Process of Conceptualising the Structural Dynamic

Note: The experience and the trauma I mention was touching several existential axes at once, which cascaded and impacted many areas of my life. While affect was dimmed, and was inaccessible in several domains of my life, it wasn't entirely nonexistent. Access to feelings correlated with whether what I was dealing with was sitting on, or intersecting to whatever degree with those axes. For the most part daily functioning remained operational, which is also the domain of life where affect is the least intense. From where I stand my cognitive function was largely operational, with it being affected only in the later years of this decade. Also please note that I use and treat the symbolism in the text below structurally.

Flatness, contrast, and the CDI frame

I spent a decade unable to distinguish a thought from a feeling. Not because I am slow but because trauma around core identity on one hand, and lack of clarity of my position inside an existential experience had suspended, and prevented affect from settling enough to register in my experiential field. I couldn't distinguish feelings from thoughts, because there was nothing to contrast thoughts against. What I kept seeing, across very different states was that not only re-cognition follows from contrast, but that contrast is a condition for reality to register as real. 'I existed for a decade without experiencing my existence' is a good description of the flatness I went through.

In this decade of flatness, the problem wasn't that I lacked access to contrast in the abstract but that nothing held long enough to stand against anything else. Every possible meaning, every possible truth, every possible reality stayed provisional, and no pole could settle into a coordinate my nervous system could treat as real. Contrast is never just two points. Two points mean nothing unless something holds them in the same space and sustains the comparison long enough to register.

What I eventually understood is that experience requires three things: something that holds (cohesion), something that differentiates within that holding (differentiation), and a process that maintains their relation (integration). When integration collapsed, I existed but did not experience that existence. The following is how I arrived at that understanding.

I would first like to mention that every part of my experience came in a context of skepticism of such experiences. I also want to mention that what I call anomalous experience has concrete, distinctive, low-ambiguity anchors that make retrofitting an unlikely explanation.

I feel my experience saw me navigate consciousness from one edge to another, and it's been a journey that was both overwhelming, and breathtaking. While I am aware the entirety of my story has an otherworldly ring to it, looking for reason in the midst of a ridiculously unusual experience has been my coping mechanism. Because of this, please do not be fooled by the symbolism present in the structure of my experience, because that is only the expression of my consciousness filtered through the cultural context of my environment.

The essence of my experience: In 2015 I ended up having a spiritual experience during which I felt a connection to what I only knew how to label as God. A short month later, I met A. - a man I had encountered before, in two dreams I had experienced as nightmares. I grew up associating A. with the Devil symbolism due to the fear I experienced in these nightmares. I had had the dreams years earlier: one at the age of 12, and the other at 17. I only met A. at 28/29 in 2015. The encounters were uncanny. Every detail of my dream reality matched what I experienced in person: the specific setting, the people present, the conversations, the unfolding events among which was a serious sexual allegation made by someone present that night. The second time I met A., and relived the second nightmare in which he was a central figure, resulted in a deeply traumatic experience, unfolding in an existentially charged moment of my life. This ended with a decade of observations as I navigated the aftermath of both the spiritual emergence, and self core fragmentation. The following is a brief synopsis of the insights I felt emerge from my experience with such extreme states of consciousness in close temporal proximity.

I wasn't what people would call a spiritual person throughout my life. I saw myself more as an agnostic. I was open, because I felt that anything else would be intellectually dishonest, but I remained skeptical. So when my spiritual emergence occurred in 2015, it was entirely unexpected and unforeseen. It left me feeling as if I could see a structure and dynamic between consciousness, environment and experiential outcomes as I called it at the time.

I was able to identify two primary principles: Love and Truth. They appeared as pivotal for coherent experiential navigation, but my vocabulary seemed inadequate and carried 'woo' connotations - Love, Fear, Truth, Light, God - the only words I knew to express what I'd perceived. There was nothing even remotely religious or dogmatic in the understanding that emerged from my experience, but without adequate conceptual understanding of consciousness, the only vocabulary I had available to articulate it was filtered through the symbolism I acquired by virtue of the culture I had grown up in.

Spiritual emergences are well documented in transpersonal psychology, and based on my observations what distinguished mine from other experiences of the same nature was the cultural filter. I did a lot of comparing and contrasting in my need to understand the truth and reasoning behind my experience. I met many people whose experiences seemed to be the same in texture to mine, mostly of the Kundalini type. The essence of the experience seemed to converge among all of us, but due to the differing cultural filter that was shaping our experiences communication felt strained.

Because for a good while I was unable to close the gap in language with others, and due to how insane I felt my experience sounded, navigating it saw me stress-test its elements for stability from every angle I could think of, by every reality-check I could apply: timelines, anchors, consistency, and alternative explanations, since it was subjective, memory reliant and insane sounding. At various points, it also had me research the different elements of my experience, and saw me constantly analysing in trying to understand it, or articulate it in a rational manner.

The trauma had struck at my core identity, my core values, sat on several existentially charged axes and intersected with another existential one, impacting my ability to orient in reality for nearly an entire decade. I haven't quite established the axes with utmost precision yet, so my account is a touch tentative in this respect. What I know is that there were multiple existentially charged axes that were impacted but I stopped counting at this point. My experience was a lot to process as it was, and the depth of the fragmentation the trauma resulted in, left me with a shattered sense of self which made everything slower and harder. I was only able to write my experience down in a coherent manner after I ended up starting to perform differentiation and integration manually, so to speak.

The trauma also left me with a deep fear that no one will believe what I experienced was real, that I will be dismissed, pathologised, or filed away as delusion. For all the fear I had of not being being believed those I shared my experience with didn't seem to not believe me, and yet it seemed like no one was seeing what I was seeing, and no one seemed to be able to register me, or my reality. No one seemed to see the patterns, no one seemed to see the logic in the structure and flow of the experience. No one seemed to register the magnitude of it upon my reality. 'Move on', 'Let go' as if I had just pricked my finger. I was left afraid that people won't see me - the human being at the center of my experience, and I will be left as a ghost whose existence doesn't even register in the relational field.

I had been aware that the symbolism always represented a structure, and I engaged in deliberate observation, but when I began trying to articulate it, it wasn't fun and pleasure that incentivised me. I started writing it down because it was the only way I knew how to survive it.

I had to differentiate the symbolism into the structure that I believed had to be beneath it, if I wanted to be seen as the actual human being I am, the one who always maintained a healthy dose of skepticism, who didn't take anything at face value, who loved reasoning, and logic, instead of the 'irrational', 'woo', 'magick', 'emotional' woman.

The brutal part is that I was never confused but forced into differentiating what I already knew because the relational field that mattered for my coherence or psychological integrity if you will, treated my knowing as illegitimate. My attempts to articulate this didn't come out of intellectual vanity but self-defense against the insinuation I am irrational, the threat of dismissal and having my reality treated as pathology. Fragmentation only made it worse because it turned one coherent insight into a million pieces I had to re-gather, and my work became to reconstruct coherence under hostile conditions.

It took me nearly one entire decade to even be able to write down the elements of my experience in a coherent narrative - the spiritual emergence, the dreams, the archetypal encounter. And yet even after writing it down people still seemed unable to actually register the content. The only option I had was to strip it down of the symbolism, and spell out the patterns to the best of my ability. The intellectual process was enjoyable, yet the joy carries the weight of the context in which I had to operate from - the deep trenches of trauma - the mark of the obstinance one has to gather when survival is at stake.

After my spiritual emergence and the archetypal encounter, I remember making it a point to remain fully conscious and stay in a constant state of detailed observation, both of my own self separately and in relation to outer reality. I made it an objective to keep myself conscious and observant, because I knew what I would be observing, and I did hope and wished to understand the structure and dynamic precisely, in its most minute details.

I knew exactly what to look for, and yet from the inside, I consistently felt as if I was falling short, attributing it to my own inadequacy. At other times I believed it wasn't me failing and thought 'this b* doesn't want to be observed'. I would observe the same details again and again, unable to connect them. I spent my decade dissecting and analysing how Love and Truth shaped both social and individual realities, and how they connected to experiential outcomes. I pondered on, took apart and reassembled every part of my experience over and over, unable to make appropriate connections.

It took me years to understand the difficulty was given by the conditions I was operating under and that the struggling itself was the instrument registering its wounds - not self-aware enough, not intelligent enough for it, as evidence that I had exaggerated when I said I saw the structure and dynamic - a reflection of A.'s words that second night. Granted, because I thought I was safe with him, in the midst of that excitedness I said I understand how the universe works. I wasn't even trying to sound impressive. I only thought I was safe enough to speak loosely, human to human, not trying to defend a dissertation on the nature of reality. In response, he made me feel as if I was dumb. And now my universe seemed to fight back at me as if trying to show me he had been right, that I understood and knew nothing.

The awareness practice I had engaged in since childhood was embedded into my nature by the time I reached my spiritual emergence. After it, and after meeting A., it continued running by reflex, or at least that's what I was expecting. I was used to the observer being a part of my own self. It is only now looking back, that I can see the relational dimension, and integrative continuity of the witness function were impacted. The witness was there. I remember observing myself, aware I was thinking and observing myself, reasoning, but unable to make connections. The trauma had not only impacted the core axes of my being which meant they spilled into all areas of my life, but also left me with no memory of the traumatic event. This meant I had no context for myself and my reality - it was me before the trauma, and me after it, with no awareness of the missing chunks. To my awareness, nothing was missing, and I assigned my 'inability' to thread to the complexity and nature of the experience.

I wasn't even aware my affective dimension dimmed, because it had never happened to me before. And while my affective dimension dimmed, my cognitive one remained largely operational aside for the lack of thread. This was especially true for the axes that hadn't been as impacted at first, though in the later years I found myself struggling to connect one thought to the next. With parts of my self obscured by trauma, dimensions of my self flattened, the most reliable component left was thinking. Reasoning had always been an enjoyable pastime, so for the most part, I reasoned my way through an existential experience.

From Love and Truth to CDI

What kept me oriented to some degree, and I believe ended up keeping me afloat were the principles that emerged from my spiritual experience - Love and Truth. I was already understanding Love and Truth structurally. For this reason, my analytical skills were enough to identify what was truthful, and what was loving in any given situation. I was able to reason how love and truth would behave in any given situation and I abided by that. And yet they hardly came out just right. I could observe how because my love, my truth were not anchored in my Self/affect/the field - therefore they were not truly my love, my truth, they did not land. They were cold, and once again, while I was able to observe them as disconnected from affect, I once again largely assigned the disconnect to my own potential inadequacy. Staying with them, however, reasoning through them was enough to keep me afloat, and help me maintain some continuity of Self. They were the stable navigational points around which my Self oriented around.

So, when I started trying to articulate the structure, I started from the basics of my spiritual emergence. I had nearly flunked my physics class. I am aware of my limitations but I am willing to test and verify myself. For all my imperfections my reasoning isn't what I would call not sloppy. I thought that if what I sensed to be true during my spiritual emergence was indeed correct then love+truth=light as I was able to articulate it then, should probably map onto the structure of physical light. I later found out this is called an isomorphism, a structural one to be precise, although without the math it's just a structural correspondence.

In trying to see if it mapped, I started differentiating the symbols to make the structure visible. From Love at the intersection of Self and Other, where Love is rendered null if it is not simultaneously directed both within and without, I realised Love is relational, therefore cohesive. I also realised that Truth establishes exact congruence between a structure or form and perception. It was an entire process that I will outline below as it is relevant to my observations, but for now, long story short, Truth was differentiating.

Now, all I had to do was to try to map it onto the structure of Light. Love-Cohesive seemed to map perfectly fine onto the magnetic field. That was exciting, it felt like I was getting somewhere. Then, Truth as differentiating seemed to map decently well onto the electric field. I figured I hacked it, only to discover I was missing the Maxwell coupling. I dropped it, thinking it wasn't it, and forgot about it.

I didn't give up though and reoriented. This was my life after all, and I wasn't keen on giving up so easily. I continued trying to articulate the structure.

For a while, it was simply Love as the force that binds without erasing, cohesive, compassionate, sitting at the intersection of Self and Other. Truth as the revealing differentiation vector that clarifies without distorting, whose nature is the imperative to establish exact congruence between a structure and its perception, actively resisting any ambiguity that would compromise clarity. I figured Love had to be a force of sorts because it had to hold together, to re-attach Truth to the Whole. And Truth had to be more active, and assertive and vector seemed appropriate. And while I could identify these principles as pivotal for coherent experiential progression, I struggled to articulate the relation between them.

It was after I had managed to process to an adequate level, and I was looking at the need for psychological integration of the fragments the trauma had fractured my being into, that the relation between Love and Truth began to emerge: Integration as the active process through which Love and Truth maintain their relation.

The traumatic event that followed my spiritual emergence had resulted in core self fragmentation where I lost coherent access to myself for a decade. The psychological necessity of integration became a survival imperative. I had to integrate to survive with my sense of self intact.

What I began to notice was that a single experience only stays 'one', if something keeps its elements in workable relation over time. After the trauma, while some elements were missing and others came along the way, the rest existed only as possibilities I could think about. Whatever was present didn't stay linked long enough to form a single stable thread. My reality kept splitting into incompatible possibilities. What I did was to eventually force it to settle to some degree: wrote the possibilities, used ongoing silence to eliminate, cross-checked against returning memory and external facts. This process helped me rebuild some orientation by narrowing possible interpretations, until external behavioral patterns became clear enough for me to read them. Love as the willingness to bind whatever the fragments of Truth reveal. I eventually recognised that this was integration at the level of experience - what turns scattered fragments into one coherent experience the Self can inhabit. Self and experience co-arise in the same act, where the inhabiting isn't a second step but the same event from the inside.

I could see how Integration through the binding quality of Love was what allowed and accepted Truth as a part of the Whole. Integration as the ongoing navigation between binding and revealing. From there on, I couldn't help but think of reality as constituted by Love and Truth held in relation through Integration, with Consciousness as the organising medium through which their dynamic unfolds.

It it this how I began to understand Integration not just as psychological work but as a structural principle operating at every scale of experience. When it became possible, the parts of what was happening - thought, memory, perception, meaning, self-position and eventually feeling - cohered as one event I could stand in. When it was absent or failing, the parts still existed but they didn't hold together.

While I loved Love and Truth as ethical imperatives I value, and I was treating them structurally, when I ended up observing what to me seemed like similarities of structure in the physical world - in physics, biology, chemistry, linguistics etc. - the initial terms started feeling like a mismatch. I don't have any in-depth knowledge in any of these domains, but I had enough working knowledge to have observed how physical forms seemed to be structured in a similar manner: something that holds, something that differentiates, and something that integrates. This recognition suggested to me that the principles I had observed as pivotal to coherent consciousness might scale beyond human consciousness to describe fundamental dynamics operating at every level of reality.

The recognition that the principles might scale beyond human consciousness led me to examine their mechanics more closely. If Love, Truth, and Integration weren't just human psychological experiences but fundamental structural dynamics, then I needed to understand how they operated at a granular level.

Contrast as a pattern in experience

Aside from conceptually exploring the ethical dimensions and boundaries of Love, and Truth, a few years into my experience, I also started trying to deconstruct parts of my experience, and my own self. I say 'try' only because in the moment, I didn't feel I was successful. I was struggling to understand what a thought was and what distinguishes it from a feeling. It may sound incredibly slow to be unable to make such a distinction, but it was my lived experience at that time. For a while I told myself no one can truly distinguish thoughts from feelings. For another while I told myself that I was looking for too much precision. These may be true to some extent, although I believe the biggest culprit was because my lived experience was being shaped by the dissociation I was left with after the traumatic event that followed the high-coherence state. I had yet to discover that distinguishing feelings from thoughts was a struggle because there were no feelings to contrast the contents of my mind with.

My spiritual emergence, followed by the archetypal encounter involved multiple extreme contrasts: Light vs Dark, God vs Devil, Love vs Fear, Trust vs Control, Self vs Other/Self vs Devil, Safe vs Unsafe. Despite the fact that during the spiritual emergence one of the insights that emerged was that reality is a structure of polarity - everything was a paradox, but no paradox existed; love vs fear as two sides of the same coin - I had yet to fully understand it on a conceptual level. For this reason, I initially left these contrasting symbols as belonging to the symbolic register of my experience. I did not expect contrast itself, stripped of symbolism to persist as I was navigating the aftermath. Yet in the years that followed contrast re-surfaced in smaller, quieter ways.

I observed I could only recognise and register a feeling, a thought, or a state because it stood against something else. Contrast gradually became something no longer represented by images or archetypes, but something that seemed to operate as a condition: the means by which feelings, thoughts, and states became distinguishable at all. The contrast between the memory of myself before the traumatic event, and the state of complete inner nothingness of the aftermath, was what made me aware of the state of inner nothingness.

What struck me was that contrast itself became undeniable as a concept to me, because it became a pattern. In my attempts to find some sort of aliveness and resolution for my condition, the first few breakthroughs I made were triggered by a contrast.

The first feeling - it was so brief, and yet it was the moment I had the epiphany as to why I was unable to distinguish between thoughts and feelings. The first tears I shed told me I had not been alive. The felt memory of how full of feeling I had used to be, contradicting the possibility of alexithymia. I could register the return of the Observer on a background of absence. Everything was incremental but it was contrast that provided me with the ability to orient and get closer to my actual reality.

The process of reaching truth seemed to arise through differentiation from contrasting thoughts, states, and possibilities that allowed something to stand against something else. Meaning, recognition, and orientation did not precede contrast but followed from it. The more closely I examined my experience, and experience as a concept, the more I became able to see it as the fundamental process that makes anything distinguishable and experiential.

One can read every description of the ocean ever written, see photographs, watch films, understand the chemistry of saltwater, know the physics of waves. None of that is the same as the first moment one's feet touch it: the cold, the pull, the scale of it registering in the body before any cognitive label is attached. The experience arrives before cognition can process it. The contrast of "this is completely different from anything I've stood in before" registers before "this is the ocean" becomes a thought. The experience is already real before the name lands, and when there is no prior concept the mind starts from articulation of the contrasts that were experienced.

This isn't exotic or unusual. It's how every new experience works 'this is different than anything I experienced before'. The first thing that registers is a contrast. The contrast is always more immediate than any concept of it. The experience always arrives before the naming of it.

Once I became aware of contrast as a pattern and started analysing I came to see how contrast appeared not only in the larger existential moments but in the smallest movements of daily life. Every moment of existence involves a navigation even if not consciously registered: to speak or stay silent, to reach for the phone or leave it, to get up or stay still. Based on my observations these smaller moments are not experienced as decisions because they operate below the threshold of deliberate cognition. I believe the reason they do so is because they've already been integrated into an experiential pattern where the contrast has been navigated enough times that it can be moved through without needing to surface to cognition. The decision happens at the level of integrated pattern, not the level of deliberate thought. Every moment is a movement between this vs that, here vs there.

I believe contrast isn't only how we recognise experience, but what makes experience navigable in reality - the capacity to orient, decide, and act. Without contrasting poles, there is no orientation (which way is forward?), there is no decision (this vs. that), no action (approach vs. withdraw), no coherent registration (this state vs other states). In my view, experience requires contrasting structure to exist.

Before the recognition "this is warm" there must already be a differential state between warmth and its absence. Based on my experience the field of reality itself seems to be structured through contrast. A state becomes experience only against its alternative. Consider continuity: if a continuous line simply exists without there being the possibility for it to be finite, broken, or bounded, "continuous" is not a quality it can even experience but merely what it is. Without the alternative of finitude, there can be no experience of continuity but only undifferentiated existence that cannot be registered as anything in particular.

These ideas eventually led to at least a partial articulation of the architecture of experience: how experience emerges not from isolated states, but from the tension between contrasting poles. Without contrasting poles in relation, there can be no registration, only a featureless continuum. Warmth IS warmth only if cold is possible. Safety IS safety only where danger remains available. Contrast doesn't only enable recognition of pre-existing states but what makes the states experientially distinct.

When contrast has been navigated enough times through both affect and cognition together it integrates into a single fluid response where the two are no longer separable. Affect carries the relational knowing, and cognition the structural knowing and they move as one. A fully integrated experiential pattern is not just a habit, or a reflex but affect and cognition having found their correspondence through enough repeated navigation of the same contrast. That fluidity is what coherent experience feels like from the inside, and what makes action feel natural, orientation effortless, and navigation lived rather than deliberate. When it's intact one doesn't notice it because there's no friction between feeling and knowing. A contrast that cannot be resolved into stable pattern, because position within it remains unknown, cannot integrate into affect and cognition moving as one fluid motion and remains suspended.

This is what my my experience around A. shows structurally where despite having cognitive awareness of all possible contrasts, the experience itself was flat, and seemed to carry a monotonous, linear quality. A big part of my experience revolved around the nature of my connection with A., and understanding how he featured into and meant for my experience and existence. Due to the memory loss I suffered as a result of the traumatic event and his vagueness, there was a long period of time during which I was aware of all possibilities. Due to the nature of my experience this involved extreme contrasts that out of a lack of sufficient data were impossible for me to settle: A. as the vehicle for the Devil archetype, A. as the vehicle for the Self archetype, A. as the vehicle for the Love archetype, Fear archetype etc., all at once, with more experiential contrasts cascading from these. They all implied extremely different affective states, and yet despite the fact that I had cognitive awareness of the myriad of possibilities yet none of these possibilities were anchored in a shared, embodied template, my nervous system couldn't treat any of them as real. I believe this was one of the reasons I found myself unable to feel them as long as they remained mere possibilities.

What I eventually observed was that without knowing my position between the poles of the experiential axes involved, affect simply couldn't organise. Looking back, this lack of understanding had impacted my ability to orient in reality for nearly a decade, and only began resolving once I started pushing for and generating clarity, by using silence to remove possible realities. Without clear information about where I actually stood, affect remained suspended leaving me unable to process and integrate an existentially charged experience.

As I began to generate patterns in A.'s silence, I was also able to remove possible realities and resolve the collapsed axes of contrast, and affect returned. Whether the resulting feeling was painful or pleasant was secondary to the fact that a differential state had been restored. The more the poles - loss vs gain, seen vs unseen, worth vs worthlessness, belonging vs erasure, recognition vs inversion, love vs fear, safe vs unsafe, justice vs injustice - were held apart by Integration the more 'affective signal' became available.

This revealed to me that affect is not an emotion we have but the functional registration of our orientation within a differentiated field. Trauma, and then his silence had not merely hurt me, but had structurally collapsed the axes of my core identity, core values, and axes of not one, but two existentially charged experiences. Because the poles blurred or collapsed, the experiential domain those axes touched rendered experience not just difficult but structurally unnavigable because it seemed that affect required the tension of contrast to function regardless of whether there was any cognitive label of the contrast.

It was Integration that failed when the axes stopped providing stable coordinates. On one register of my experience the poles blurred into each other or contrast weakened, and the relation between the poles couldn't be established with enough clarity for orientation. On another register the poles collapsed entirely. My experience wasn't merely uncomfortable, but structurally difficult to navigate. I was still able to function and perform routines, yet operated on autopilot, because the inner signal that normally anchors authorship and meaning was muted or inaccessible. This is what distinguished axes that remained available for integration from those that collapsed. Consciousness didn't disappear, but contrast no longer held strongly enough for affect to organize and guide action. Because my collapse and trauma involved core identity and core values, and these axes carried higher structural load, the resulting disorientation propagated outward into other domains over time, leaving only low-stakes axes related to basic daily functioning available for integration.

Trauma, and lack of clarity had disrupted my capacity to hold opposing poles in relation and affect marked the moments when that holding was restored, even partially. This was Integration operating: the active holding of contrasts in relation while having clarity about where I stood among them. Integration was not a static state but an ongoing process of continuously sensing my position between the poles so that the experience remained navigable. When Integration held, experience remained workable even when painful. I could feel grief because my position on the axis had become clearer (contempt, not care). I could feel anger because I began knowing my relation to the axis (injustice, not justice). It wasn't that the feelings weren't difficult and painful, but that they became coherent and now had direction and could be moved with.

That shift made something obvious in hindsight: affect wasn't a side-effect. It was the primary signal that orientation had returned. I understood affect was important for the structure during my spiritual emergence, and for years I felt it was central to consciousness and reality navigation, but I lacked the ability to articulate its role adequately. For a while all I could say was that it is important to move through feelings as they arise, or that the nature of experience is defined by feelings and emotions, until the constant observations, and attempts to write the structure enabled me to articulate its role conceptually.

In the years after my spiritual experience I had observed how seemingly everything seemed to give rise to various degrees of intensity of affect, which was observable on the low-stakes axes - there was a 'vibe' at the very least. I also tried to understand the role and dynamic between affect and cognition for years, with no success. I went in circles, and when I started writing, in my attempts to incorporate and explain their role in human consciousness I researched various neuroscientific and psychological theories about their dynamic. Doing so gave me confidence in the observations and analysis I had made throughout the years, and my understanding began to crystallise.

I was able to observe affect as the first registration of the field's coherence in consciousness, holding the undifferentiated structure of the entire relational context and belonging to the principle of Love-Cohesion; and cognition as the purpose to clarify and differentiate the structure held in affect and belonging to the principle of Truth-Differentiation. Affect as the first registration of coherence is consistent with the works of Lisa Feldman Barret (psychology/neuroscience) and Antonio Damasio (affective neuroscience). I also believe affect as the first registration can be observed in child development and biological evolution preceding cognition.

As the terminology began to shift in trying to scale to physical reality, Love - affect, Truth - cognition remained the fundamental structural principles essential for coherence in human consciousness.

The shift from Love to Cohesion wasn't merely semantic, but a move to strip Love of the social and cultural baggage, to naming what it is structurally. Love-as-binding captures how Cohesion feels and operates at the level of human consciousness, but "love" carries connotations that are up to personal interpretation, qualities that cannot effectively scale the principle beyond human consciousness. Cohesion, by contrast, names the skeleton of the structural principle: the force that maintains unity and continuity across differentiation, whether in human bonds, atomic structure, or the persistence of experiential fields themselves. Love remained what Cohesion expresses through human consciousness.

Similarly, the shift from Truth to Differentiation was a move to name the structure without importing social distortions that cling to it. Truth-as-revealing captures how Differentiation feels and operates in human consciousness, but truth is culturally loaded and it oftentimes collapses into ideology, status, the power to define, or conviction. Truth means simply distinctions that are answerable to reality, including when they are uncomfortable to Self. Differentiation names the prior structural dynamic: the vector that creates contrast, brings distinctions into view, and makes anything perceptible at all. Truth is what happens when Differentiation operates through cognitive systems oriented toward congruence and accurate representation. The terminology shift allows the principles to scale while preserving their structural identity with what I observed is needed to maintain coherence in human consciousness.

Integration remained the structural dynamic - it already described the structural process rather than a symbolic experience. Whether in psychological healing, biological systems, or physical structures, Integration names the same dynamic: the active holding of differentiated elements in workable relation.

So, through this process of observation, lived experience, and analysis I came to understand these three principles as the fundamental principles at work in the structure and dynamic between consciousness, reality, and experience. Cohesion - a basic holding capacity that maintains the unity and continuity of the experiential field itself - what allows experience to persist as experience rather than dissolve into fragments. Differentiation - operating as a vector, a dynamic that creates and brings contrasting poles into view. And Integration, the ongoing process through which I believe Cohesion actively incorporates Differentiation into itself, keeping distinctions in workable relation so that Differentiation does not scatter into chaos and Cohesion does not regress into undifferentiated sameness. Together, these three principles form what I understand as the minimal architecture through which anything becomes experientially real.

After I had arrived at this particular terminology to describe the structure, I came to understand that there is convergence between the structure and dynamic I arrived at, and the structure and dynamic of Integrated Information Theory (IIT) of Consciousness. I couldn't say I am familiar with this model of consciousness, and from what I can gather there does seem to be some convergence although I wouldn't know to say to what degree. There may be overlaps with other theories out there that I am not aware of. I, however, arrived at similar terminology, and concepts independently through personal observation, prior to any conceptual understanding of systems theory, or even consciousness itself. Where terminology overlaps (cohesion, differentiation, integration), it reflects convergence on fundamental structural dynamics. The terms I chose map directly onto my lived experience: structural correspondents for dynamics that emerged during my spiritual emergence experience and principles I observed operating in human consciousness, at every scale - from internal experience to relational dynamics.

Structural Analogy and the Clock-Hand Vector Dream => Light => Coherence

It was after I had already written the entire content on this site that I remembered I actually started from an attempt at a structural isomorphism, or structural analogy whichever way one prefers to call it. It is only now, months after I translated the symbols to the structure and dynamic: Cohesion as the Force that binds, Differentiation as the Structural Vector that creates contrast and distinction, and Integration as the process that maintains their relationship that I think it does. Integration seems to map perfectly well onto the Maxwell coupling.

Even so, as I don't have formal knowledge I had to involve A.I.. Given that I don't have physics knowledge, my conversations with A.I. were leaving me unsure if what I had was enough to qualify for an attempt at a structural isomorphism. So, I started to learn more, look at graphs, and representations about the structure and dynamic of Light, the magnetic field, the electric field, how they work together, etc. There was a moment when I thought that there was either something off in the model I had in my mind and had articulated, or physicists got the physics wrong, lol. I became convinced that there has to be an isomorphism between CDI and the structure of Light. Even if the dynamic I had arrived at wasn't perfect, it was so close and the roles, the relations, the dynamic, the structure seemed to be mapping to at least a great degree.

It seemed to be only a matter of detail, more than anything else. Chat Gpt interrogated me to the point I wanted to go and kill it by switching it off straight from the source. It would wrongfully label CDI a triad, and interrogate me on that, which had me look deeper into the dynamic; or it would take issue with Cohesion as a Force, and what did I mean by Force? It was fun. Either way, in trying to figure it out, I would once again go back and forth, either looking at the structure I had articulated, or would go back to the roots and symbolism in my spiritual emergence, go back to my observations, analyse and re-analyse the movements of my consciousness in relation to Love and Truth.

It was during this back and forth and frustration, that I remembered how when I was trying to figure out how differentiation created contrast, I had ended up making Differentiation a forward vector of oscillating movement. Apparently according to Chat Gpt there was something off in that association and my mapping onto the Electric Field.

When I defined it like this I knew differentiation implies contrast. I knew that aside from the extreme contrasts in my experience, it was what paradox of paradoxes during my spiritual emergence suggested too. Yet, I just couldn't visualise how differentiation creates the contrast in the field. Because I couldn't imagine it, I began questioning myself, thinking that maybe I was reaching further than I should. By that point I had established Differentiation had to be a vector of sorts, and I couldn't picture how a directional vector could create contrast in a field of potential. My 2Dish mind didn't allow for it, as my lack of physics knowledge was surely a constraint. And yet I felt I got so far, and felt I was on the right track that I couldn't stop thinking about it, trying to work it out.

During that time I had a dream that I am finding incredibly interesting in hindsight, as it seems to be an eerily accurate symbolic representation of the structure and dynamic of light when I had even less understanding of light than I do today. I had this dream while not even pondering on the structural isomorphism, as I had dropped it entirely, completely forgotten about it and went a different route. At the time, I was solely concerned with Differentiation. It is for this reason that I didn't really get the dream at the time, took parts from it, interpreted it based on what I thought could be communicating and discarded the rest.

In the dream I knew what I was dreaming about was related to the model and my articulation, but nothing else. The dream was basically this blurry like, fog that wasn't fog, sand color environment. The color reminded me of an hourglass, or there may have been an hourglass too. Can't really tell, but I do know the blurry environment was sand color, and I made an association with an hourglass in the dream for whatever reason. The environment was both uniform in color, and as if there was more behind the blur; as if there were shapes and forms behind or inside that fog that wasn't really fog. In the middle of this environment there was an arrow shaped clock-hand, also sand color, but it wasn't blurry. It was solid color, and it was blending in the environment at it's starting point, as if it was coming out of it. This arrow shaped clock-hand was moving both up/down, and left/right at the same time, forming a cross. It was somehow the same hand, not multiple, which I didn't really understand how was possible. I remember how in my dream I wasn't getting how it was related to what I was working on, because it made no sense to me. And not only was the same arrow shaped clock-hand somehow both up/down and left/right, but it was as if it was making a 360 rotation because I could see traces between the cross hands as if there had been movement there.

When I woke up, I didn't understand how that was related to what I was working on. What did a clock-hand have anything to do with it? Because it was sand color, I thought of time, but I wasn't trying to figure out time. It bugged me, and later that evening or the following day, I realised the arrow shaped clock-hand looked exactly how you would expect a vector to look like. My interpretation at the time was that the vector was moving very fast on perpendicular axes, and that created the impression of 360 degrees. I didn't know what else to make of the up/down, left/right, but then again it was a dream. And this is how the Differentiation vector came to be a forward vector of oscillating movement. I clearly have no idea what I am doing, because after my attempts at a structural isomorphism which had me learn more about the structure and dynamic of light, I feel the dream is very descriptive. I am actually quite flabbergasted at how accurate the representation of something I had no actual conceptual knowledge of, seems to be.

This had me even more convinced that consciousness when coherent, which implies Love-Affect-Cohesion Integrated with Truth-Cognition-Differentiation behaves the same way light does, anything else but integration is varying degrees of incoherence.

Going back to the basics I remembered that the understanding that emerged from my spiritual emergence was that of One where everything seemed like a paradox, but no paradox existed. In my earlier iterations I had actually started with Love as Ontological Force - with One. During the early period after my spiritual emergence I knew Love is always Truthful, and Truth is always Loving. In my attempts to map the symbolism I somehow fell for what I believe is a distortion, namely that Truth can exist without Love and when it does, it is cruel.

Pondering on this, I realised that can't be the case.

Truth when real can never be cruel. When Truth lands as cruelty it only does so because it's severed from the relational aspect (the context) of the structure, where the relational belongs to Love. Truth without Love is a distortion of reality. Truth is not real truth if the relation (Love) to the field is severed. Truth without context is not Truth, but only partly true, which is why it lands as cruelty. Electric indeed.

Therefore Truth is what Love looks like when it's structurally honest, and Love is what Truth looks like when it's relationally honest.

Truth inside relation. And Love inside structure.

Love and Truth are real only when they remain in living relation to the other.

Truth=distinction that stays answerable to relation (otherwise it's distortion/cruelty/weaponised clarity)

Love=relation that stays answerable to distinction (otherwise it's blur/denial/undifferentiated merging)

Integration=the mutual coupling that keeps both real.

=>Coherence=Light

Love is how Coherence holds relation; Truth is how Coherence holds distinction

Love and Truth are Real only when they stay in live relation with the other.

I also remembered that I had decided Love/Cohesion is a force because it must be both the field from which differentiations arise, and the one responsible for the process of Integration, and maintenance of the Whole. Integration is simply what the field does when differentiation arises, or at least what the field should behave like for coherence/coherent structure to be experienced.

Love and Truth are Two facets/differentiations of a Coherent One.

There may be details to work out, and lock it in place, but I think Consciousness when expressed coherently has to map onto the dynamic and structure of Light.

Love/Affect/Cohesion as Consciousness/Reality/Experience affirmed as relation

Truth/Cognition/Differentiation as Consciousness/Reality/Experience affirmed as distinction

Co-primitive. Co-dependent. yet their differentiation can potentially be mapped as follows

Love-Cohesion-The magnetic field What holds things in relation, binding without collapsing, sustaining the continuity of the system's relational structure - it is indeed magnetic.

Truth-Differentiation-The electric field What creates differentiation, separates, and generates the contrasts that make distinction possible - can be electric for sure.

(Fragmentation lol)-Integration-Maxwell's Coupling describe the coupling between them, sustaining the dynamic relation, the process that maintains their correspondence.

I think this may be the best articulation I can reach for now 'Reality is a polar multi-axis dynamic where coherent integration behaves like a 360 degrees sweep through space and time.'

Truth changes what love must be in order to remain love (structurally grounded and accepting of Truth), and Love changes what truth can be to remain truth (relationally grounded if it is to remain Truth). Their ongoing reciprocal update is the propagation of coherence.

I also believe the interaction between Love (structural) and Truth (structural) is observable in any human consciousness, especially where trauma is involved. What distinguishes my trauma from other traumas is that it was extreme, as the axes involved were around core identity and core values which in time cascaded into most if not all other axes. I used Love and Truth to reach the level of coherence I have today, a level I wouldn't call actual coherence that is experienced as light, but only a level that is light years away from the very dark space I used to be in.

In order for Integration to happen in human consciousness one needs to constantly move with, and articulate affect-feelings accurately. Affect cannot be severed from cognition if coherence is desired, because affect is the field cognition must articulate for the structure that emerges to be stable and coherent. Cognition is the structural representation of Affect, and Affect is the relational representation of Cognition. Coherence happens when they stay in relation to one another.

Spiritual traditions convergence with CDI, 'Precognition' misnomer for reality undetermined, yet constrained by axes of contrast - Probable progressions of affective-cognitive patterns, and Consciousness as Fundamental

Once the structure and dynamic was in place, Cohesion <Integration> Differentiation, other parts of my experience began to reorganise around it. One of those parts that reorganised for me, was how spiritual traditions, across cultures, seemed to track similar dynamics. To me it seems that many traditions describe something like cohesion and differentiation using different language. In Taoism, Tao represents an underlying unity that holds all things, while yin and yang describe complementary forces of distinction and relation that arise within it. Hindu philosophy speaks of Brahman as ultimate unified reality, with maya as the principle that creates apparent distinction and multiplicity within that oneness. In contemplative Christian mysticism, particularly Meister Eckhart, God is described as the ground of being (what holds everything in existence) and as truth revealing itself through creation. Islamic Sufism describes Allah as both the hidden (al Batin) and the manifest (al Zahir), the underlying unity and the differentiated expression held as one reality. I do not see these as metaphors for my model, but I consider that they may be tracking the same structural dynamics through different cultural and linguistic filters, with different individuals observing a patterned structure through different lenses and using culturally relevant language to articulate it.

This gave me the idea that what people call mystical experiences, and what is understood as God may be an alignment with the structure of consciousness and reality - filtered through the cultural and environmental expression of an individual node of consciousness.

Another part that reorganised for me, was my understanding of time and its relation to consciousness. I'd already mentioned the dreams I had of A. at ages 12 and 17 - dreams that came true in uncanny detail when I met him in 2015. But those weren't isolated incidents. I, more or less danced my way here in avoiding the word 'precognition' due to the stigma attached to it, but I can no longer avoid it. I do believe that the stigma is at times rightfully earned, mostly because whenever people use it, the term seems to be applied loosely. I also believe that the term is a misnomer for a phenomenon whose dynamic I believe I came to understand through what I think is a rational lens and explanation on which I will expand on somewhere below.

To date, I have had three dreams that can be reasonably labeled precognitive, all containing distinctive, low ambiguity markers that make retrofitting unlikely, all of them documented in full on this site.

The first experience of this kind was in 2010, and the reality of that dream happened in 2014 leading to an existential crisis and eventually to my spiritual emergence experience. I dreamed specific details of a situation I would live four years later - specific conversations, new accommodation I had just moved into, even the appearance of my Facebook feed during Russia's invasion of Crimea. I recounted the dream to someone the next day, which helped me verify the timeline. When the moment arrived in 2014, I searched for images of Facebook's 2010 interface to test whether my memory was accurate. It was. This dream showed not only one timeline but three variations of the same event, suggesting probable trajectories rather than fixed fate.

The other two dreams were the ones of A. - one from around 1998, another from 2003 - both corresponding to different aspects of meeting him in April 2015.

Over the years, as I looked at relationships between these dreams and waking reality, I noticed correlations: the emotional patterns in the reality I experienced in these dreams matched the emotional patterns I was experiencing in waking life before having the dreams. I had the 2010 dream soon after Fb had introduced the like button, and there was a lot of conversation on Fb's features and UI elements evolution. The dream also happened around the time the Maya 'End of the World prophecy' became a cultural phenomenon. I think I can rule out the possibility that my consciousness was primed to make certain observation based on these, mostly because I completely ignored the war related photos in my Fb feed during my dream, and afterwards. There were other details related to Fb's UI that caught my attention. Similar correlations are visible surrounding the dreams of A.. I say correlations but I am more tempted to believe that my consciousness simply picked up the experiential patterns present in the field in my awake reality and simulated possibilities during my asleep state.

Their chronology was particularly striking.

The 2010 dream corresponded to March 2015. The 1998 dream corresponded to what I will call event no. 2 in April 2015. The 2003 dream corresponded to event no. 1, also in April 2015. Events 1 and 2 were two facets of the same circumstance - meeting A. This suggested to me that my consciousness was navigating time by affective-cognitive experiential patterns rather than chronological order.

After my spiritual emergence, and in light of these experiences, I began contemplating the nature of time itself. What we culturally label as precognition is often rendered as paranormal, but after analysis of my own experience I came to see it as pattern recognition applied to experience - projections of probable progressions of affective-cognitive patterns. This led me to consider that time itself may be a differentiation in consciousness that preserves the continuity of experiential patterns, meaning that integration can hold patterned relations across intervals in ways that are not reducible to calendar sequence.

As her work is currently constantly featured in my Fb feed, as I write this, Octavia Butler's Parable of the Sower (1993) and Parable of the Talents (1998) come to mind. These two works seem to have mapped social trajectories with unusual clarity decades before they unfolded. From my perspective, her accuracy suggests refined sensitivity to structure, a capacity to perceive where a reality already in motion could go based on social patterns that have persisted throughout history, with them merely taking different expressions and shapes. I believe the ability for what society labels precognition is directly related to the ability to track and project affective-cognitive experiential patterns into possible future realities.

This, alongside several strands of my experience contributed to my perception of consciousness as fundamental as opposed to emergent. They converge on the same conclusion from different angles.

The first strand comes from two dreams, one I had in childhood and another in my early 20s. These two dreams shared remarkably similar environments: a space made of coloured air-like matter, where yellows, oranges, pinks and reds blended into each other like watercolours. In the first dream, I was in a roller coaster, terrified, being taunted by a dark-haired man. I grew up convinced this dream was set in hell. In the second, I was in the same environment, made of the same matter as the environment and I was shown a landscape of trees and houses made of the same matter. Everything was one continuous substance, and yet I could perceive the green of the leaves and the brown of the roofs, as if they existed together as differentiated expressions. Differentiation was visible throughout within an undivided field. A gigantic entity, also made of the same matter, showed me how to change perspective. The information was not transmitted through words but emotionally. I woke up knowing that I knew something, but unable to articulate what. It was only recently after theorising it, that I was able to recognise that emotional communication as affect registering coherence prior to conceptual understanding

The significance of these two dreams only crystallised years later. The environments were structurally identical. The only difference was my felt state. In the first, filtered through fear, the environment registered as hell. In the second, filtered through openness, the same environment became a space of clarity and wisdom. The field hadn't changed. My affective orientation within it had. This directly demonstrated what I would later articulate as a structural claim: that experience is determined by one's felt relation to the field, not by the properties of the field itself.

The second dream also showed me a reality in which everything - myself, the environment, the forms within it - was one continuous medium, with differentiation perceivable without division. I was not separate from what I was observing. The trees were not separate from the field they appeared in. Forms existed as articulations within a single substance, not as objects placed in a container. I had no language for this at the time. It is only now that I can recognise it as a direct perceptual experience of what the framework describes: a unified experiential field that differentiates into perceivable forms without those forms being ontologically separate from the field itself.

The second strand comes from a recurring pattern across many dreams throughout my life. I would find myself caught between groups of threatening figures, or in the midst of them - entities that felt capable of anything, and by which I constantly feared being seen and attacked. I always managed to evade or escape. These dreams tracked my lived reality with precision, something I only recognised recently: I grew up in, and continued to live in, dysfunctional environments where psychological threat was constant. The dreams were not random anxious content but accurate symbolic registrations of the relational field I inhabited.

What confirmed this for me was a recent dream in which I was again in the midst of evil, but this time a force I couldn't clearly see. It was far away, advancing from somewhere down a stairwell in an apartment building and was directing a weapon of sorts at the threatening figures around me with an intent to neutralise what I understood in my dream as evil. Whatever it was targeting them with made them feel threatened, looking to hide from it. I was afraid, because I was in the midst of this evil. And yet the weapon did not touch me. The meaning became clear to me: whatever the force was targeting, it wasn't me. I was in the midst of it, had always been in the midst of it, but I wasn't what it was aimed at. I had spent my life actively opposing the dysfunction around me in ways most didn't, and my consciousness had been registering that distinction long before I understood it. This dream occurred precisely when I was first becoming intellectually aware of this distinction.

What these recurring dreams reveal is that consciousness was tracking the relational structure of my environment - accurately, consistently, across my entire life - and rendering it symbolically in ways I could only decode once I had the conceptual tools to do so. The dreams were not producing fantasy. They were registering reality through affect and symbol, often well before my waking cognition could recognise what they were pointing at.

The third strand is the precognitive dreams, where consciousness navigated by affective-cognitive pattern rather than chronological sequence, perceiving configurations that would manifest in physical reality years later.

Together, these strands point in the same direction. If my consciousness could perceive the relational structure of my environment and render it symbolically before I had cognitive awareness of what was being registered; if it could navigate time by pattern rather than sequence; if it could present me with a direct perceptual experience of an undivided field with differentiation visible within it, then consciousness is not produced by physical processes. It is the medium within which physical processes, and all experience, occur.

If consciousness were produced by the brain, precognitive dreams would be inexplicable - there is no mechanism by which neural activity can register configurations that don't yet exist in physical reality. If experience were an emergent byproduct of biological complexity, the (high-)coherence state would have no basis - I aligned with a structure I had no prior knowledge of, which means the structure was not generated by my cognition but re-cognised by it. If symbolic dream content were merely the brain processing daily input, the recurring dreams across my life would not have tracked the relational structure of my environment with the consistency and accuracy they did across decades, through different life stages, encoding the same field through symbolic expression prior to my conceptual understanding and ability to articulate. Each of these individually strains a biological account. Together, they suggest that consciousness is not what the brain produces but what the brain participates in.

Furthermore in the structure outlined above in the text, and in the sketch model in more detail -Cohesion, Differentiation, Integration - experience does not appear as a byproduct added onto structure, but as the coherence that emerges when cohesion (affective registration in human consciousness) and differentiation (cognitive differentiation in human consciousness) remain in correspondence. Wherever there is a structure that maintains the cohesion and differentiation in relation is not a structure that produces experience. It is a structure whose coherent operation already is experience. Wherever these three dynamics maintain themselves in relation, something is registered from within. Not necessarily reflected upon, not necessarily conscious in the human reflexive sense, but self-registration however diffusely. Experience is not what you get when you add something to this structure. Experience is what this structure is, from inside. When that correspondence fails experience fragments, and when it stabilises, experience becomes available as meaningful continuity. If experience depends on this structural correspondence for its availability, then the explanatory model that seeks to reduce experience to a late biological effect must already presuppose the very structural conditions it attempts to explain.

What that structure looks like at its most basic, is this: the experiential field exists as potential, but not yet articulated, where differentiation acts as a vector of movement within that field, creating contrast by bringing poles into view. Warmth becomes warmth only against the possibility of cold, safety only against the possibility of danger, continuity only against the possibility of rupture. Without that movement there is existence, but not experience in any meaningful sense.

If IIT measures across systems and finds that the more integrated information a system has the more consciousness it has - consciousness scales with integration. If the same dynamic is present at every scale, and if at the human scale that dynamic is experience, then the simplest explanation I see is that it is in fact experience at every scale differing only in degrees of articulation. It is the only reasonable explanation for why one entire decade I can at best say I had minimal experience, and what was more like existence devoid of aliveness - experience was flat barely registered. Because Integration failed, Coherence collapsed and Experience became "flat" and "linear."

Today I understand my spiritual emergence as a state of high coherence - an alignment between consciousness and the structure of reality itself.

I see my spiritual experience itself as coherence operating at the level of cultural and symbolic understanding of the structure of reality, experience and consciousness followed by extreme differentiation of the same cultural and symbolic register introduced by the traumatic archetypal encounter.

From where I am standing, the spiritual emergence wasn't something done to me, but a result of my own agency - the specific choices I'd made in the moments before: choosing clarity over comfortable illusion, choosing to honor my own truth, choosing self-integrity over the paralysing grip of inherited fear. I positioned myself in existential alignment with reality by refusing to distort what I was experiencing, and by refusing to abandon myself. I believe the high-coherence state was the natural result of that existential positioning.

After, distortions became easier to spot - when people's words didn't match their felt presence, when social performances masked something else. I didn't fully grasp this tilt at the time and it is only now that it feels obvious. An alignment with reality's structure could only make departures from it become more visible, because truth and reality are bound to one another.

I am almost convinced, and that almost is only there because of lingering fear of stigmatisation, but to me Consciousness is fundamental - the matter and fabric of all reality. And yet, I didn't reach my conviction because I bended and took other people's words at face value, so all I can do is raise a question and ask: if the same structural dynamic Cohesion, Differentiation, Integration that I observed operating in human consciousness, the same structure and dynamic I see present all throughout the Cosmos, similar to the structure and dynamic IIT measures, the same structure and dynamic that seems to constitute light at the physical level what does that say about the nature of reality?

The rest of the site contains the sketch model attemtps that were a part of my process to try to articulate the structure and dynamic as I understood them during my spiritual emergence. Because the subject of consciousness is involved and its articulation could probably go ad infinitum, I ask of you to treat them as what they are - mere sketches in my process of trying to map the symbols onto reality's structure and dynamic.

I will leave this with a condensed articulation, in collaboration with Gemini A.I. that it named a manifesto.

I. The Fundamental Axiom (Source and Unity)

Premise 1: Metaphysical Monism Consciousness is the ultimate medium and Source of existence; it is the Experiential Field that is all there is. Reality and experience are not two separate domains.
Premise 2: Non-Emergence Matter, mind, and emotion are not origins of consciousness, but are differentiated forms of experience articulated within this single, continuous Source. The experiential field is expressed structurally across all forms.

II. The Ontological Principles (Laws of Cohesion)

Premise 3: The Law of Persistence: The universe is governed by the Ontological Principle of Cohesion, which acts as the universal sustaining law of persistence. Coherence is not imposed, but is realized through motion and the continuous process of Integration.
Premise 4: The Law of Distinction: Differentiation is the inherent movement and primal law of distinction that creates contrast. This movement is the structural imperative that determines the very possibility of local patterning and makes coherence perceptible (registrable). Contrast is therefore ontologically prior to cognition.

III. The Structural Axiom (Local Articulation)

Premise 5: Embodiment Embodiment not as descent into matter, but as the local achievement of Cohesion—the stabilization of the Experiential Field into various degrees of perceptible order. It is the successful Integration of differentiations, actualizing potential experience into a singular, persistent pattern.
Premise 6: Structural Determinism The mode of experience expressed by any embodiment is determined solely by its structural resolution (internal structural density), ensuring that self-registration is appropriate for its form. The evolutionary cascade is a progression of increasingly integrated expressions.

IV. The Temporal Axiom (Time is Internal)

This axiom defines time not as an external container, but as an internal, functional mode of Consciousness.

Premise 7: Time as Articulated Coherence Time is not an external dimension through which experience moves, but a mode of patterned coherence articulated within consciousness. It is the way Integration holds patterned differences together across intervals. Temporal depth is the layered structural result of recurring differentiations.
Premise 8: Non-Linearity of Experience The experiential field organizes itself by pattern, not by calendar (chronological order). Experience is bound by coherence, allowing differentiations to relate across intervals even if their physical expressions do not occur in linear sequence.

V. The Symbolic Axiom (Structural Coherence)

This axiom defines Symbolism not as a cultural invention but as an inevitable structural consequence of deepening coherence.