I like this - a new perspective. I sense this is compatible, but I lean toward Heraclitus, in that I see (the illusion of) order manifesting from decentralized

I like this - a new perspective. I sense this is compatible, but I lean toward Heraclitus, in that I see (the illusion of) order manifesting from decentralized flux - e.g., quantum fluctuations in empty space. Our best bet to understanding this is quantum field theory, which makes much of my own book redundant, (except the half of it concerning the consequent metaethics). The unity of fields could overlap with your perspective on a cosmic scale. I want to believe, but I suspect that most 'thinking humans' still (erroneously) subscribe to the general idea of individuation: material atomism and the assumption of individual, existing parts. We have a long, long way to go - the work of metaphysicians has not yet begun, and even scientists are still making the same error in the face of their own evidence (think: the phlogistonistic 'string' theory). Wittgenstein was correct to note that most questions in philosophy have not been sensible questions. The underlying reason is that they have assumed individuation, as a core axiom - a vulnerability in the bare-metal layer. We have assumed this because it is contrary to our observations and (most of) our common experience to do otherwise; it took hard science to demonstrate alternatives, and only 'recently'. Am I right to say that we both seem firmly planted in a paradigm beyond individuation - even as your view unifies the 'everything' into an individual? Methinks we have different lenses gazing upon the same essence. My recent scribblings and bibblings are on 'cosmic significance', which may bridge our two compatible views. One question I have is, assuming quantum field theory, and assuming consciousness is a very natural 'thing' in the cosmos, how, if at all, are these associated? The possibility that they are seems more and more reasonable to me, even required, but in ways that I suspect will rightly never match the criterion of the scientific method (at least in my lifetime). I try to maintain a solid sobriety when dabbling in metaphysics, but these questions persist, and seem reasonable. While I'm sure there are many professionals working on these questions - I'm also sure it is quite clear that I not a professional. However, my mind is quite professional at wandering off into these topics, to return to OP's question!