SOME FURTHER CORRELATIONS

1. In general terms, the will is that aspect of the not-self which we equate with doing, the appearance of power.

2. In general terms, the spirit is that aspect of the not-self which we equate with giving, the quantity of glory.

3. In general terms, the ego is that aspect of the self which we equate with taking, the quality of form.

4. In general terms, the soul is that aspect of the self which we equate with being, the essence of content(ment).

5. Power can be metachemical (quick/loud), chemical (slow/quiet), physical (excitable/hard), or metaphysical (calm/soft), but its materialism is always apparent.

6. Glory can be metachemical (bright/hot), chemical (dim/cold), physical (heavy/thick), or metaphysical (light/thin), but its realism is always quantitative.

7. Form can be metachemical (beautiful/ugly), chemical (strong/weak), physical (knowledgeable/ignorant), or metaphysical (true/false), but its naturalism is always qualitative.

8. Contentment can be metachemical (loving/hateful), chemical (proud/humble), physical (pleasurable/painful), or metaphysical (joyful/woeful), but its idealism is always essential.

9. Thus the materialism of doing contrasts with the realism of giving, as will with spirit, power with glory, in every element.

10. Thus the naturalism of taking contrasts with the idealism of being, as ego with soul, form with contentment, in every element.

11. And in every element, be it metachemical, chemical, physical, or metaphysical, doing and giving are of the not-self, but taking and being are of the self.

12. The power of doing, the materialism of the will, is first-rate (evil) in metachemistry, second-rate (good) in chemistry, third-rate (foolish) in physics, and fourth-rate (wise) in metaphysics.

13. The glory of giving, the realism of the spirit, is first-rate (clear) in chemistry, second-rate (unclear) in metachemistry, third-rate (holy) in metaphysics, and fourth-rate (unholy) in physics.

14. The form of taking, the naturalism of the ego, is first-rate (foolish) in physics, second-rate (wise) in metaphysics, third-rate (evil) in metachemistry, and fourth-rate (good) in chemistry.

15. The contentment of being, the idealism of the soul, is first-rate (holy) in metaphysics, second-rate (unholy) in physics, third-rate (clear) in chemistry, and fourth-rate (unclear) in metachemistry.

16. Hence metachemistry combines first-rate doing (primary evil) with second-rate giving (primary unclearness), third-rate taking (secondary evil), and fourth-rate being (secondary unclearness).

17. Hence chemistry combines first-rate giving (primary clearness) with second-rate doing (primary goodness), third-rate being (secondary clearness), and fourth-rate taking (secondary goodness).

18. Hence physics combines first-rate taking (primary folly) with second-rate being (primary unholiness), third-rate doing (secondary folly), and fourth-rate giving (secondary unholiness).

19. Hence metaphysics combines first-rate being (primary holiness) with second-rate taking (primary wisdom), third-rate giving (secondary holiness), and fourth-rate doing (secondary wisdom).

20. Metachemistry, being noumenally objective, is a combination of primary and secondary permutations of the Devil and Hell - the primary permutations in the not-self (as will and spirit), the secondary ones in the self (as ego and soul).

21. Chemistry, being phenomenally objective, is a combination of primary and secondary permutations of woman and purgatory - the primary permutations in the not-self (as will and spirit), the secondary ones in the self (as ego and soul).

22. Physics, being phenomenally subjective, is a combination of primary and secondary permutations of man and the earth - the primary permutations in the self (as ego and soul), the secondary ones in the not-self (as will and spirit).

23. Metaphysics, being noumenally subjective, is a combination of primary and secondary permutations of God and Heaven - the primary permutations in the self (as ego and soul), the secondary ones in the not-self (as will and spirit).

24. There are no devils and hells outside the metachemical parameters of space-time devolution, and therefore no evils and unclearnesses other than in relation to the spatial space (sensual) and repetitive time (sensible) of noumenal objectivity.

25. There are no women and purgatories outside the chemical parameters of volume-mass devolution, and therefore no goods and clearnesses other than in relation to the volumetric volume (sensual) and massed mass (sensible) of phenomenal objectivity.

26. There are no men and earths outside the physical parameters of mass-volume evolution, and therefore no follies and unholinesses other than in relation to the massive mass (sensual) and voluminous volume (sensible) of phenomenal subjectivity.

27. There are no gods and heavens outside the metaphysical parameters of time-space evolution, and therefore no wisdoms and holinesses other than in relation to the sequential time (sensual) and spaced space (sensible) of noumenal subjectivity.

28. This is so, in all the above instances, of sensuality no less than of sensibility, as well as to the negative counterparts, in primacy, of the positive options with their comparative supremacy.

29. Because every element is a combination of doing, giving, taking, and being, it follows that will, spirit, ego, and soul can be found in all the elements pretty much as one would expect to find metachemical, chemical, physical, and metaphysical manifestations of science, politics, economics, and religion, even though only one - and that a different one in each case - of these disciplines will be in its per se manifestation in any given element.

30. There is accordingly a sense in which those who specialize in doing as opposed to giving, in science as opposed to politics, are more akin to creatures of the will than of the spirit, and should be thought of less in terms of human beings (setting aside, for the moment, conventional usage and understanding) than of human doings, whether in relation to metachemistry, chemistry, physics, or metaphysics, though especially in relation to metachemistry.

31. Conversely, those who specialize in giving as opposed to doing, in politics as opposed to science, should be thought of less in terms of human beings than of human givings, since they function more as creatures of the spirit than of the will or, indeed, the soul (in relation to being), and especially in relation to chemistry.

32. There is also a sense in which those who specialize in taking as opposed to being, in economics as opposed to religion, are more akin to creatures of the ego than of the soul, and should accordingly be thought of less in terms of human beings than of human takings, whether in relation to metachemistry, chemistry, physics, or metaphysics, though especially in relation to physics.

33. Conversely, those who specialize in being as opposed to taking, in religion as opposed to economics, are the only ones who can properly be identified as human beings, since they function more as creatures of the soul, wherein being has its home, than of the ego, and especially in relation to metaphysics.

34. Now if religious people are the only genuine human beings, the only creatures for whom being is the principal concern, then it is only through religion that one becomes fully human or, at any rate, achieves an accommodation with being such that confirms one's right to be considered a human being, rather than simply a human taking, a human giving, or a human doing.

35. Such could certainly not be said of scientists, politicians, and economists, any more than it could be said of poets, dramatists, and novelists in relation to philosophers or, at least, to those philosophers who, being genuinely wise, really do relate to soulful being and not to something less - whether egocentric taking, spiritual giving, or wilful doing.

36. But the word 'human' is itself problematical, since it suggests humanistic limitations which conflict, in some degree, with the concept of divinity, or even of devility. Even supposing we limit the term 'human' to 'being', are all human beings equal - equal, that is, in relation to being?

37. And the answer to that has to be an emphatic 'no', since being exists, as we have discovered, in relation to metachemistry, chemistry, physics, and metaphysics, and therefore does so at a variety of levels or, as we have said, rates - from the fourth-rate being of love in metachemistry to the first-rate being of joy in metaphysics via the third-rate being of pride in chemistry and the second-rate being of pleasure in physics.

38. Therefore even religious people, whom we have logically identified with the notion of a more beingful humanity, are not equal, and we reserve for the admission of their inequality such differing and contrasting terms as Fundamentalist, Nonconformist, Humanist, and Transcendentalist.

39. Now what applies to religious people, or those who actually pursue a religious vocation, applies no less to economic people, political people, and scientific people - in short, to economists, politicians, and scientists in relation to the different levels and rates of taking, giving, and doing.

40. Thus no more than the being-orientated are equal, so one cannot allow that the doing-orientated or the giving-orientated or the taking-orientated are equal - except, however, in relation to those (within reason) whose elemental correspondence is with their own kind of being, doing, giving, or taking, as the case may be.

41. How, then, should we attempt to describe or define these inequalities in connection with the different elements - other than by recourse to the distinctions, drawn earlier, between the unnature of metachemistry, the supernature of chemistry, the nature of physics, and the subnature of metaphysics.

42. Or, more comprehensively, between the unnature/unconsciousness of metachemistry, the supernature/superconsciousness of chemistry, the nature/consciousness of physics, and the subnature/subconsciousness of metaphysics.

43. Thus, in terms of the will, we can distinguish the unnatural doing of metachemical will from the supernatural doing of chemical will, the natural doing of physical will, and the subnatural doing of metaphysical will.

44. Likewise, in terms of the spirit, we can distinguish the unconscious giving of metachemical spirit from the superconscious giving of chemical spirit, the conscious giving of physical spirit, and the subconscious giving of metaphysical spirit.

45. Similarly, in terms of the ego, we can distinguish the unnatural taking of metachemical ego from the supernatural taking of chemical ego, the natural taking of physical ego, and the subnatural taking of metaphysical ego.

46. Finally, in terms of the soul, we can distinguish the unconscious being of metachemical soul from the superconscious being of chemical soul, the conscious being of physical soul, and the subconscious being of metaphysical soul.

47. Since I have found reason to question the applicability of the term 'human' right across the board, so to speak, of elemental reference, even with regard to so-called 'human beings', I should like to posit a correlation between the unnatural and what I shall call the unhuman (inhuman), between the supernatural and the superhuman, between the natural and the human, and, last but hardly least, between the subnatural and the subhuman.

48. I do so because there is a definite correlation between 'human' and 'nature', as in 'human nature', and this is spite of the association - often rather questionable - of 'human' with 'being'. In short, it seems to me that the word 'human' has more of a somatic than a psychic connotation, such as stands it in good stead with 'nature' ... as something that should be distinguished from that which issues from it on a psychic, or non-somatic, basis.

49. Now if we correlate 'the natural' with 'the human' in this elemental fashion, it seems logically sustainable to correlate 'the conscious' with 'the astral', as that which, far from having a somatic connotation, is demonstrably psychic, and therefore more germane to either spirit or soul than to will and ego.

50. Thus, with the various elements in mind, we shall be able to distinguish the unhuman doing of metachemical will from the superhuman doing of chemical will, the human doing of physical will, and the subhuman doing of metaphysical will, as between first-, second-, third-, and fourth-rate levels of power.

51. Likewise we shall be able to distinguish the superastral giving, so to speak, of chemical spirit from the unastral giving of metachemical spirit, the subastral giving of metaphysical spirit, and the astral giving of physical spirit, as between first-, second-, third-, and fourth-rate levels of glory.

52. Contrariwise, we shall be able to distinguish the human taking of physical ego from the subhuman taking of metaphysical ego, the unhuman taking of metachemical ego, and the superhuman taking of chemical ego, as between first-, second-, third-, and fourth-rate levels of form.

53. Finally, we shall be able to distinguish the subastral being of metaphysical soul from the astral being of physical soul, the superastral being of chemical soul, and the unastral being of metachemical soul, as between first-, second-, third-, and fourth-rate levels of contentment.

54. Thus, contrary to conventional usage, being is not here associated with 'human' at all but, rather, with 'astral', so that we are speaking rather more of different levels or rates of 'astral being', according to the elemental context, together, in connection with the spirit, of different levels of 'astral giving', both of which are identified, in psychic vein, with 'the conscious', whether in terms, elementally conditioned, of unconsciousness, superconsciousness, consciousness, or subconsciousness.

55. Thus the 'natural/human' options of will and ego, power and form, doing and taking, are conceived as standing in a somatic relationship to the 'conscious/astral' options which, being psychic, have rather more applicability to spirit and soul, glory and contentment, giving and being.

56. Thus do the terms 'human nature' and 'astral consciousness' prove to be tautological, since 'nature' is no less 'human' than 'consciousness' is 'astral', or related to the spirit and/or soul.

57. In this respect, it becomes feasible to speak of a 'lower nature' in connection with the will and of a 'higher nature' in connection with the ego (associated not with consciousness but with thought or, at any rate, the possibility of knowledge of one kind or another), whether in relation to metachemistry, chemistry, physics, or metaphysics.

58. In like manner, it is now feasible to speak of a 'lower consciousness' in connection with the spirit and of a 'higher consciousness' in connection with the soul, again in relation to any or all of the elements.

59. It may even prove desirable to identify all kinds of 'lower nature' with 'the natural' and all the 'higher' kinds of 'nature', by contrast, with 'the human', so that the former is solely identified with the will, whether as unnature, supernature, nature, or subnature, and the latter with the ego, whether as unhuman (inhuman), superhuman, human, or subhuman.

60. Likewise, it may prove desirable to identify all kinds of 'lower consciousness' with 'the astral' and all the 'higher' kinds of 'consciousness', by contrast, with 'the conscious', so that the former is solely identified with the spirit, whether as unastral, superastral, astral, or subastral, and the latter with the soul, whether as unconscious, superconscious, conscious, or subconscious.

61. Thus every time the will was at issue one could resort to associations with 'the natural', reserving to the ego associations with 'the human', to the spirit associations with 'the astral', and to the soul associations with 'the conscious', thereby simplifying the matter to a single type of definition subject, in the course of elemental differentiation, to fourfold transmutations.

62. However that may be, there can be no doubt, as far as the not-self and the self are concerned, that each of the elements has a different pattern of correlations - from unnatural/unastral and unhuman/unconscious on the metachemical far left, as it were, of the elemental spectrum (noumenally objective) ... to subnatural/subastral and subhuman/subconscious on the metaphysical far right (noumenally subjective).

63. And, likewise, from supernatural/superastral and superhuman/superconscious on the chemical left of the elemental spectrum (phenomenally objective) ... to natural/astral and human/conscious on the physical right (phenomenally subjective), the position more usually associated with humanism, and hence nature.

64. Thus if we limit 'human' to the ego, we shall find that whereas what may be called the secondary Devil's ego is unhuman (inhuman) in its metachemical form, the secondary woman's ego is superhuman in its chemical form, the primary man's ego human in its physical form, and the primary God's ego subhuman in its metaphysical form.

65. Similarly, by limiting 'natural' to the will, we shall find that what may be called the primary Devil's will is unnatural in its metachemical power, the primary woman's will supernatural in its chemical power, the secondary man's will natural in its physical power, and the secondary God's will subnatural in its metaphysical power.

66. Likewise, by limiting 'astral' to the spirit, we shall find that whereas the primary Hell's spirit, so to speak, is unastral in its metachemical glory, the primary purgatory's spirit is superastral in its chemical glory, the secondary earth's spirit astral in its physical glory, and the secondary Heaven's spirit subastral in its metaphysical glory.

67. Finally, by limiting 'conscious' to the soul, we shall find that whereas the secondary Hell's soul, so to speak, is unconscious in its metachemical contentment, the secondary purgatory's soul is superconscious in its chemical contentment, the primary earth's soul conscious in its physical contentment, and the primary Heaven's soul subconscious in its metaphysical contentment.

68. In the objective elemental contexts (of metachemistry and chemistry) the will and the spirit are primary but the ego and the soul ... secondary, whereas in the subjective elemental contexts (of physics and metaphysics) the ego and the soul are primary but the will and the spirit ... secondary.

69. Thus we have every right to distinguish primary instances of the Devil, woman, man, and God from secondary instances thereof, together with similarly-based distinctions of primary instances of Hell, purgatory, earth, and Heaven from secondary instances, as described above.

70. And in all the elemental contexts of will and ego, the Devil, woman, man, and God of the not-self (will) are distinct from the Devil, woman, man, and God of the self (ego), whether the latter be primary or secondary.

71. As in all the elemental contexts of spirit and soul, the Hell, purgatory, earth, and Heaven of the not-self (spirit) are distinct from the Hell, purgatory, earth, and Heaven of the self (soul), whether the latter be primary or secondary.

72. Thus as we distinguish 'Son' from 'Father' in relation to God, the former of the metaphysical ego (primary) and the latter of the metaphysical will (secondary), so we should distinguish 'son' from 'father' in relation to man, the former of the physical ego (primary) and the latter of the physical will (secondary).

73. Contrariwise, it is no less logical to distinguish 'daughter' from 'mother' in relation to woman, the former of the chemical ego (secondary) and the latter of the chemical will (primary) ... as to distinguish 'Daughter' from 'Mother' in relation to the Devil, the former of the metachemical ego (secondary) and the latter of the metachemical will (primary).

74. Whereas distinctions between the egocentric and the wilful modes of God, metaphysical form and power, are commensurate with subhumanism and subnaturalism, metaphysical personal self and personal not-self, those between the egocentric and the wilful modes of man, physical form and power, are commensurate with humanism and naturalism, physical personal self and personal not-self.

75. Whereas distinctions between the egocentric and the wilful modes of woman, chemical form and power, are commensurate with superhumanism and supernaturalism, chemical personal self and personal not-self, those between the egocentric and the wilful modes of the Devil, metachemical form and power, are commensurate with unhumanism and unnature, metachemical personal self and personal not-self.

76. Just as it is logical to distinguish primary God (in the self) from secondary God (in the not-self), so we should distinguish the Son's Heaven, so to speak, from the Father's Heaven, the former of the metaphysical soul (primary) and the latter of the metaphysical spirit (secondary), not to mention the son's earth from the father's earth, the former of the physical soul (primary) and the latter of the physical spirit (secondary).

77. Contrariwise, it is no less logical to distinguish, on the objective side of the gender fence, the daughter's purgatory from the mother's purgatory, the former of the chemical soul (secondary) and the latter of the chemical spirit (primary), not to mention the Daughter's Hell from the Mother's Hell, the former of the metachemical soul (secondary) and the latter of the metachemical spirit (primary).

78. Whereas distinctions between the soulful and the spiritual modes of Heaven, metaphysical contentment and glory, are commensurate with the subconscious and the subastral, metaphysical universal self and universal not-self, those between the soulful and the spiritual modes of the earth, physical contentment and glory, are commensurate with the conscious and the astral, physical universal self and universal not-self.

79. Whereas distinctions between the soulful and the spiritual modes of purgatory, chemical contentment and glory, are commensurate with the superconscious and the superastral, chemical universal self and universal not-self, those between the soulful and the spiritual modes of Hell, metachemical contentment and glory, are commensurate with the unconscious and the unastral, metachemical universal self and universal not-self.

80. What applies to all the above contexts in sensuality, which is commensurate with the outer, to the kingdoms and/or queendoms 'without', applies no less in sensibility, as commensurate with the inner, to the kingdoms and/or queendoms 'within', in positive and negative, organic and inorganic, supreme and primal, manifestations thereof.