CHAPTER XIII Relationship between the two FOREGOING REPRESENTATIONS
In the second three-dimensional representation, in which only one being in its totality was considered, both the horizontal direction in which the modalities of all the states of this being develop, and also the vertical planes that are parallel to it, imply an idea of logical succession, whereas the vertical planes that are perpendicular to it correspond, correlatively, to the idea of logical simultaneity. [1] If we project the whole expanse on to the plane of co-ordinates which corresponds to the idea of simultaneity, then each modality of each state of the being will be projected on a point of a horizontal straight line, this line itself being the projection of the entirety of a certain state of the being, and, in particular, the state whose centre coincides with that of the total being will be depicted by the horizontal axis lying in the plane on to which the projection is made. We are thus brought back to our first representation, namely that in which the being is situated wholly in a vertical plane; a horizontal plane can then once again represent a degree of universal Existence, and the establishment of this correspondence between the two representations, by allowing us to pass readily from the one to the other, will enable us to avoid departing from three-dimensional space.
Each horizontal plane, when it represents a degree of universal Existence, comprehends the whole development of a particular possibility, the manifestation of which, as a whole, constitutes what may be called a " macrocosm", that is, a
world, whereas in the other representation, which relaces to a single being alone, the plane is only the development of the same possibility in that being, constituting one of the being's states, whether individual or non-individual, which may be called by analogy a microcosm. Further, it is most important to observe that when considered in isolation the "macrocosm" itself, like the "microcosm", is only one of the elements of the Universe, just as each particular possibility is only one element of total Possibility.
Of the two representations, the one that relates to the Universe may, for simplicity of language, be called the "macrocosmic" representation, and the one that relates to a being, the "microcosmic". We have seen how the threedimensional cross is traced in the latter; the same will hold good in the "macrocosmic" representation if the corresponding elements in it are determined, namely a vertical axis, which will be the axis of the Universe, and a horizontal plane, which by analogy may be termed its equator; and it must also be pointed out that each "macrocosm" has here its centre on the vertical axis, as did each "microcosm" in the other representation.
The above shows the analogy that exists between the "macrocosm" and the "microcosm", every part of the Universe being analogous to the other parts, and its own parts also being analogous to it, because all are analogous to the total Universe. It follows that if we consider the "macrocosm", each of the definite domains that it comprises is analogous to it ; similarly, if we consider the "microcosm", each of its modalities is also analogous to it. Thus, to take a particular instance, the corporeal modality of the human individuality can be taken as symbolizing, in its various parts, that same individuality envisaged as a whole. [2] It must be remembered however that the individuality embraces an indefinite multitude of co-existing modalities, just as the bodily organism itself is composed of an indefinite multitude of cells, each of which also has an existence of its own.