Commenting on lines 174-89, Leslie Brisman writes:
What seems like a rather careless profusion of value words in the first four lines may have been influenced by the argument against the narrow mind which limits its contemplation to one object. A mind not narrowly set in one frame of reference can associate with the idea of a limited object evil, misery, the base, the impure and frail. The next two lines suggest a hypothetical program for making the defects of the object world of nature easier to bear. One can no longer stick to the marriage referent, which would make dividing suffering and dross sound like a plan of social concern in which everyone spends a small number of hours with the sick, the ugly, or the poor in spirit so that no one is long bound to them. But one need not trouble oneself specifying why such a plan would prove impracticable; the speculation remains vague, in the realm of what "may be." On the other hand, the two lines suggesting the division of positive pleasures are extended and move out from the realm of what may be into imagined futurity. Spreading the kingdom of love, Shelley gathers into his fold the sages and believers in orthodox religious accounts who look forward to a time of tikkun olam--the restoration of a broken world when the dross of experiential loss will be redeemed under the reign of a God of Love. (116)
Leslie, Brisman. "Epipsychidion." Modern Critical Views: Percy Bysshe Shelley. Ed. Harold Bloom. New York: Chelsea House, 1985. 113-120.