To distinguish, as I believe I have done to some extent before, a metaphysical ratio in free psyche (never mind bound soma) of least heaven and most god from less (in relation to least) heaven and more (in relation to most) god, and this in turn from more (in relation to most) heaven and less (in relation to least) god, and most heaven and least god, as one might distinguish, from our point of view, metaphysics in the cosmos from metaphysics in nature, and that in turn from metaphysics in mankind and metaphysics in cyborgkind (to slightly anticipate the future), or, more specifically, planets like Saturn (cosmos) from winged seedpods (nature), and this in turn from prayer and/or meditation (mankind) and substance entitlement (cyborgkind), the latter of which, corresponding to most heaven and least god, would be the definitive manifestation of metaphysics and therefore the most internalized stage of all.
But although I have said pretty much the same thing before, also allowing for man, in general terms, to approach cosmic metaphysics smokingly and natural metaphysics sexually, I did not distinguish, as I can now, between the heavenly and godly aspects of metaphysical free psyche in terms of the inner experience of Heaven and that experience perceived (by us) from the outside, which is effectively where the concept of God, or godliness, comes into play, since that is no more and no less than a superficial, or external, take on Heaven, not a separate entity that stands apart from Heaven like some kind of person.
Between the Soul and its superconscious self-realization there is no distinction, even though a distinction indubitably exists between the basis of the Soul in the brain stem and spinal cord of the central nervous system and the experiencing, all-too-sentient soul itself, which is superconscious and never more so, I shall contend, than when self-absorbed rather than distracted, via the senses, by external phenomena and even noumena, as in the case, for example, of the stars.
There is also a distinction, touched upon in an earlier entry, between this superconscious and what I have termed superego, which owes more to the brain – and possibly even to the brain stem as that part of the brain closest to the spinal cord – on an intellectually-bovaryized basis than ever it does to the Soul, since it is used to understand metaphysics and to be pro-metaphysical even as it necessarily falls short of metaphysics-proper, in which the Soul’s superconscious experience of itself precludes thought, being pertinent to the ‘peace that suprasses all understanding’.
One should also note, in dropping from metaphysics to physics, that between the Ego and its conscious self-realization there is no appreciable distinction either, even though one indubitably exists between the basis of the Ego in the brain and the thoughts of the Ego itself, which is conscious, and never more so, I shall argue, than when self-absorbed rather than distracted by externals, most of which will register as phenomena rather than as noumena to a person centred in the Ego and therefore more disposed to what could be called a corporeal view of life.
Thus no less than feelings are germane to superconsciousness, so thoughts are germane to consciousness, both of which tend, barring bovaryized thoughts (pro-spiritual superego) and bovaryized feelings (pro-intellectual subsoul) to be mutually exclusive, since effectively appertaining to the sensibilities, noumenal and phenomenal, metaphysical and physical, of contrary axes, with correspondingly disparate ethnic implications.
Ego and soul do not inhabit the same person, but only either ego and bovaryized soul (pro-intellectual subsoul) on the one hand, or soul and bovaryized ego (pro-spiritual superego) on the other hand, the former centred in knowledge (with a correlative manifestation of pleasure) and the latter in truth or, rather joy (with a correlative manifestation of truth), so that the disitinction is rather akin to economics and religion, form and contentment, a humanistic world and a transcendental otherworld, neither of which are – or ever could be – compatible.