The be great! I look forward to it. At this point I seem to be one of a handful (or 2) of people that are espousing this:

People should think of I AM as the whole manifestation of this demiurgic construct known as cosmic panpsychism in scientific studies (the ocean of Prakriti) and within this ocean is the evolutionary mechanism of micro-panpsychism (the wave functions of Prakriti). But Pleroma/Purush is not causal nor a part of this construct--think of this as Kant's noumena. This supernal consciousness cannot be known in the way we humans describe knowing but it can be experienced.
What I'm not sure about is the relational aspect between the two. I do subscribe to a type of monism and dual aspect monism within the 'hard problem of consciousness' but I still maintain a dualism between Prakriti and Purusha---so I subscribe to DAVAITA and not Advaita. But again, I don't know one way or the other. The Vedas themselves do teach that Advaita is the end inquiry in their cosmology, but I still like the Sant Mat dualism of Kabir.

So, in a sense, I do think I am extraordinary in my cosmological musings. But I'm also a pragmatist in the same sense as Gotama and focus mainly on the ways we could alleviate social suffering/evil.
Here is a link to someone else that supports my view on cosmology:
https://philarchive.org/archive/SCHSPA-31

If one could grant that I am on to something it means that Kant was correct about the noumena; that Schopenhauer was incorrect because be taught that the thing in itself was the unconscious mana and buddhi and I suggest these are phenomena within Prakriti--they are illusory (epiphenomenon). So we cannot know, nor ever can, what supernal consciousness is (noumena). Both are eternal but Prakriti goes through cycles of destruction and (re)construction.