CYCLE FIFTEEN: CONTRARY MODES OF SELF AND UNSELF

1. We have established, I believe, that the id and the soul are the selfish and unselfish equivalents, within female objectivity, of the ego and the mind, their subjective counterparts, and can now go on to maintain that the power of the id derives, in no small degree, from the will of the objective not-self, no less than the glory of the soul derives from the spirit of objective selflessness.

2. In such vein, we earlier found that the form of the ego derives, in no small measure, from the will of the subjective not-self, while the content(ment) of the mind derives from the spirit of subjective selflessness.

3. We have also discovered that the will is barbarous in objective contexts of not-self but natural in subjective ones, whereas the spirit is civil in objective contexts of selflessness but cultural in subjective ones.

4. Hence there exists a correlation, in objective contexts, between barbarity and power on the one hand, and civility and glory on the other, whilst, in subjective contexts, a like-correlation exists between nature and form on the one hand, and culture and content on the other.

5. Given the fact that fire is the element that can best be generalized in terms of the barbarous, and water the element, by contrast, which evokes a civil or civilized generalization, we may confidently speculate that the id is perfect in the context of metachemical objectivity but imperfect in chemical objectivity, whereas the soul will be imperfect in the former but perfect in the latter.

6. Thus the id is only perfect in connection with beauty, the metachemical power of the noumenally objective self, not in connection with strength, its chemical equivalence, whereas the soul will only be perfect in connection with pride, the chemical glory of the phenomenally objective unself, not in connection with love, its metachemical equivalence.

7. In similar vein, we may confidently speculate that, vegetation being the element that can best be generalized in terms of nature, and air the element, by contrast, which evokes a cultural generalization, the ego is only perfect in connection with knowledge, the physical form of the phenomenally subjective self, not in connection with truth, its metaphysical equivalence, whereas the mind will only be perfect in connection with joy, the metaphysical content(ment) of the noumenally subjective unself, not in connection with pleasure, its physical equivalence.

8. Thus, in general terms, things proceed objectively from a noumenally perfect id to a phenomenally perfect soul, and then subjectively from a phenomenally perfect ego to a noumenally perfect mind, as from beauty to pride on the female side of life, but from knowledge to joy on its male side.

9. Now just as, in the latter case, mind is the cultural manifestation of self within subjective contexts, so, where their objective counterparts are concerned, soul will be the civilized manifestation of self, the self not of the ego, as above, but of the id.

10. However, neither id nor soul would exist to any recognizably psychological or psychical extent without reference to a corresponding not-self and mode of selflessness, be it universal (in noumenal planes) or personal (in phenomenal planes), and therefore both the power of the one and the glory of the other can only be rooted in the barbarity and civility, respectively, of those manifestations of objective will and spirit to which they pertain.

11. In this respect, the criteria applying to the subjective axes (of time-space idealism and mass-volume naturalism) are equally applicable here to their objective counterparts, since not-self and selflessness are preconditions, effectively, of self and unself.

12. Neither the powerful id nor the formful ego would exist on any level without reference to a corresponding not-self, while, where glory and content are concerned, neither the soul nor the mind would have any meaningful existence without reference to a corresponding order of selflessness on one or another of the contending planes.

13. Hence the self derives its power (if objective) or its form (if subjective) from the barbarity in the one case and the nature in the other case of the relevant not-self, but is able to psychologically condition and manipulate the will thereof.

14. Likewise, the unself derives its glory (if objective) or its content (if subjective) from the civility in the one case and the culture in the other case of the relevant order of selflessness, but is psychically able to react against the spirit thereof, achieving either mind-soul (if objective) or soul-mind (if subjective).

15. For just as the reaction of the metaphysical mind to spirit is back beyond the ego to its emotional depths, wherein it experiences joy, so the reaction of the metachemical soul to spirit is back beyond the id to its spiritual depths, wherein it experiences love and the desire to (spiritually) proclaim such to the object of its selfless devotion.

16. Thus the soul-unself reacts, no less than the mind-unself, against its particular mode of selflessness, but it does so not from the metaphysical spirit of air (airwaves/breath), but from the metachemical spirit of fire (light/blood).

17. Hence its reaction is rather more spiritual than emotional, and it is for this reason that non-verbal declarations of love, as in kissing, are so integral to metachemical unself-realization.

18. Of course, what applies on the noumenal planes of time and space is also applicable on the phenomenal planes of mass and volume, except that the reaction of the unself against selflessness will be conditioned by the type of selflessness, be it chemical or physical, which specifically applies to those planes, and will evoke either phenomenal mind-soul or phenomenal soul-mind, depending on the unself in question.

19. I would therefore contend that just as the subjective noumenal unself, in reacting against metaphysical selflessness, embraces noumenal soul-mind (joy), so the subjective phenomenal unself, in reacting against physical selflessness, embraces phenomenal soul-mind (pleasure), the emotional kernel of the unself in question.

20. Likewise, I contend that just as the objective noumenal unself, in reacting against metachemical selflessness, embraces noumenal mind-soul (love), so the objective phenomenal unself, in reacting against chemical selflessness, embraces phenomenal mind-soul (pride), the spiritual kernel of the unself in question.

<