I finally figured out how to log back into this blog.  Sorry for the lapse.  Here is the current state of the first of many pieces of the presentation that I am working on simultaneously.  This piece is intended to introduce the idea of cosmology in the particular context which I will be presenting my own.


Anatomy of  Cosmology
    Why cosmology? 

    What I seek to represent is a developing worldview.  Cosmology is the practice of submitting such a worldview to the rigors and integrety of conceptual modelling.  The scope of cosmology is the scope of concept itself.  This is less inclusive than the scope of knowledge or consciousness or awareness.  The experience of mind may include concepts and conceptual models but there are many other domains of experience.  These other domains of experience may well be sufficient for understanding the world; for operating a worldview.  However, the academic medium requires literary, linear, and therefore conceptual translation.  So for this audience, in this linear medium, I will stick with cosmology as a defining structure for the presentation.  For another audience I may well wish to represent the same knowledge musically, somatically, or in the silence of raw awareness.

    Whitehead's defense of 'speculative philosophy' is a defense and definition of metaphysics that not only validates cosmological pursuits but defines those pursuits as metaphysical.  Applicable and adequate.  Cosmology is metaphysical in that it seeks to present models and statements that are as general and inclusive as possible and yet are explicit as possible.  Science's eternal attempt to uncover the 'laws of nature' is an example of metaphysical inquiry.

    Prevalence of Cosmology 
      Everyone maintains a worldview.  An overwhelming majority maintains at least part of this worldview as a conceptual model. A cosmology is an attempt to reconcile and articulate such a model.
      According to Alan Watts we are all metaphysicians.  All of us create generally applicable metaphors to understand and navigate the world that we live in.  So playing with metaphysical models may be far less unique than actually calling that behavior metaphysical.  And so metaphysical models may be a dime a dozen. 
      In this introduction I want to take the idea of cosmology out of the ivory tower context and out of the religious context by showing it as human heritage. Cosmology in literature is a case in point.
excerpt from Wampeters, Foma, and Granfalloons by Kurt Vonnegut:
   
 Here is my understanding of the universe and mankind's place in it at the present time: 
    the seeming curvature of the universe is an illusion.  The universe is really as straight as a string, except for a loop at either end. The loops are microscopic.
    One tip of the string is forever vanishing. Its neighboring loop is forever retreating from extinction. The other end is forever growing. Its neighboring loop is forever pursuing Genesis.
    In the beginning and in the end was Nothingness. Nothingness implied the possibility of Somethingness. It is impossible to make something from nothing. Therefore nothingness could only imply something's. That implication is the Universe --- as straight as a string, as I've already said, except for a loop at either end.
    We are wisps of that implication.
    The universe does not teem with life. It is inhabited only one point by creatures who can examine it and comment on it. That point is the planet Earth, which is forever at the exact center of the implication, midway between tips.
    All the twinkles in glints in the night sky might as well be sparks from a cowboy's campfire, for all the life or wisdom they contain.

    Orson Scott Card has a cosmology articulated in the Ender's Game series.  J.R.R. Tolkien's cosmology is perhaps most directly represented in the Silmarillion. Frank Herbert in Dune,  Philip Pullman's trilogy His Dark Materials,

    Parliament Funkadelic, founders of funk music and culture, maintain a cosmology within the philosophy of transcenfunkadentalism. 

    Myths are cosmological. They present archetypal stories that illustrate metaphysical properties and structures which are used to orient the individual within their environment.  (Joseph Campbell)

    One thing we can say about cosmologies is that they are abundant.  As grand as they may or may not make themselves out to be they are truly a dime a dozen.   They may be considered hubristic in the sense of "the height of arrogance is the creation of god in one's own image."

    Limitations of Cosmology    A cosmology is a conceptual model.  It is an interpretation and a map.  As the map is not the territory, so a cosmology is not the cosmos.  There is a fundamental distinction between the qualia of lived experience in the conceptual models that we construct to reflect them.  And so a personal extension of "A map is not the territory," and, "A cosmology is not the cosmos," would be, "You are not your self."
    fallacy of misplaced concreteness - Whitehead

    Structures of Cosmology
     Symbols are how we relate to cosmology - a shared understanding of personal situation in process.
 
     Logic is a recognition of the mental processes involved when working with concept.  At the heart of logical and conceptual structures are axioms.  When we begin to model our experience conceptually we develop and use axioms.  Axioms are assumptive interpretations of experience to be understood as self- evident, expressed and articulated conceptually.  Logic allows for conceptual constructions to follow from axioms as axioms represent the criteria for the structural integrity of the model.

    When we talk cosmologically we use big inclusive words like universe or being as axioms. 

    Some cosmologies are articulated concisely and then expanded on.  The yoga sutras illustrate the entire model in a single aphorism at the beginning and then expand on it throughout the several books- usually with plenty of commentary.  The Tao Te Ching also does this.

                   - Ubiquitous Principle
    Cosmologies often have a single variable which is universal and ubiquitous.  It is omnipresent.  Everything in the universe becomes relative to and describable in terms of that variable. In Taoism it is the Tao (ch'i is differentiated Tao). In Yoga it is prana, the direct experience of which is the "unconditioned mind". In Western science they are the constant and elusive laws of nature. Einsteinian relativity theory makes the universe relative to the speed of light.  (Whiteheadean Creativity or experience?)  To Phenomenology it is experience. Douglas Adams makes the point in his novel, The Restaraunt at the End of the Universe, that this single variable may be rather arbitrary:
To explain -- since every piece of matter in the Universe is in some way affected by every other piece of matter in the Universe, it is in theory possible to o the whole of creation -- every sun, every planet, their orbits, their composition and their economic and social history from, say, one small piece of fairy cake.

    The universal variable is also unitive thereby the (dis)organizing principle in a cosmology.  It represents the hierophanic organizing hub for the cosmology using the variable.                   

    In the previously cited Vonnegut cosmology, the ubiquitous element would be the line with looped ends.  Everything is included in this description

    - unity (the one)        - The harmonic spectrum and the relative ubiquity of anything    DeBroglie, Tesla, musical perception and resonance, holographic perception
    Most information about harmonic spectra focus on the peaks and try to define a sound by wourking mathematically with only the peaks.  What often gets neglected is that there is always some amplitude at any position.  This means that any sound carries the resonation of all frequencies to at least some small amplitude.
     It is our perception that picks the "fundamental" frequency out of the mix and identifies, categorizes the sound for digestion, assimilation.
    Quantum positioning suggests that any particle exists everywhere to some degree of probability.  An electron has the potential as a wave function to exist anywhere in space until it is observed to be in a particular position.  So, in a sense the physical reality of an electron is ubiquitous.
    resonance and Indra's net
    These pieces of evidence lend credibility to the thought that any observeable thing in the universe exists to some degree everywhere in the universe prior to the filter of perception
 


        - Perception

      Perceptual mechanisms remove constant stimuli by habituation and categorization.  We readily perceive change and filter out constance.  This is reflected in the Tao.  The Tao is at the heart of all change as the ubiquitous element.  Whatever is ubiquitous is also the most difficult element of our experience to perceive categorically.
 (Naranjo & Ornstein) Dehabituation is an inversion of one's point of view


    Objective Description - differentiation and integration of the one and the many
 

  







Differentiation (or individuation)/integration

    In this first verse of the Tao te Ching differentiation occurs by "naming".  This suggests that the categorical function of our coneptual mind is responsible for the differentiation.

    Extrapolation, breaking out from a central state or position, is another way of describing differentiation which emphasizes the central and unitive aspect of a model.  Extrapolation and differentiation may also be described in terms of symmetry breaking.  Symmetry and complexity are inversely related in systems theory.  "Formation of, or an increase in, complexity is characterized by a breaking of the complexity of the precursor state." (Cambray 52) 

     This model represents an objective description because it includes the universal element as an object, implying a perspective that is outside of even that.  This would be a God perspective.


    Subjective Description

    As "The Tao that can be named is not the eternal Tao," so trying to explicitly describe the fundamental principle of a cosmology may be futile.  The subjective description of a cosmology implies a central idea that rather than directly approaching it. 

    Whitehead describes his cosmology as a philosophy of organism into his tome Process and Reality.  The categoreal scheme represents a a set of ideas that imply the nature of process thought.  The problem with presenting this as a book is that to talk about any one of those points you must talk about the others.  Since this is a cosmology, the points circumscribing it are axiomatic.  They rely only on each other.  But it is impossible to describe one without putting it into terms of the others.   Process and Reality, the book in which Whitehead disseminates his cosmology, is not supposed to make sense until you have read the whole thing. This is because it is so recursive (Self-referrential) that each part makes reference to the other parts of the book even before you've read them.

    I will in an HTML document use a set of six ideas within the context of the general model that I have laid out heirarchically.  Each of the concepts in the model will refer to the other concepts in the model.  I would intend this to mean that the concepts are well adapted to each other and do not create a cognitive dissonance by holding them together.



Polar Subjective/Objective Experience
   Buddhism and the Tao te Ching inform us that the experience of the One occurs in nonattachment, free from desire.  The experience of the many occurs by entangled in desire and attachment. The experience of self and other, or the experience of "I" is of desire and attachment.  Free from desire there is no I-and-thou.  This is depersonalization.

    Annie Dillard uses the image of a knitted scarf to describe her experience with this idea.  Having a depersonalized experience, she sees humanity as a superorganism interrelated and bound to each other by passion, emotion, and attachment.  She allowed that she was granted this perspective by a degree of dispassion and unattachment.

    In Elizabeth Kubler-Ross's research on near death experiences, wherein people who had been clinically dead and revived are questioned about their experiences, a similar image arises.  The common experience of having one's life flash before their eyes occurs by seeing one's life in the context of their emotional impact on the network of beings they have been involved with.  This moment is an empathic experience of the collective impact of one's life on the emotional web.

    - Cosmologies and Medical Models Imply Each Other
    As a cosmology is a way of relating to the universe it is specifically relevant to the individual.
The boundary between self and other is maintained by cosmology and worldview.

    Commonalities in medical models imply commonalities in cosmologies in a way that is particularly relevant to the individual.

        a sense of balance - homeostasis

        structure/flow

        stagnation - a commonality in all medical models that I have seen.  represents disease process.  In terms of structure and flow, stagnation is maladaptive structure which inhibits flow.

but now....

 Sorry for not posting yet this month.  In my neglect i have not been idle.  Here is some stuff that i typed up tonight regarding how to begin constructing the arguments.  The idea of dimensionality needs to be treated with more depth soon.

     A hierophany is like a strange attractor in chaos theory - the world organizes around it in recursive self-similarity.  A hierophany is historically a site of recognition of divinity in the phenomenal world - a connection to mythological time.  Individual psyches and societies organize around these intense regions of awareness localized in time and space.  It is in a field of heightened awareness that meaning and synchronicity become apparent.  This may be the recognition of a ubiquitous connectivity.  However, we may only be capable of this recognition when and where that much awareness is present.  Because the experience and recognition of that connectivity may not always be available to us we may have to create a way to remember.  This way can be created in a mythological story involving the deep synchronistic symbolisms of the hierophany.  It may also occur in a logical or mathematical model built on axioms, in turn built upon ontological interpretations of experience into concept.

    Ekhart Tolle is a man who had an experience of incredible value.  A transformational, dissociative, ecstatic, sattvic, satori, samadhi, OBE, NDE, healing, orienting, hierophanic experience.  Upon finding his complete satisfaction in this experience he began to tell people.  Then it becomes a vision.  People pick up on the way he is articulating his experience and the different ways of articulating and relating the experience become a model.  This conceptual model is then a reference point to illustrate Ekhart Tolle's relationship to the cosmos.  Many people find that his experiences and models reflect theirs and so they find assistance in establishing and/or discovering their relationship to the cosmos.  Ekhart Tolle is now an established author and organizational force in society because he held to the integrety of his vision and found ways of articulating it with people.

    In my process of developing my understanding of my relationship to the cosmos, i find conversations with other people to be something that i cannot do without.  Like expressive arts therapy, the creative act of conversation (collaborative improvisation) externalizes the internal processes and images in ways that are meaningful and communicative of unconscious knowledge of the subject.  In modelling, this allows one's very structures of identity and conceptual reality (not the only experienced reality) to undergo the gauntlet process of peer review.  More than that, it is a participatory relational power involvement that facilitates transformation and growth.  Holding a set of ideas in an open space with others allows for user driven innovation - it becomes open source.  It becomes community-relevant.

    What about opening up the process more?  The Open Cosmology Project. Party to the Boone Community Network. Invite the community into a cosmological discussion to see who wants to weigh in on the perennial philosophy.  It could consist of a Wiki of cross-referenced ideas and researches.  Invite research not just speculation.  Invite suggestions for categorizing and including data.  Find out who's already doing it.  Would a Boone-local one be relevant to Boone?  Would a localized cosmology project, perhaps just scaled down, allow me to get some reflective assistance on my particular cosmology?  How open would it be if it were designed to be oriented around my cosmology.  And if anyone is doing it on a grand scale could it be participated in or done better?  Or specifically from a different angle?  Is it accessible to non-academics?

    My cosmology is relevant to me because it hangs on my axioms. My experience is my axiom.  My embodied self is an integration of all my influences and disciplines.  And any product is somehow an integration of all those knowledges.  My actions need not always be categorical and divided.  It is possible to act in flow, in total integration.

    When action is the development and maintenance of conceptual models, however, it is almost inevitably a categorical and divided experience.  Concepts are of that nature.  They correspond to structure.  They are held beliefs, identities of self and other.  (//footnote?//The noun-orientation of our language is systemic with divided, hyperstructural thought and general being and perception.)  When the flow of reality makes holding such a structure go against the grain, we experience cognitive dissonance, the suffering of attachment.
   
    I am quite concerned with describing the space in which entities and processes as i describe them can occur.  In an omni-dimensional space change in form amounts to a change in distance.  Proximity by similarity means morphology as a distance function in a non-Euclidian topology or Hilbert space.  Whitehead's "extensive continuum" may help me articulate this farther.  The notion of alternate dimensionalities is a good segway for the idea of an empathetic dimensionality.  Annie Dillard's vision of the scarf and Dr. Kubler-Ross's white throne judgment are evidence of an empathetic dimensionality (i will unpack that later).  When we perceive emotional closeness to others perhaps that is a relevant perception.  (Alan Watts says we are all metaphysicians.)  They are perhaps the most similar entities there are to us and so we may describe the experience of closeness in terms of morphology.  And as people change we "grow apart' or "grow together", these are changes in morphology and thereby changes in distance in an omni-dimensional or empathetic space.  Since the psyche is recognized as operational beyond boundaries of time and space (causality) can we suggest that psyche exists and operates in omni-dimensional space?

Rather than actual events i use entities.  Even processes are entities.  For a conceptual model it makes sense that we use defined objects.  The use of atomistic entities allows us access to mathematical tools for description - points and dimensions.

    Asking for conceptual data involves asking conceptual questions.  Building a conceptual model relies on concepts as entities.  They can be nested holisms, integrated processes, but in order to make a concept out of anything you must first be able to describe its boundary - what the entity is and what that says about what it is not.  Boundaries are abstractions but may be relatively real.  Ken Wilbur's "no boundaries" may be an extreme in process orientation and too deconstructionist to be useful.  Perhaps it is an attempt to model without divisive concept but that may translate into a lack of structure.  Talking about an embodied way of being may be something you can do without divided concept, but as soon as you begin to model it you are necessarily diving into divisive categorical concept creation (for the expediency of mass market media?).  So, in creating my lived way of being I am indeed very process oriented.  My article of faith is Trust Process.  But for the practice of conceptually modelling a cosmological or metaphysical idea it makes sense to use boundaries and entities.

    In the discussion of boundaries, Wilbur is very effective at showing where our physical concepts of boundaries are blurry.  There are areas of crossover and ways in which the two spaces are not dissimilar at all.  However there is till a perceptible boundary.  Allbeit the same stuff on both sides, it undergoes an alternation in its qualitative nature across the boundary that is ontological, axiomatic experience. 

    As much as western philosophy has associated reason with divinity, ontological axiomatic experience must be a hierophany of conceptual reality.  Intense presence can be hierophanic in a process sense.  I believe there are ways to construct and relate to your conceptual model which can facilitate immense psychic energy and cosmic belonging.  Cosmic belonging as an embodied integrative experience may be reflected in cosmological belonging, or an understanding and modelling of relationship between self and other.  This can allow the identity (illusion) structure to mitigate the flow of the universal across the boundaries of self, allowing it to adjust qualitatively to find harmony between the inside and the outside.  The CMB is synonymous and yet liminal to physical boundaries.  In a sense It is the shadow compliment to physical boundaries.  As the physical is externalized perception, causal, linear, and the psychic (and thereby conceptual)

    i must admit that i feel that i work with conceptual material that is not linear and feels more like interacting with fields than isolable concepts until I learn to articulate the fields and then as an abstraction that more inclusive level of reality becomes available to the modelling process.  But even in the most non-linear, non-localized examples of process, for the purposes of academic exercise, they are only useful to us to the degree that we can refer to them and define them.   And so much of all of our perspectives go unarticulated in common language.

    You can define your terms by using others terms, thereby creating a dimensional map of the relative position of your perspective on the many spectra of thought available.  Each discernable mode of thought and articulated value could be abstractly entered into a topology in proximity by similarity (morphological distance function).  I believe that we operate in such a space empathetically and are locatable along dimensionalities described by those points.  Examples for points of thought that would describable, dimensionable, and mappable spectra for other ideas may be process versus atomistic interpretation of phenomena.  Ideas and experience can be described into structure and flow (what is the liminal, contextualizing space for structure/flow? flowing structure).

begin with an axiom

    I want to be humble at this and all points in the process.  Although it may be so that when someone has a legitimate satoric experience there is value in it for others, that is often attempted in inaccessible language.  Language itself is not forthcoming to the description of what is behind it; of what is constant and ubiquitous words fail us.  You can't really talk effectively about absolutes - hence destructive postmodernism - but you can more effectively talk about real entities and processes when described between a spectrum of absolute ideals.
   
    The knowledge formation occurs in the flavor of the mode of inquiry.  A certain way of asking a question yields a certain type of answer.  Asking for conceptual data requires the use of entities.  As articulable concepts, processes become entities for the sake of model building.  Even Whitehead, in describing process, for the sake of description had to make entities out of processes to be able to talk about them. Model building is a structural behavior crystallizing structural resources into a framework.  Through attraction and aversion we build a structure intended to optimize flow, Leo's "Ahh", the subjective aim, joy, openness, connectedness, belonging in a reciprocation across boundaries between the self and the Universe.
 
    Being "bad at life" means that you have trouble adapting to the world joyfully.  Psychology must explore how stagnation in the formation of new associations results in maladaptive disorder.  Being "good at life" means that you obviously belong here.  Alan Watts interpreted Jesus as someone with a deep sense of comsic belonging.

the new atomism - any describable entity in a world where abstractions are relatively real becomes a dimensionless point, only given meaning by context of other points (i.e. dimensionality)

    A significant amount of our experience may occur in acausal space.  If external dimensionalities of time and space are the criteria for causality, then causality really does just represent a portion of our experience.  If the external as well as the internal operate in synchronicity then might it be safe to assume that the dimensions of externality and therfore causility are imposed by us conceptually onto our field of view by processes of perception?  Causality is an interpretation that we enforce because it is regular within a specific slice of the pie.  But even in a causal situation, the participating elements and the event itself have more properties than accounted for by causality.  Any actual event has the connectivity to all others that gives rise to the experience of meaning.  If  experience is both of the causal, the acausal, and other then experience as a category is more inclusive than either.  Perhaps in the seeking to use the term Synchronicity to describe my vision, I am looking for a more semantically appropriate term, such as connectivity.  Perhaps We could say that connectivity is the underlying principle that gives rise to experiences of synchronicity and meaning in time. 

    Maybe I'm talking about God.  Huxley's God within and God without. (Ch 5)  "there is a way tp reality in and through the soul and there is a way to reality in and through the world."  This reminds me of your Torus model of self.  "the divine Ground simultaneously in the perceiver and in that which is perceived" reminds me of the sort of unified ordering principle I am trying to relate.  If this is not synchronicity, is it connectivity or God?

homeostasis, balance.  Starting where there is opposition, synchronistically facilitate cooperation and complimentarity.  This agrees across medical philosophies and therefore across cosmologies.  It is relevant to the body and to society and to other meta- and micro- structres.  Other than medical philosophies we can look at theories of conflict transformation, in which a method of approach is given for existing in the turbulent space between

    This also plays very much into my thoughts on participation and relational power.  Chi is generated on the line between yin and yang, at the site of and by the process of the co-limiting co-enabling (is Yin-Yang co-dependant or interdependant?) - by the harmonization of the compliments.  The story of the rainmaker gives an example of how it is not necessarily a causal thing but a participation in the natural order.
   
Stagnation implies maladaptive structure..  is a commonality in all cosmologies and medical systems that i know of.  In Jungian cosmology, these areas are constellated around archetypes and repel the awareness (even though they are staggeringly beautiful).  In chaos theory the strange attractor is the constant point around which the patterns of the fractal are organized into flavors of self-similarity.  In Eliade's cosmology hierophanies are hard to think of as stagnant, yet they are fixed in perceptions of mythological constancy.  In the body, areas of tightness and inarticulation repel awareness.  These are centers of stagnation and the birthplace of disease.  Clear boundaries between structure and flow can be what is needed.  If areas of structure and flow become too much like each other - self similarity bleedover ‑ the process is halted, there is pitiful diseased flow. 

The primary task of any entity may be boundary maintenance.

    In the story of the evolution of consciousness, conceptual consciousness is relatively recent, a new toy.  And as a power tool or new car in the hands of an unsupervised youth i believe we have hurt ourselves with it.  The statement "the mind is a better servant than master" i think refers to the conceptual area of the mind, which can be a tool of great value but also has the capacity to run away with our captive awareness.  This is the training of monkey-mind.  It is not to take away mind itself, but just get it to see the space in which categorization and conceptualization is contextualized and to stop it from spasmodically reacting to threats on its sovereignty.  The tame elephant is a serious boone (instead of wild monkey).

    So i recognize that to develop a conceptual model is to give a lot of power to the conceptual mind.

The modifier "objective" reflects a dissociative perspective.  Dissociation as a reintrepretation of the relationships between entities allows for a removal of dimensions habitually imposed by perception and the development of newer and more adequte dimensional tools and values.  Dissociation is how you work with dimensionality.  Constructive dissociation necessitates re-association.

To create a logical axiom necessarily involves reductive interpretation.  Where do we draw the first points to get it all started?

Internal dimensionalities +  Proprioceptive anatomy =  Proprioceptive dimensionalities?  Dimensionalities of experience from different chakras or locations for the mobility of mind.

    Mobility of Mind:  Each actual entity or nexus is a locus of experience, as an entity.  Every entity constitutes a different point of view.  Remote viewing occurs from the point of view of other organisms.  Dissociative experience allows the point of view of untold materials and qualities of nature.  What and where we identify may be mobile along an omnidiemsional plane of adjacent or nested entities.  People experience going deep into cellular and quantum levels of awareness as well as expansively embodying groups of people, the world-soul, or other more inclusive metaphysical structures and processes.

    You know, a process is a way of describing structure and flow at the same time.  We can also describe S/F in terms of the experience of "effortless mastery" - training hard structure that allows for an effortless flow state as a compliment.

    I want to describe a structure that helps people understand the experiences that they are having in a different way.  I would like to perpetuate this through academic, musical, and other authorship.

    In our language noun=dimensionless point in abstraction.  Each point may be a process and thereby a verb.  It may be in constant relationship with other points and transforming its boundaries.  It may even soon disintegrate as and identifiable entity as the boundaries are degraded.
      
    I found some great stuff on "negentropic" processes that may help me describe my image of a hierophany of awareness which acts in complimentary opposition to entropy - the application of awareness ascribes order.

now

    I entered the university with a set of ideas that I wished to develop.  These circled around issues cosmology, perception, and depth identity with an applied agenda of the pursuit of well-being.  One of the first things that I learned upon arriving in IDS was that my knowledge was situated, my perceptions limited, and what I really needed were good questions.  Many of the questions that I have since used and am using now have emerged out of the play between my initial set of ideas and those that I have encountered in classes, readings, and interactions with professors.  I have learned to voice my inquiries and observations in a more academic tone and occasionally even situate them within the languages of disciplinarity.
     In order to justify my major on paper I reduced the question to, "What is well-being?  For the individual?  For the community?"  This question contains much of the directions I have sought to pursue, such as:  Any cosmology implies a medical theory and vice- versa because a cosmology is built by people to relate themselves and their communities to a larger whole.  So, in studying medical theories of different cultures I then have exposure to their cosmologies and again vice- versa.  Comparing systems across the East/West divide straddles binaries like  causation/correlation, atomism/holism.  What interest me the most are commonalities in the systems - elements of structure and flow as a binary, stagnation as a cause and correlate of disease.
    Binaries and commonalities indicate the liminal space that contextualizes these systems - a field of potential in which modes of inquiry can create knowledge formations.  And within this field I mean to ask questions which may result in a cosmology for me and a medical theory for my well-being.
   
    As a complete cosmology may be outside of the purview of a single semester undergraduate project, I will for the time being seek to focus on a select few smaller and more specific aspects of the system.  These may well amount to metaphysical models.  As a dutiful academic I will ground my work in that of others.  As I continue to find examples of these principles in material across disciplines as well as within the domain of lived experience, these examples further refine my understanding of the model.

     #1 For the purposes of this paper I am principally interested in the structural effect of maintaining a conceptual model, identity, narrative, etc. in a conscious being.  Boundary maintenance of entitihood.  How does the structural form of this boundary reciprocate with flow and well being?  How can we manipulate this boundary, influence our paradigm (Constructive Dissociation)?  What effect does this have micro/macrocosmically in the social organism?  And I would like to construct an argument for the embodiment of groups as collective ecstatic experience.  Perhaps for the theoretical embodiment of the Universal as absolute or objective experience.
     #2 Another idea that i would like to develop: we embody and inform each other.  Through empathy neurons and a host of other structures we can show that the hippie idea of 'vibe' has some relevance.  Not only do we become who and what we are around, others become like us and what we are putting out into the world.  Even plants can be shown to share a mind with organisms around themselves.  This could be a paper on its own or just contribute to the idea of collective, ecstatic experience. 
      #3 There is a fundamental binary I see emerging in nearly all of the material that I engage.  For visuo-spatial reasons i call it Structure and Flow.  (It could just as easily be male/female, head/heart, atomism/holism, left brained/right brained, etc)   I could spend a few paragraphs or a whole book teasing out the implications of this notion.
      #4  Awareness as the compliment of entropy, a force making order from chaos.  This suggests a practical approach, namely "the ascription of order by the application of awareness."  This is the principle that gives rise to a medical model within a cosmology of awareness.

     All four of the idea sets here are aimed at illuminating a cosmology of awareness.

On this page I will post my progress on the senior project for my BA in interdisciplinary studies.  My intention for this work at this time is the development of small metaphysical models within a cosmology of awareness.