CYCLE FOURTEEN

1. Whether one should in fact contrive to evoke parallels between sport and religion, as I have been doing, is a moot point, bearing in mind the extent to which most sport, including football, has to do with punishing the opposition for their mistakes.

2. Obviously, people do make a connection between sport and religion, as in a secondary manner concerning possible ethnic preconditions for a given sporting structure, but the real connection lies, it seems to me, between sport and politics, since politics is also about punishing the opposition, not about forgiving their sins in graceful manner.

3. Hence there would seem to be more cause for equating games like Gaelic Football and Hurling, for example, with Fine Gael and Fianna Fàil respectively, than with, say, the Catholic Church in one or other of its moral permutations, insofar as sport is less co-operative than competitive, and thus somehow female, if not feminine, in its underlying constitution, a particle as against a wavicle equivalence which both punishes and is punishing to those who indulge in it.

4. How, then, can one avoid a political parallel with sport, particularly in view of the greater applicability of war to science, of sex to economics, and, last but hardly least, of dance to religion.

5. Just as particles are more competitive than co-operative, so war and sport are more competitive than co-operative, while sex and dance, by contrast, will be more co-operative than competitive, bearing in mind their wavicle bias.

6. This can, of course, be either objectively or subjectively, depending on the type of particle and/or wavicle, but that would have reference to the kind of divergence and/or convergence rather than to the factor of competition or co-operation as such.

7. Doubtless the objective modes of divergence and convergence will be more competitive than the subjective modes, while the subjective modes of divergence and convergence will be more co-operative than their objective counterparts.

8. Whether things are competitive or co-operative, the underlining factor, or bottom line, is the ratio of particles to wavicles, or vice versa.

9. Thus one has four options in both outer and inner contexts, viz. a ratio of most particle to least wavicle, a ratio of more (relative to most) particle to less (relative to least) wavicle, a ratio of less (relative to least) particle to more (relative to most) wavicle, and a ratio of least particle to most wavicle.

10. Thus from most to least competition via more (relative to most) and less (relative to least) competition in relation to the particle, but from least to most co-operation via less (relative to least) and more (relative to most) co-operation in relation to the wavicle.

11. By and large, science is a context of most competition and least co-operation, i.e. most particle and least wavicle, like war, whereas politics is a context of more (relative to most) competition and less (relative to least) co-operation, i.e. more (relative to most) particle and less (relative to least) wavicle, like sport.

12. Conversely, economics is by and large a context of less (relative to least) competition and more (relative to most) co-operation, i.e. less (relative to least) particle and more (relative to most) wavicle, like sex, whereas religion is a context of least competition and most co-operation, i.e. least particle and most wavicle, like dance.

13. Obviously, where there is most competition there will be most individualism. Conversely, where there is most co-operation there will be most collectivism, since wavicles constitute collectivities, being cohesive entities that are the product of unity, or the joining together of the constituent parts of an element.

14. Thus from the most extensive individualism of science to the most intensive collectivism of religion (if we take each of these disciplines in their objective and subjective extreme manifestations respectively) via the more (relative to most) extensive individualism of politics and the more (relative to most) intensive collectivism of economics.

15. Of course, individualism can be intensive and collectivism extensive, but that would be rather more in connection with subjective and objective forms of individualism and collectivism respectively, than with their per se manifestations in, say, the scientific and religious extremes.

16. The most genuine manifestation of science, being noumenally objective, will always be extensively individualistic in the metachemistry of its fiery materialism, while the most genuine manifestation of religion, being noumenally subjective, will always be intensively collectivistic in the metaphysics of its airy idealism.

17. Similarly, the most genuine manifestation of politics, being phenomenally objective, will always be extensively individualistic in the chemistry of its watery realism, while the most genuine manifestation of economics, being phenomenally subjective, will always be intensively collectivistic in the physics of its vegetative naturalism.

18. We descend, objectively, from the noumenally extensive individualism of fire to the phenomenally extensive individualism of water, and ascend, subjectively, from the phenomenally intensive collectivism of vegetation to the noumenally intensive collectivism of air.

19. Thus, more comprehensively, to devolve from the most noumenally extensive individualism of scientific materialism to the least noumenally extensive individualism of religious materialism via the more (relative to most) noumenally extensive individualism of political materialism and the less (relative to least) noumenally extensive individualism of economic materialism ... in relation to metachemical objectivity (fire).

20. Thus to devolve from the most phenomenally extensive individualism of scientific realism to the least phenomenally extensive individualism of religious realism via the more (relative to most) phenomenally extensive individualism of political realism and the less (relative to least) phenomenally extensive individualism of economic realism ... in relation to chemical objectivity (water).

21. Thus, by contrast, to evolve from the least phenomenally intensive collectivism of scientific naturalism to the most phenomenally intensive collectivism of religious naturalism via the less (relative to least) phenomenally intensive collectivism of political naturalism and the more (relative to most) phenomenally intensive collectivism of economic naturalism ... in relation to physical subjectivity (vegetation).

22. Likewise to evolve from the least noumenally intensive collectivism of scientific idealism to the most noumenally intensive collectivism of religious idealism via the less (relative to least) noumenally intensive collectivism of political idealism and the more (relative to most) noumenally intensive collectivism of economic idealism ... in relation to metaphysical subjectivity (air).

23. What I have done in the above aphorisms is to treat the particle aspect of objective elements and the wavicle aspect of subjective elements as the principal criterion for assessing that element's moral value in relation to either individualism (if competitive) or collectivism (if co-operative).

24. Hence instead of metachemical religion being evaluated in terms of the ratio of wavicle to particle (most to least), it has been evaluated in relation to the objectivity of the metachemical element (fire), and therefore in terms of what is a least noumenally extensive individualism by dint of having least particle and most wavicle.

25. Conversely, instead of metaphysical science being evaluated in terms of the ratio of particle to wavicle (most to least), it has been evaluated in relation to the subjectivity of the metaphysical element (air), and therefore in terms of what is a least noumenally intensive collectivism by dint of having least wavicle and most particle.