CONSISTENCY IN DIVERSITY

1. To contrast the doing (power) of will (evil) with the being (contentment) of soul (wisdom) in whichever Element ... from fire and water on the objective Left, so to speak, to vegetation and air on the subjective Right.

2. To contrast the giving (glory) of spirit (good) with the taking (form) of ego (folly) in whichever Element ... from fire and water to vegetation and air.

3. The will is evil because it is that which is criminal (directly free), whether on most (metachemical), more (chemical), less (physical), or least (metaphysical) criminal terms, whereas the soul is wise because it is that, by contrast, which is graceful (directly bound), whether on most (metaphysical), more (physical), less (chemical), or least (metachemical) graceful terms.

4. The spirit is good because it is that which is punishing (indirectly bound), whether on most (chemical), more (metachemical), less (metaphysical), or least (physical) punishing terms, whereas the ego is foolish because it is that, by contrast, which is sinful (indirectly free), whether on most (physical), more (metaphysical), less (metachemical), or least (chemical) sinful terms.

5. Doing is powerful because it is apparent (of elemental particles), whether on most (metachemical), more (chemical), less (physical), or least (metaphysical) apparent terms, whereas being is content because it is essential (of elemental wavicles), whether on most (metaphysical), more (physical), less (chemical), or least (metachemical) essential terms.

6. Giving is glorious because it is quantitative (of molecular particles), whether on most (chemical), more (metachemical), less (metaphysical), or least (physical) quantitative terms, whereas taking is formal because it is qualitative (of molecular wavicles), whether on most (physical), more (metaphysical), less (metachemical), or least (chemical) qualitative terms.

7. The evil of the will is most criminal when the power of doing is most apparent and least criminal when the power of doing is least apparent, as in metachemical and metaphysical contexts, whereas the evil of the will is more (relative to most) criminal when the power of doing is more apparent and less (relative to least) criminal when the power of doing is less apparent, as in chemical and physical contexts.

8. The goodness of the spirit is most punishing when the glory of giving is most quantitative and least punishing when the glory of giving is least quantitative, as in chemical and physical contexts, whereas the goodness of the spirit is more (relative to most) punishing when the glory of giving is more quantitative and less (relative to least) punishing when the glory of giving is less quantitative, as in metachemical and metaphysical contexts.

9. The folly of the ego is most sinful when the form of taking is most qualitative and least sinful when the form of taking is least qualitative, as in physical and chemical contexts, whereas the folly of the ego is more (relative to most) sinful when the form of taking is more qualitative and less (relative to least) sinful when the form of taking is less qualitative, as in metaphysical and metachemical contexts.

10. The wisdom of the soul is most graceful when the contentment of being is most essential and least graceful when the contentment of being is least essential, as in metaphysical and metachemical contexts, whereas the wisdom of the soul is more (relative to most) graceful when the contentment of being is more essential and less (relative to least) graceful when the contentment of being is less essential, as in physical and chemical contexts.

11. That said, it should not be forgotten that whether the will and the ego are beautiful (metachemical), strong (chemical), knowledgeable (physical), or truthful (metaphysical), the division between their sensual and sensible manifestations means that they will be subject to a distinction between evil and good in relation to the objective elements of fire and water, and to a distinction between folly and wisdom in relation to the subjective elements of vegetation and air, with primary and secondary implications as already discussed.

12. Likewise, it should be remembered that whether the spirit and soul are loving (metachemical), proud (chemical), pleasurable (physical), or joyful (metaphysical), the division between their sensual and sensible manifestations means that they will be subject to a distinction between clearness and unclearness in relation to the objectivity of fire and water, and to a distinction between unholiness and holiness in relation to the subjectivity of vegetation and air, with primary and secondary implications, as before.