abstraction was a recognition of that cosmos, of its presence here, as if I had spotted it "time-space sharing" with our non-cosmos world.
seen [world] [cosmos] unseen
[common essence] eide?
Two different ways of organizing based on the same "blocks" (constitutents). Things have dual roles or existences: in world (which we experience) + in cosmos (occluded off from us). After all, the very term "cosmos" has to do with organization. It is an alternate (+ superior) connecting of what we already see, adding up, however, to something else.
After all, "cosmos" is not a thing or things but the way things fit together. Thus another structure -nay, a true structure- can be assembled out of the same constituents as our non-cosmos world. This would absolutely + clearly explain (1) why there are two worlds spatio-temporally coaxial; + (2) how this can be (the 180 degree opposite world is a pattern, a Gestalt in which the same things fit together differently - they also fit together per se, in contrast to our world). But this two worlds presumes of course a common essence for both, out of which both are assembled (although ours is not truly assembled but only there). The mind of the percipient starts over, as it were, with the basic constituents + builds them up again but into pattern or a different pattern. + this is, like the eide themselves, not merely a way of organizing sense-data; the "true cosmos" is truly objectively there (but for us "long extinct"). (We are blocked -occluded- from perceiving it.) Thus the two coaxial worlds are not of equal ontological value; the true cosmos, being unitary,