CYCLE FIFTEEN

1. If objectivity is extensive, it is extensive in both outer and inner contexts, say 'once born' as well as 're-born', rather than being extensive in the one context and intensive in the other.

2. Likewise, if subjectivity is intensive, it is intensive in both outer and inner contexts, not just in the 're-born' context, for example, of male sensibility.

3. There is devolution, extensively, from outer to inner modes of objectivity, and evolution, intensively, from outer to inner modes of subjectivity. The former implies a barbed divergence and/or convergence, while the latter implies a curved divergence and/or convergence. The one is akin to a dress (if noumenal) or to a skirt (if phenomenal), while the other is akin to trousers (if phenomenal) or to a zippersuit (if noumenal).

4. Dresses devolve extensively from centrifugal (flared) to centripetal (tapered) via intermediate straightnesses of both an outer (with flounce) and an inner (without flounce) type in noumenal objectivity, whereas zippersuits evolve intensively from centrifugal (flared) to centripetal (tapered) via intermediate straightnesses of both an outer (with turn-ups) and an inner (without turn-ups) type in noumenal subjectivity.

5. Similarly, skirts devolve extensively from centrifugal (flared) to centripetal (tapered) via intermediate straightnesses of both an outer (with flounce) and an inner (without flounce) type in phenomenal objectivity, whereas trousers evolve intensively from centrifugal (flared) to centripetal (tapered) via intermediate straightnesses of both an outer (with turn-ups) and an inner (without turn-ups) type in phenomenal subjectivity.

6. Hence, in gender terms, women are extensive and men intensive: the former basically objective and the latter essentially subjective.

7. It could also be said, with no small reason, that, being extensive, women are more competitively individualistic than men, whose subjective intensiveness, by contrast, tends towards co-operative collectivism. There are greater degrees of free will in the one context and of determinism in the other.

8. Let us now address the question of 'public' and 'private' in relation to extensiveness and intensiveness. Since being public corresponds to what is outer and being private to what is inner, as in sensuality and sensibility, we cannot claim that the public is extensive and the private intensive.

9. Clearly, the public can be extensive or intensive, depending on whether it corresponds to outer objectivity or to outer subjectivity, while the private will likewise be either extensive (if objective) or intensive (if subjective), both of course in relation to what is inner.

10. Thus the fact of something's being public does not automatically make it extensive and/or objective, any more than the fact of a thing's being private makes it intensive and/or subjective.

11. What we can say, with categorical certitude, is that that which, being objective, is extensive will always be competitive and individualistic, whereas that which, being subjective, is intensive will always be co-operative and collectivistic, irrespective of whether in relation to the outer context of untransvaluated/once-born publicity, so to speak, or to the inner context of transvaluated/re-born privacy.

12. We can also distinguish between a primary assessment of elements in relation to objective criteria and a secondary assessment of them in relation to subjective criteria, the Primary having effect to the ratio of particles to wavicles, and the Secondary having effect to the ratio of wavicles to particles.

13. Clearly, the primary elements, which are objective, will be assessed on the basis of particle devolution, as from most at the scientific end of the scale, so to speak, to least at the religious end of it. Conversely, the secondary elements, which are subjective, will be assessed on the basis of wavicle evolution, as from least at the scientific end of the scale ... to most at its religious end.

14. Hence, in relation to space-time metachemistry, we may plot a devolution of photons and/or photinos (in sensuality and/or sensibility) from most particle/least wavicle to least particle/most wavicle via more (relative to most) particle/less (relative to least) wavicle and less (relative to least) particle/more (relative to most) wavicle, as from scientific to religious via political and economic modes of materialism.

15. Hence, in relation to volume-mass chemistry, we may plot a devolution of electrons and/or electrinos (conventional, Heathen) or positrons and/or positrinos (radical, Christian) from most particle/least wavicle to least particle/most wavicle via more (relative to most) particle/less (relative to least) wavicle and less (relative to least) particle/more (relative to most) wavicle, as from scientific to religious via political and economic modes of realism.

16. Conversely, in relation to mass-volume physics, we may plot an evolution of neutrons/neutrinos (conventional, Heathen) and/or deuterons/deuterinos (radical, Christian) from least wavicle/most particle to most wavicle/least particle via less (relative to least) wavicle/more (relative to most) particle and more (relative to most) wavicle/less (relative to least) particle, as from scientific to religious via political and economic modes of naturalism.

17. Similarly, in relation to time-space metaphysics, we may plot an evolution of protons and/or protinos from least wavicle/most particle to most wavicle/least particle via less (relative to least) wavicle/more (relative to most) particle and more (relative to most) wavicle/less (relative to least) particle, as from scientific to religious via political and economic modes of idealism.

18. Obviously, one could plot any of the above axes in a contrary way to how I did, but that would be to undermine their respective 'gender' integrities as objective (and particle-based) or subjective (and wavicle-centred) entities.

19. In the final analysis, objectivity is extensive because it is particle-dominated, whereas subjectivity is intensive because of its wavicle bias, the one rooted in a vacuum, the other centred in a plenum.

20. In fact, were it otherwise, we would not have a devolutionary/evolutionary distinction between objectivity and subjectivity, extensiveness and intensiveness.

21. Both space-time metachemistry (fire) and volume-mass chemistry (water) devolve from most particle/least wavicle to least particle/most wavicle via more (relative to most) particle/less (relative to least) wavicle and less (relative to least) particle/more (relative to most) wavicle, as befitting their primary elemental standings.

22. Both mass-volume physics (vegetation) and time-space metaphysics (air) evolve from least wavicle/most particle to most wavicle/least particle via less (relative to least) wavicle/more (relative to most) particle and more (relative to most) wavicle/less (relative to least) particle, as befitting their secondary elemental standings.

23. Now this is true of each of these elements in both outer and inner contexts, whether in connection with untransvaluated/once-born options or with their transvaluated/re-born counterparts.

24. That which is objective, to repeat, is rooted in a particle-dominated vacuum, while that which is subjective is centred in a wavicle-biased plenum.

25. The crucial difference is that in the outer contexts, the objective elements will be more individualistic and the subjective elements less collectivistic, by dint of the larger scale of the atomic elements (compared to elementinos) and the correlative greater degree to which the particle factor will predominate.

26. The most particle/least wavicle sudivisions of photons and, say, electrons will have a greater ratio of most-to-least than the most particle/least wavicle subdivisions of photinos and electrinos, while, conversely, the least wavicle/most particle subdivisions of protons and, say, neutrons will have a smaller ratio of least-to-most than the least wavicle/most particle subdivisions of protinos and neutrinos.