郭象撤銷「道」、「無」這些蘊含「超越根據」意味之概念，融化於「自然」義中，牟宗三先生更藉此證立其「主觀境界型態」之詮釋系統。然而郭象「自然」亦關連著「性」、「命」、「理」等諸義蘊，如全幅收歸於精神性的境界義中，是否也是種約化？這或許出自我們對「主觀境界型態」的誤解，因「境界型態」之真義，依然強調生命實踐必應世以體道。職是，本文重新貫通「性」、「命」、「理」三義，強調「主觀境界型態」義旨於無時地順應命行，履踐於動態的造化流行中，斷不能被誤解為空蹈之玄照。但本文亦揭露出「自然」與其說是主體實踐而證成的境界，毋寧說主觀境界只是徹底玄應於自然流行之中。「自然」與「道心」終有一「存有論上的差異」（ontological difference），然而此「差異」並非指涉「自然」為一超越根據，而是萬物相因俱生的自然流行，本身就具有一調節損益的機制，其蘊含著客觀價值理序之義，亦是萬物互依共命的生機動力。

In this study, we noted the signification of ＂So-of Itself＂ in the texts of Kuo Hsiang that had three concepts: ＂X-ing＂, ＂Allotment＂ and ＂Circumstances＂. And we asserted that only by conforming to life changes and maintaining a mood of ＂Wu-wei＂ (non-action) all the time could a living person correspond in ＂So-of Itself＂. Since there was an ＂ontological difference＂ between ＂So-of Itself＂ and life practices, the substantial world itself was provided with Self-regulating mechanism and made all of them an organic whole.