+ of course in kosmos -truly understood- the percipient is part of the structure, not outside it, + ideally shares in its mind, +, in fact I so did in 3-74; "inner-outer" signify only macro-micro. Leibnitz was quite aware of this, all Hermetic theory took this correspondence for granted, as did Taoist alchemy as well.
An aside: my "the universe is information" (each + every aspect from the linking + relinking to the plasmate) has nothing to do with God. It is quite evident to me that I have tilted decisively towards kosmos as explanation of 2-3-74 + will have great difficulty in returning to theological explanations, however tempting.
It suddenly occurs to me that the "not two mothers once but one mother twice" meta-abstraction (hence "coaxial realities") may even transcend Plato's noesis -ie pertain to his eide- + have to do with the eternal + unitary constituents of the monistic unchanging reality of Parmenides, in which case the dialectic would be Parmenides' Forms one + two. Parmenides' actual reality is (1) known purely intelligibly (the meta-abstraction was pure cognition) + (2) is unchanging + eternal: all change or motion is only seeming, nothing comes into existence or passes away - this is logically impossible. In any case there is a common, vital link between Parmenides + Plato: true knowledge of world is intelligible, not sensible, + true reality consists of eternal + unchanging constants that somehow show up again + again as pluralized instantiations + yet are actually always unitary. I guess what matters is that the meta-abstraction is a sudden, radical transfer from sensible knowledge of world to intelligible, + this ushers in, finally, a wholly different kind of world than is found in any system following Plato. The key is cognitive -i.e. a priori- knowledge over + above -+ even in contradistinction to- empirical. With both Parmenides + Plato it is not really this world that is known.