dint of its affiliation with the wavicle aspect of such bodies, and this whether in connection with a predominating negativity or a preponderating positivity in the subatomic subdivision as a whole.

26. Hence, to take a single example, the most ugliness and hatred/least beauty and love of negative doing in its elemental mode is commensurate with a most particle/least wavicle ratio of subatomic factors in which negativity considerably predominates over positivity, while, conversely, the least ugliness and hatred/most beauty and love of positive doing in its elemental mode is commensurate with a least particle/most wavicle ratio of subatomic factors in which negativity is considerably preponderated over by positivity.