unwise, this was very interesting, and reminded me strongly of other things I read, albeit in a different form (you'll see what I mean). I apologize that I didn't ask many questions; I'm trying to see if it compares favourably with another philosopher.
I conceive of three states of consciousness.
Right here you differ from the dominant trend in this forum. It is commonly said that changing states of consciousness is irrelevant, and that enlightenment is not really a "state" at all so much as insight into logical truth. In that sense, everyone here is concerned with your "World-appearing" state of consciousness, and having mastery over logic whether awake or asleep, or what-have-you.
2. Cosmic Self-appearing
Sorry to make the comparison, but what you are describing reminds me of Sartre's "being-for-itself", or the Nothingness referred to in the title of his "Being & Nothingness". Actually, having read most of that book, if I replace your "Cosmic-self" with "being-for-itself", I can easily imagine that you are talking about the exact same thing.
As he might say: consciousness is a nothingness, a break within being, that exists exclusively for itself.
Are you familiar with the theory? If not, I am very impressed that you came up with this idea independently. Sartre's psychology was "phenomenological", which basically means that he avoided science altogether and just pieced together the world as he experienced it. He even invented his own branch of psychology, although few people practise it (probably because he was an inexcusably terrible writer trying to explain a very difficult concept that seems deceptively easy).
3. Enlightenment-appearing
If I were to accept that your last description was Sartre's for-itself, what you are here describing is reminiscent of a being-in-itself-for-itself, the psychology that Sartre said an omnipresent omnipotent God must have. He wrote a very small (one or two sentence) passage that said that being-in-itself-for-itself is impossible, since something cannot both be and not be.
I would suggest that you arrived at the same conclusion, and noticed that this god-like state results in constant contradictions. You do say that a lot of the things you say are contradictory: that is acceptable if a contradiction is given truth. What I say you have here is an existential proof that a conscious God is impossible, as opposed to a possible state of consciousness.
I don't know how accurate my comparison is: if someone is familiar with Sartre, I would love to have his insight.
Otherwise, unwise: I have an understanding of what you are saying. It's not total nonsense. I can see pretty striking similarities with a major existentialist writer, and even if I'm missing some subtleties of your own theory (for instance, I may have completely misinterpreted the Enlightenment-appearing state of consciousness), I think that's impressive. You appear to have distilled consciousness to its pure form (Cosmic self-appearing) and tried to reconcile this pure consciousness with the ability to manipulate the world purely through its action.
Please, do continue.
