Hello Israel,
Thanks for your detailed views. Many of your points are of interest to me.
Your reference to deChardin is apt (another commentator pointed this out also). But in reference to the relation between matter, life, and mind you say - 'I believe that current science is not yet well equipped to address these questions at this time".
You go on to say that such a scientific discovery might not come about for many generations - centuries, even. If this is what we believe, then this is what will happen ...
It is true that science moves much more slowly than common wisdom - I believe all discoveries were previously made (and a long time before) by artists, writers, and people living off the land. The evidence of this is overwhelming - penicillin, the evolution of the earth, genetic, etc. - and is in itself a fascinating phenomenon.
I'd be honored to be considered a forerunner of this sort. If I am considering something that scientists will address 500 years from now, that's not so bad.
It is true I don't use the conventional jargon of physics, and it shouldn't be too surprising since I am taking a departure from the mainstream, and I feel it is less confusing to use new terminology - you can't put the new wine in the old bottles, as the man said.
I have had to condense things quite considerably for the purpose of the essay, but let me explain the terms you mention. The General Field is the field of pure energy from which cosmae arise. Pure energy has no mass: it is un-correlated positive and negative charge. It is an infinite field. Within the course of infinity, charges inevitably become correlated here and there, and once in a while. Once they do, they 'come into existence' - as protons and electrons.
And the game begins.
Prior to correlation, the General Field is omni-dimensional - meaning that it cannot be described in any dimensional system - whether quantum or classical.
Space-time is referred to as a 'dimensional field'. There are others, and no such field is infinite. Space-time, for instance, is a field that is correlated - in the course of evolution - with a given observer, and that merges (almost seamlessly from the viewpoint of that observer) with other dimensional fields that are progressively less measurable (the Intermediary and Primal Zones), relative to the observer.
As for the supposed flat shape of the universe - this simply refers to the fact that the distances we can consider are far too small for the curvature to be relevant. It does not mean that the universe is actually flat. I must say that it is far from apparent to me that this distinction has any real meaning at all. It's like saying the earth is flat.
The occurrence of vortices in all aspects of the cosmos is as fundamental as energy-mass itself, and this should be considered very seriously.
As for the big bang, my view is that it is virtually meaningless - and as I point out in the essay, though the cosmos must have emerged from the General Field at some point, we cannot know when because our space-time parameter system (the Composite Zone) did not emerge till some unknowable length of time later.
The manner in which the three Principal Vortices of the Inorganic, Organic and Sensory-Cognitive realms continue to interact with the General Field, increasing their correlation and therefore affecting our evolution, is of far greater importance - and more knowable as well.
If you also question the big bang and space-time, then we might not be so far apart as you seem to think! We might even link up a century or two ahead of schedule ...
All the best, and thanks again for your input,
John