I'm beginning to think that the problem is a different one, because it seems that none of us really understood what Pierre wanted to say or ask, and everyone thought something differently. So Ilos speaks of microcosm and macrocosm, whereby microcosm seems to me to be the tangible and macrocosm the fundamental, Schmuldvich then speaks of the soul as the intermediate zone, placing the mind above and the physical below, Tannur in turn speaks of a barrier and it seems, to put it casually, he speaks of the border between this world and the next (possibly of that point of experience which Buddha calls the Blow Away).
Well, I had the impression that Pierre speaks only of this world, the whole nature, which represents an interwoven whole of spirit, soul and body, and is thereby polarized in spirit and body, which is why I wanted to make to understand that we should not seek the spirit in such a hypothetical intermediate zone, but rather in matter itself, as the vessel of the Holy One, thereby convert (transforming) spirit into matter and matter into spirit. As the wise it also say: make the volatile solid and the solid volatile, that is all the work; or, in another place: we need nothing but our matter for the Work, for our matter is also our vessel (the vas hermetis).

Well, Pierre, it seems that your question concerns something that only you can answer by yourself, just meditate on it, and the answer you find will be the best possible. Under these circumstances, we can only come up with nonsense regarding the question.