• home
• about
• new
• essays
• AI
• book

Dr. Joseph Dillard is a psychotherapist with over forty year's clinical experience treating individual, couple, and family issues. Dr. Dillard also has extensive experience with pain management and meditation training. The creator of Integral Deep Listening (IDL), Dr. Dillard is the author of over ten books on IDL, dreaming, nightmares, and meditation. He lives in Berlin, Germany. See: integraldeeplistening.com and his YouTube channel. He can be contacted at: [email protected]

SEE MORE ESSAYS WRITTEN BY JOSEPH DILLARD

Am I an Attractor Basin?

The Many Varieties of Selfhood

Joseph Dillard

How we develop our sense of who we are

Our worldview is how we substantiate, justify, and rationalize our identity to ourselves and others. Most of us never ask “Who am I?” so bluntly; we just assume. But what we assume about who we are, whether we ever even think about it or not, has huge implications for how we see ourselves, others, and our world. With important exceptions, which we shall discuss below, we aren't born with any identity, we develop one. We get taught who we are as children and that definition is very likely to evolve as we go through life.

Developmentally, before we can think, our identity is fused with our bodies. We are our sensations. Plants and animals exist with this sort of identity. For example, cats, both wild and domesticated, are mostly about sensations. Then, somewhere around the age of two, our identity shifts and becomes mostly about our feelings. We are our emotions and we have bodies. This is still before we have enough language to think such thoughts. We can see this transition in elephants and dogs but mostly in the “terrible twos” where we are all about our likes and dislikes. When we get serious about talking, generally around three and four, our identity shifts to, “I am this name in this family. I have these feelings and this body.” When we get to school our identity shifts again, to, “I am these thoughts, including my thoughts about my family, others, groups, feelings, and body.”

While we shall see that there are many different thoughts about who we might be, and they are important and produce different results, most of us stop at “I am my thoughts.” We might think, “I am spirit in a body with a mind,” without realizing that is a thought about who we are. It's a mental construct that becomes a cognitive self-definition. It's how we think about ourselves and our relationship to others and nature. Almost all self-definitions we will discuss below fall in this category: they are variations on “I am my thoughts.”

We are our assumptions

For example, that's where you and I are now, as author and readers. I am discussing mental constructs of identity and you are thinking about them, trying them on for size. These conclusions about our identity that comprise our worldviews are beliefs, pre-rational, prepersonal assumptions that are rarely questioned, but even if we think about them, as we are doing now, we are basically using reason to clarify our assumptions about who we are. We aren't really changing our identity from, “I am my thoughts. I have feelings, a body, and relationships with others and the world.”

Notice that contemplating our identity and worldview is a luxury. Most people throughout history have not developed the time, cultural permissions, or objectivity to think about who they are. We are just who we are, and we work at fitting in and being secure and happy. We don't want or need to think too much about who we are, largely because that brings into question assumptions that our groups share, and to question those collective assumptions has historically been dangerous. We can get ostracized like Spinoza or condemned and killed like Socrates. Look at censoring today. What happens if you say something that is deemed anti-semitic? To live at a time and in a place where we have the cultural/social freedom and have developed the personal objectivity, as well as have the time and security to think about such things is actually an evolutionary marvel that we rarely recognize or appreciate.

To orient ourselves to the worldview of The Dreaming Kosmos (a book I am writing that this is an excerpt from), we need to step back and look at some of these different assumptions about who we are and their implications for our worldview and how we relate to others and to nature. The reason this is important is because if we do not surface and table our assumptions they will not only limit what we see and experience, but control us. We will think we are free when we are in fact prisoners of our unrecognized assumptions. We can't even ask the following questions until we have objectified our bodies, minds, and relationships and learned to think. We will start with the most common assumptions about who we are, compare Western and East Asian assumptions about identity and worldview, and move to the less common and most recent redefinitions.

Common assumptions about who we are

“I am my body” was our most common assumption for most of the two million years of our journey up from Eden, before we learned to communicate with words. We also assumed we were our emotions, although they were fused with our bodies. We didn't have the word “emotion” and we didn't yet have the ability to think about what we felt. We had bodies, feelings, experiences, and relationships, but we didn't have those words and we didn't think about them. All of that was fused together. Wilber makes this point in Up From Eden.

This highly subjective and simple pre-linguistic state is hard for us to imagine. Just as we are surprised if we are presented with a video of us when we were two, because who we were was much simpler than who we experience ourselves as being now, so we tend to project a thinking variety of knowledge onto animals and early humans that is unrealistic and highly unlikely. It is not that animals and early humans are not intelligent and wise in their own ways, they are! To recognize genuine developmental differences is an exercise in empathy, not in discrimination or species exceptionalism.

The Dreaming Kosmos does not assume that higher developmental levels are better, only that they are more objective. Objectivity is not necessarily better; there are many situations where subjectivity is superior, like sleeping or receptivity in relationships. The Dreaming Kosmos assumes that we live on a continuum of objectivity and subjectivity, and we need both. Balance and health at any developmental stage is more important than this or that developmental stage. How objective or enlightened you and I are is much less important than how balanced we are at our current stage of development. If we do not keep this distinction in mind, developmental elitism will plague and limit our development as well as our relationships with others and nature.

“I am my body” is an identity which is less likely to empathetic and more likely to be exploitative of others and nature. That is because it is centered on our own sensory experience and needs for safety and security.

I am a body with a mind and spirit

This assumption was prevalent in Ancient Greece, something philosophers have called Aristotle's “hylomorphism,” as well as in Judeo-Christian traditions. “I am a body with a mind and spirit,” emphasizes our physical embodiment and sensations with dualistic elements. There is a split between body and mind/spirit. This view was dominant in Western thought until the Enlightenment of 1700s European thought. It is important to remember that just because a few philosophers thought about these things it does not mean that an identity was widely accepted. Most people stay grounded in early developmental assumptions: “I am my body and its sensations;” “I am my emotions and my life is drama;” “I am my cultural practices and my social role and obligations.” Such assumptions about who we are stay with most of us for our entire lives because these ways of thinking about ourselves and our lives are practical and useful.

To draw an analogy, while we may know that the sun doesn't rise and set, we live our daily lives as if it does because a sensory based reality is practical and useful. Therefore, it is wrong to think we will “outgrow” this or that self-definition. To surface and table an assumption can be useful, but doing so is generally unnecessary. Nevertheless, developing the ability to do so generates possibilities for growth, happiness, and service to others that are not available to you if you do not or cannot.

There are huge practical advantages to holding this worldview. It grounds your identity in physicality, promoting health, and thereby longevity, with mental-spiritual integration. However, it risks materialism by undervaluing spirit. It also encourages a worldview of materialistic dualism by focusing on tangible reality. Materialists and much of scientific empiricism assume this worldview. Such “body first” worldviews are called “materialistic dualisms.” They focus on tangible reality, practical interactions with others, such as work and commercial interactions, but can easily be exploitative. Because the vast majority of the world economy runs on this worldview, relationships, ethical behavior, and nature tend to be secondary to the securing and advancement of physical security and social status. Functionality and transactional relationships are priorities.

I am a mind with a body and spirit

This is where most of us hang out, either with or without “spirit.” We identify with our thoughts. As Wilber pronounces, “The cognitive line leads.” What we think about our bodies, emotions, others, and the spiritual, largely defines who we are. Yes, we have important feelings, experiences, sensations, and relationships, but because we are mostly focused on solving daily problems, and those require thinking, we are mostly our thoughts.

This self-definition and worldview emphasizes intellect. It may or may not include attempting spiritual balance. Descartes and philosophers in general, as well as problem solvers of all sorts, from business people to technocrats to politicians, are essentially in this category. While most spiritual seekers, including most Integralists, might put themselves in the “I am spirit with a mind and body category,” functionally most of us are our thoughts, and the elevation or breadth of our thinking is important to our self-definition. Philosophically, this worldview is called “rational idealism.” It is a “mind first” worldview, promoting a knowledge-driven life perspective, encouraging collaboration but is potentially exploitative of nature.

Disadvantages of this position include ignoring emotions, elitism based on imagining our level of cognitive development is the same as our level of overall development, and spiritual bypassing, meaning that we can easily assume we are at a transpersonal level of development because our worldview includes the transpersonal and also because we do things associated with the transpersonal, like meditation, pranayama, or lucid dreaming. People that favor this identity have relationships that are collaborative with the like-minded, but tend to be dismissive of “less developed” or non-rational perspectives.

I am spirit with a mind and body

If you have had mystical or transpersonal experiences you may have reached this conclusion and adopted this worldview. However, there is a difference between adopting a worldview and being stabilized authentically in it. Most people who have had mystical experiences either think they are identified with spirit or spend a great deal of time and energy attempting to be so. They may spend a great deal of time in meditation, taking psychoactive substances, or proselytizing, in the belief that if they surround themselves with an echo chamber that they will internalize this belief system. This worldview is common in Hinduism, Buddhism, Western Gnosticism, New Age, and Integral philosophy. “I am spirit with a mind and body” focuses on spiritual essence and transpersonal practices, prioritizing the eternal over the temporal in an attempt to escape dualism. This worldview encourages transcendence, reducing attachment and aligns with spiritual growth. However, it may neglect physical needs. It reveres nature as divine while potentially detaching from others.

I am a soul incarnated in matter

This worldview offers an eternal perspective, reducing fear of death. Called “transcendent idealism,” it focuses on the afterlife. It emphasizes compassion toward others and life and views nature as transient. There is a heavy strain of this worldview in Hinduism and Buddhism, as the concepts of reincarnation and karma support it. With this worldview you get to spend your life feeling trapped in a shitty situation. Your job is to figure out how to escape your prison. This view is widespread in Platonic and Neoplatonic thought. However, it shows up in some streams of Christianity and even new age holistic thought, like the Edgar Cayce readings. It influenced medieval Europe and Islamic philosophy as well as Blavatsky, theosophy, and the anthroposophy of Rudolph Steiner. Let's now shift our focus to an overview of major traditional and contemporary East Asian conceptions of self.

Chinese/East Asian Worldviews

It is important to recognize that the answers to the question, “Who am I?” in China, and more generally, in the East Asian worldview, have been different in important ways from the answers favored by Westerners. While those definitions are beginning to cross-pollinate, Western assumptions have tended to hold an often unrecognized cognitive and cultural elitistism and to not even consider how non-westerners view themselves. Here are common assumptions of the Chinese worldview:

I am a member of my family and society

This has been the prevailing self-definition of Chinese and East Asians throughout history and remains so today. It is associated most strongly with a Confucian worldview. In it, your identity is defined by filial piety and your roles within the family as well as by subject-ruler harmony within society. The Analects of Confucius emphasizes relational duty over individual essence.

I am a participant in the Tao

This Chinese self-definition is a metal construct built on top of “I am a member of the family and society.” It assumes you are a flow within nature, not a fixed entity, which is a process rather than an ontological definition of who you are. In Daoism you are a “happening” first and a “being” second. In philosophical terms, process includes and transcends ontology and substance. This is the traditional worldview that is closest to that of The Dreaming Kosmos, although it emphasizes polycentric and respects the strengths and utility of all of these self-definitions.

I am a subject of the empire

This is a traditional worldview common not only in historical China but Persia and Rome. Identity is tied to loyalty to the emperor and state and in China is reinforced by Legalism and Confucian governance. The individual exists for the collective. Your identity is defined by reigning external social authority. The belief that we have evolved beyond this identity and worldview is given the lie by the amount of consistent support in contemporary elections worldwide for politicians and policies that damage one's self-interests and further the collapse of the state. It underestimates the many powerful means states employ to keep us their loyal subjects.

I am a consciousness seeking enlightenment

This self definition is not intrinsic to China or East Asia. It was introduced into China in the Lotus Sutra of Mahayana Buddhism via the Silk Road in the 1st Century CE. This worldview views identity as anicca, illusory, a temporary manifestation of consciousness as it moves toward nirvana. The self is a process of awakening. “I am a consciousness seeking enlightenment” remains part of the add-on worldview of East Asia. It aligns with “I am consciousness experiencing itself,” prioritizing inner transformation.

Since 1949 other definitions of self and accompanying worldviews have risen to prominence in China and East Asia.

I am a citizen of the nation

Post-1949, the People's Republic of China (PRC) and North Korea emphasize identity as a citizen contributing to national goals, such as socialism and economic growth. Mao Zedong Thought frames the self as part of the collective. This worldview has been dominant in North Korea and China, with some 80% of citizens identifying with national pride, reinforced by a rising standard of living.

I am an individual in a global context

With economic reforms beginning in 1978 and internet access, East Asian identity began to include personal aspirations alongside cultural roots. Young urbanites blend tradition and modernity. In China, 40% of 18-35-year-olds cite global identity. “I am an individual in a global context” aligns with modern identities of, “I am a relational being” and “I am an emergent system,” reflecting interconnected complexity.

I am a participant in technological evolution

The rise of AI, social media, and biotech frames East Asian identity as part of a technological process. This identity is prominent in tech hubs like Shenzhen, with 30% of youth engaging in digital self-expression. It is also spreading among youths of the west. It is in alignment with “I am an attractor basin,” in that it emphasizes dynamic flow.

I am a cultural hybrid

This is a multicultural worldview and identity. Migration and globalization create Chinese identities blending Han, minorities like Uyghur and Tibetan, and Western influences. This identity has been increasing in China since the 1990s, with 20% of urban youth identifying as hybrid. Clearly, this worldview and identity is also on the rise both in the EU and the U.S.

Other worldviews

There are other self-definitions that are less popular or which are only now emerging into human consciousness, but worth mentioning. These include, the postmodern worldview,

“I am a social construct” in which your identity is shaped by your cultural, linguistic, and historical contexts. This identity promotes adaptability, which is important in the shifting, demanding pressures and priorities of the modern world but risks relativism and undermining agency. “I am a social construct” questions fixed identity and is called “cultural relativism.” It is inclusive but fragmented and views nature as a cultural artifact.

“I am a relational being” is a worldview that emphasizes relational interdependence and intimate, empathetic relationships, fostering connection, but may diminish individual identity. It is symbiotic with nature. “I am a relational being,” defines who you are in terms of your relationships with others and the environment. This is largely an operational and behavioral self-definition. It enhances your self-awareness and reduces psychological geocentrism, the assumption that life is “all about me and my needs.” It focuses on relationships based on universal love, viewing nature as self, and nondual unity. However, a possible drawback is that it may detach one from practical life.

“I am consciousness experiencing itself.” In this identity you experience yourself as pure awareness, beyond form or division. This is a worldview prevalent in nondual traditions like Tibetan Buddhism.

“I am an emergent system” is a worldview that views identity as a complex, self-organizing interplay of biological, psychological, and social systems. Its main advantage is that it explains complexity and promotes system holism through collaboration and viewing nature, including humanity, as a systemic whole. However, it risks reductionism by anchoring emergence in and to material factors.

“I am a holon” is the identity advocated by Wilber and Integral AQAL. It synthesizes perspectives, encourages inclusiveness with others and is hierarchical with nature. It balances wholeness and partness, integrating perspectives and providing a middle path. “I am a holon” is integral holism, inclusive of others and respectful of nature's hierarchies, while attempting to synthesize science and spirituality in the context of spiritual metaphysics. Essentially, as we shall see, “I am a holon” prioritizes substance, metaphysics, ontology, and identity over process, empiricism, epistemology, and polycentrism. Because of its integral nature and its effective summation of the strengths of identities based on beingness, substance, “things,” metaphysics, and nouns, The Dreaming Kosmos views it as a co-equal manifestation of the characteristics and perspective of identity as an attractor.

“I am an attractor basin,” a processed-based and polycentric identity, embraces change, enhances adaptability, self-organization, and resilience while supporting emergence and transformation. Attractors represent states or patterns toward which a system tends to evolve, such as fixed points, limit cycles, or chaotic sets. An attractor basin is the set of initial conditions in a system that converge toward a particular attractor, illustrating the landscape of possible evolutionary paths. Ilya Prigogine's work on dissipative structures (Order Out of Chaos, 1984) linked attractors to self-organization, while Stuart Kauffman's research on complexity (At Home in the Universe, 1995) applied basins to biological evolution. Philosophically, identity as “I am an attractor basin” is called “processual dynamism,” and it prioritizes flow, including fluid relationships with others and harmony with nature's processes. However, it risks instability and grounding if not supplemented by other self-definitions. Thinking of ourselves merely as a process risks reducing identity to a cognitive construct devoid of feeling, meaning, purpose, or intimate relationships with others and nature. Therefore, it is supplemented in The Dreaming Kosmos by “I am a holon.”

We can see that each of these worldviews support identity in important ways while possessing intrinsic limitations. This is an important reason why The Dreaming Kosmos advocates for polycentrism of identity and worldview. Another is evolutionary adaptability. However, there are a number of reasons why experiencing yourself as an attractor basin and taking on its perspectives are important and useful.

Reasons attractors provide a superior identity and worldview

Viewing yourself and the universe as an attractor basin, a dynamic, self-organizing pattern integrating flows across the four quadrants “I” interior individual, “It” exterior individual, “We” interior collective, “Its” exterior collective, offers a compelling identity and worldview. As an attractor basin you embrace dynamic change and impermanence, integrate multidimensional perspectives, ground your identity in relational and emergent processes, align yourself with emerging scientific and philosophical understandings, enhance your adaptability in your relationships with others and nature, and not but not least, support your own development and transformation.

All things, including humans, ovens, and shovels, are attractor basins because they emerge from and sustain processes across quadrants. Their “thingness” is a stabilized snapshot. You are a complex attractor basin, integrating consciousness, your physical body, social relationships, and ecological systems. Your identity emerges from interactions like language acquisition. You attract thoughts, emotions, and experiences into a stable pattern called your personality, shaped by evolutionary processes and cultural narratives.

Ovens are attractors because they are not only a static holons but a basin attracting heat, energy, and human intent. Their design and function, such as baking bread, emerges from thermodynamic “It” processes and cultural “We” practices shaped by individual “I” innovation and “Its” industrial systems. An oven's stable state is a snapshot of an attractor basin, drawing in materials like steel and electricity and outputting cooked food, reflecting a flow stabilized by human use. A shovel is a tool whose identity arises from the process of digging, attracting “I” human effort, “It” physical materials like wood and metal, “We” agricultural norms, and “Its” environmental contexts. Its form stabilizes this flow. The shovel's utility is an attractor basin, drawing in labor and earth to create gardens or fields, with its design evolving through cultural users. Seeing things (nouns) as snapshots of processes (verbs) frozen in time takes some getting used to, but it is not too far from an idea we are already familiar with: things are vibration, energy in motion.

By experiencing yourself as an attractor basin, you are aligning yourself with reality. The stability of your life and the collectives you belong to emerge from flow, not fixed entities. This contrasts with static identities, such as “I am a holon”, which may resist change. By embracing impermanence, echoing the Buddhist anicca and the Tao's flow, you foster resilience while enhancing your adaptability. An attractor basin identity and worldview supports a fluid, evolutionary perspective, encouraging acceptance of life's transformations. Together with “I am a holon,” identity achieves a yin-yang balance of yielding and structure, communion and agency, balance and development that generates a synthesis of flow.

Because attractor basins include the characteristics and perspectives of holons, they naturally weave the four quadrants, that is, individual intentions “I”, observable behaviors “It”, cultural narratives “We”, and systemic structures “Its”. This holistic integration surpasses fragmented identities like “I am a body” or “I am a mind.” As an attractor, you do so without carrying the metaphysical baggage of holons, since attractor basins are empirical, sensory facts rather than abstractions.

Whirlpools, tornadoes, hurricanes, cyclones, weather patterns in general, and gyroscopes are all obvious attractor basins. The reason we do not recognize the universality of attractor basins is because things are frozen “snapshots” of attractor basins, the way rain, and snow are liquid and frozen sub-attractor basins of the obvious process nature of weather.

By creating a unified, interconnected worldview, attractor basin identity fosters empathy and systemic understanding. Your identity as an attractor basin emphasizes relational emergence, reflecting how children assimilate others' norms and cultures co-evolve. This contrasts with fixed essences, such as “I am a soul”, which may isolate. It enhances psychological health by rooting your identity in dynamic interactions, outpacing static models that risk rigidity while cultivating a relational, process-oriented worldview, prioritizing interdependence.

As we have seen, basins are empirically supported by natural patterns, such as whirlpools and cosmic evolution, such as the stability of galaxies, resonating with Heraclitus' flux, Bergson's Creative Evolution (1907), and Whitehead's Process and Reality (1929). This contrasts with metaphysical assumptions like “I am spirit”, that lack falsifiability. Identity as attractors provides a parsimonious model and integrates science and philosophy more seamlessly than dualistic or transcendental identities. By fostering a scientifically informed, processual worldview, attractors bridge empirical and experiential realms.

As an attractor basin, your identity flows with others and nature, promoting harmony over domination. This surpasses both exploitative and detached views. Symbiotic relationships are encouraged, reducing conflict and aligning with ecological sustainability, outpacing hierarchical or individualistic models. A harmonious, eco-centric worldview is adopted, enhancing collective and environmental well-being.

The attractor basin model facilitates growth through shifting patterns, as seen in meditative states and cultural evolution. This contrasts with fixed identities that may stagnate, such as, “I am a holon's” stability focus. By providing a developmental edge, an attractor identity supports therapeutic outcomes over rigid frameworks, creating a transformative worldview, emphasizing potential and evolution.

Developing a polycentric identity

Just like you don't have just one set of clothes in your closet, you don't have to limit yourself to one identity, definition of yourself, or worldview. In practice, we normally wear different “hats” throughout our days, assuming different identities as the requirements of our work and relationship require or permit. A good way to go about “trying on” this new outfit to see if it fits and you like it, is to think of life situations where becoming an attractor basin might be a good choice and then “wear” it in such situations and see what happens.

Start by thinking of circumstances in your life that require or benefit from flow, resilience, and interconnectedness. Here are some categories and examples to get you started: managing stress or crisis, navigating personal or cultural transition, fostering creative collaboration, engaging with nature or environmental challenges, and personal growth and spiritual exploration.

Imagine that you are facing a personal crisis like job loss or a natural disaster. An attractor basin identity allows you to flow with the crisis, attracting “I” resilience and “We” support while adapting physically “It” and systemically “Its”, outperforming the spirit-first view of “I am spirit” that may detach, or a mind-first view of “I am mind”, that overanalyzes. A body-first or holon identity might fixate on loss or structure, limiting your flexibility.

Perhaps you anticipate moving to a new country and experiencing a cultural shift. As an attractor basin, you adapt by integrating new languages, norms, and identities into a dynamic flow, reducing identity diffusion risks compared to a fixed “I am a body” or “I am a holon” perspective of hierarchy. A body-first view might resist change while a holon view may over-structure the transition.

Or let's say you are working on a multidisciplinary team or artistic project. As an attractor basin, you integrate diverse “I”, “We” perspectives and “It”, “Its” resources into a creative flow, surpassing a social construct view (“I am a construct”) that fragments or a consciousness view (“I am consciousness”) that detaches. In contrast, a holon identity may impose hierarchy, while a body-first view focuses on individual output.

Imagine you are participating in ecological restoration or climate action. As an attractor basin identity you harmonize with nature's processes “Its”, drawing on personal intent “I” and “We” cultural values outperforming a relational view (“I am relational”) that may over-focus on others or a soul view (“I am a soul”) that can devalue the temporal. In contrast, a mind-first or holon view might prioritize control over cooperation.

If you are practicing meditation or in therapy, as an attractor basin, you evolve through shifting patterns of “I” awareness and “We” relationship, adapting physically “It” and contextually “Its”, surpassing a spirit-first view that may stagnate or an emergent system view that reduces to mechanics. In contrast, a body-first identity may limit depth, while a holon view may over-structure growth.

Evolution is fueled by self-organization, adaptation, and energy utilization. Self-organization is the spontaneous emergence of order from complexity, a key driver of evolution. As an attractor basin, you embrace self-organization by seeing yourself as a dynamic system that organizes thoughts “I”, behaviors “It”, relationships “We”, and environments “Its” into coherent patterns. As an attractor basin, you attract and organize diverse inputs, such as cultural narratives and personal intentions, into a stable yet evolving identity. This outperforms static identities, such as “I am a body” by fostering flexibility compared to rigid structures.

Adaptation, the adjustment to changing conditions, is central to evolutionary survival. An attractor basin identity supports this by viewing yourself as a process that shifts patterns in response to new contexts. This identity adapts by integrating external influences, such as technological evolution and cultural transitions into its basin. This makes it superior to dualistic identities, such as “I am mind”, that resist change, promoting evolutionary fitness.

Energy utilization drives evolutionary processes, from metabolic efficiency to ecological balance. An attractor basin identity harnesses this by seeing yourself as a system that channels energy across quadrants—intentional focus “I”, physical action “It”, social dynamics “We”, and environmental resources “Its”. As an attractor basin, you optimize energy by attracting and transforming it, such as via personal growth and cultural creativity. Energy utilization under an attractor identity has advantages in relation to transcendental identities, such as “I am spirit”, that may neglect energy, offering a practical, evolutionary edge.

Conclusion

Our journey through the development of identity reveals a profound truth: who we are is not a fixed garment but a dynamic wardrobe, shaped by assumptions that evolve from pre-linguistic sensations to complex worldviews. The Dreaming Kosmos invites us to surface and table these assumptions, recognizing that while “I am my thoughts” often dominates, identities like the attractor basin offer a transformative alternative. This processual identity, integrating self-organization, adaptation, and energy utilization, aligns with the cosmic spiral of evolution and the mirror lake of meta-awareness, outpacing static or fragmented views.

By embracing the attractor basin—whether navigating crises, cultural shifts, creative collaborations, ecological challenges, or personal growth—we harness the flow of life, fostering resilience, interconnectedness, and harmony with others and nature. This polycentric approach balances the strengths of holons and other identities, avoiding the pitfalls of rigidity or detachment. The luxury of questioning our identity, a marvel of evolutionary progress, empowers us to “try on” this worldview, testing its fit in life's diverse situations. As we do, we step beyond the prison of unexamined assumptions, co-creating a future where identity and evolution dance in unison.