First, the use of "have" instead of "am" is consistent with the idea that a particular emotion can change. A study could be done in which people would say a lot of things like "I am angry" and "I am depressed". Then they would rate the truth or falsity of such statements as "A person can overcome anger" and "One does not necessarily have to remain depressed." Then the subjects of this experiment would say a whole lot of things like "I have anger now" and "I have depression now". They would then rate the same statements again.

Second, the use of the word "now" further implies that whatever the emotion is it isn't necessarily a permanent attribute. This notion could be tested in a similar way.

I just mention these thoughts because I wanted you to know what I have thought about the IHXEN model and its possible usefulness.

Your post contains a lot of very complex statements. I quite literally can't take the time to discuss all of them. Let me just take one. Maybe I can discuss another one in a subsequent post. So for now, let's discuss the statement, "Substance is often described as the spring of form." I believe that you had something in mind when you wrote that, and that it may possibly be something that would be helpful to know about. But you have not made it clear what you intended to convey. Not only that, but the statement appears false. I don't think I have ever known anyone to say that substance is the spring of form. But I think it is more likely that I am not understanding the meaning you had in mind for the statement. It could be interpreted in a number of ways.