FORM AND CONTENT(MENT)

361. Leaving aside the unself for a moment, the self is divisible, as has been shown, into ego, mind, and soul, corresponding to conscious, superconscious, and subconscious, or to egocentricity for the conscious and to psychocentricity for both the superconscious and the subconscious - the former impersonal and/or polyversal (depending on the axis or plane) and the latter personal and/or universal (once again depending on the axis or plane).

362. Thus there is more than a difference of degree between the egocentric self, or conscious, and the psychocentric self, or superconscious and/or subconscious - namely a difference of kind, insofar as the latter kind of self is less egocentric than psychocentric, and therefore transmuted.

363. The egocentric self begins and ends with the not-self, while the psychocentric self, the self purged of egocentricity, begins with selflessness and ends with the rejection of selflessness, wherein psychocentricity rebounds from impersonal (phenomenal) and/or polyversal (noumenal) to personal (phenomenal) and/or universal (noumenal), which is the soul, or kernel, of the self.

364. Thus the self continues as form through the not-self until it is transmuted into content by selflessness and, unable to live with selflessness for very long, elects to rebound from spirit to the depths of self, wherein it experiences the contentment of soul.

365. Thus whereas there is a difference of kind between form and content, ego and mind, there is only a difference of degree between content and contentment, mind and soul - namely, the degree of impersonal and/or polyversal psychocentricity vis-à-vis personal and/or universal psychocentricity.

366. Hence the superconscious and the subconscious, the mind and the soul, have psychically more in common with one another than either of them has with the ego, or conscious, to which they relate as antipodes of selfhood, and this in spite of their extreme positions, respectively, within the overall context of the self.

367. But if content and contentment share a common psychocentric affiliation, even though they are poles apart, then form shares with contentment the psychological factor of being either personal (if phenomenal) or universal (if noumenal), and consequently the transmutation back to egocentric selfhood is effected via this common denominator, which allows for a smooth transition of the self from soul to ego, and thus from contentment to form.

368. For form is the usual or normal condition of the self, whereas content and contentment, the spiritual and emotional transmutations of self, are dependent upon the contributions made by both the not-self and selflessness, power and glory.

369. Thus the self needs the not-self and selflessness if it is to achieve both less than and more than itself - 'less than' via quantitative spiritualization and 'more than' via essential emotionalization, the 'less than' being the necessary precondition, in content, of subsequent contentment.

370. One could argue, in fairly Koestlerian vein, that there is a certain reculer pour mieux sauter, a stepping back to leap further forwards, about the utilization of both the not-self and selflessness by the self, since whereas the self is ever qualitative in its egocentric intellectuality, the not-self is apparent in its somatic instinctuality and selflessness merely quantitative in its psychesomatic spirituality, neither of which lies beyond the ego.

371. The only thing, as it were, lying beyond the ego ... is the soul, as psychocentric emotionality beyond egocentric intellectuality, essence beyond quality, and to get to that ... the ego has to reculer pour mieux sauter via both the will and the spirit, suffering the quantification (content) of quality through utilization of appearance (power) in order to achieve an accommodation with essence (contentment), the emotional kernel of its overall selfhood.

372. Thus far from going forward via selflessness, the self effectively goes backwards, as with its own quantification, in order to leap forwards, as it were, from content to contentment, spiritualized self, or mind, to emotional self, or soul, from which it will return to its psychological equilibrium in egocentric quality, prior to any fresh resolve, consciously predetermined, to plunge anew into the not-self, whose instinctual power is ever apparent.

373. Thus appearance and quantity, will and spirit, are means for the self to achieve deliverance from quality to essence, as from ego to soul via mind, which is quantified self.

374. There is accordingly a sense in which the self, corresponding to the ego, utilizes the not-self and selflessness to achieve both its own death and resurrection, dying to ego through mind, and rising from mind to soul, wherein its redemption is actualized.

375. Certainly, metaphysics provides one with ample testimony to the fact that self corresponds, in Trinitarian terminology, to the Son, the not-self to the Father, and selflessness to the Holy Spirit, so that it could be maintained that the Son utilizes both the Father and the Holy Spirit to die to ego and be resurrected, via the death-in-life of the mind, or spiritualized self, into the Eternal Life of the soul, which is the Son's guarantee of contentment in relation to the profoundest self-realization it is possible for Him to experience.

376. With physics, on the other hand, it would be more a matter of the Son utilizing the Father and an Unholy Spirit to achieve death and resurrection for Himself, whereas with chemistry the Trinitarian analogue would be that of a Daughter utilizing the Mother and a Clear Spirit to achieve death and resurrection for Herself, while metachemistry would require the analogy of the Daughter utilizing the Mother and an Unclear Spirit for similar purposes.

377. It has to be admitted, however, that where physics, chemistry, and metachemistry are concerned, the emphasis will be less on soul than on ego, spirit, and will respectively, so that such soul as arises will be more a by-product of some alternative focus than a premeditated goal.

378. For physics is characterized not by an emotional per se in the soul, but by an intellectual per se in the ego, while chemistry is characterized by a spiritual or emanational per se in the spirit, and metachemistry by an instinctual per se in the will, none of which has any bearing on emotional perfection, neither in sensuality nor in sensibility.

379. For, unlike metaphysics, physics is a context in which the egocentric Son is paramount, whereas chemistry and metachemistry afford one examples of contexts in which, in the one case, the psychesomatic Spirit is paramount, and, in the other case, the somatic Father or, rather, Mother, the will, is paramount, to the detriment, in all cases, of the psychocentric Son, the Son-of-Sons and self-of-selfs.

380. Now it is this capacity to embrace and identify with the Son-of-Sons and self-of-selfs that makes a man either a subman (in sensuality) or a superman (in sensibility), and elevates him above the various emotional shortfalls from perfect contentment in metaphysics which characterize each of the other elemental contexts.

381. For if first-rate contentment only exits in relation to second-rate form, third-rate glory, and fourth-rate power, then it is because it only exists in relation to first-rate form, third-rate power, and fourth-rate glory ... that physical contentment is second-rate; because it only exists in relation to fourth-rate form, second-rate power, and first-rate glory ... that chemical contentment is third-rate; and because it only exists in relation to third-rate form, second-rate glory, and first-rate power ... that metachemical contentment is fourth-rate.

382. Thus contentment ascends, through the elements, from love to joy via pride and pleasure, as from fourth- to first-rates via third- and second-rates, while form likewise ascends, through the elements, from strength to knowledge via beauty and truth, as from fourth- to first-rates via third- and second-rates.

383. Conversely, power descends, through the elements, from expression to impression via compression and depression, as from first- to fourth-rates via second- and third-rates, while glory likewise descends, through the elements, from clear to unholy via unclear and unholy, as from first- to fourth-rates via second- and third-rates.

384. There is about form and content(ment) an ascendancy from least to most via less and more form and content(ment), while power and glory exemplify the contrary disposition of a descension, so to speak, from most to least via more and less power and glory.

385. This is because in their per se manifestations form and content(ment) are subjective, and hence male, whereas in their per se manifestations power and glory are objective, and hence female, descending rather than ascending.

386. There is accordingly a devolutionary/evolutionary distinction, within noumenal parameters, between power on the one hand and content(ment) on the other hand, the former devolving from most to least via more and less will, as from fire to air via water and vegetation, but the latter evolving from least to most via less and more soul, as above.

387. Likewise, within phenomenal parameters, such a devolutionary/evolutionary distinction also exists between glory on the one hand and form on the other, the former devolving from most to least via more and less spirit, as from water to vegetation via fire and air, but the latter evolving from least to most via less and more ego, as above.