Return to Consciousness

Consciousness Structure (cst)

Dissociation, Integration, and the Limits of the Ordinary Mind

Contents ▼

Project: Return to Consciousness
Author: Bruno Tonetto
Authorship Note: Co-authored with AI as a disciplined thinking instrument—not a replacement for judgment. Prioritizes epistemic integrity and truth-seeking as a moral responsibility.
Finalized: February 2026
28 pages · ~46 min read · PDF

Abstract

This essay develops a framework for understanding psychopathology, trauma, and spiritual development within analytic idealism — an ontology assumed rather than argued here. A two-axis model (boundary permeability × integrative coherence) maps these phenomena within a single space, explaining why psychosis and mystical experience share phenomenological features without collapsing one into the other, why identical diagnoses yield divergent treatment responses, and why stabilization must precede integration when coherence has collapsed. The model functions as a phenomenological and clinical structure independent of metaphysical commitments; analytic idealism — assumed, not argued here — provides an interpretive layer explaining why this structure coheres. Permeability regulates what enters awareness and can shift rapidly; coherence regulates the capacity to integrate and develops slowly. Their dissociability under stress is what generates clinical risk. The essay notes convergent structural observations across contemplative traditions regarding ordinary egoic consciousness, includes safety considerations for boundary-opening practices, and emphasizes throughout that description is not recommendation.

Keywords: dissociation · psychopathology · analytic idealism · boundary permeability · integrative coherence · trauma · spiritual development · ego · mental health

What This Essay Is Not

To prevent misreading, this section clarifies what the essay does not claim:

The goal is to offer a coherent structural account that clinicians and researchers may find useful—while making clear the limits and epistemic status of that account.

Introduction

Contemporary psychiatry faces significant challenges. Despite decades of research in neuroimaging, molecular biology, and genetics, our understanding of mental disorders remains fragmented. We have accumulated correlates—neurotransmitter imbalances, structural brain differences, genetic risk factors—but explanations of why people suffer and how they heal remain contested. Dominant diagnostic systems group patients by symptom clusters while underlying heterogeneity complicates both explanation and treatment.

This essay explores whether a different ontological starting point might offer useful perspectives. The framework developed here adopts analytic idealism—the position that consciousness is fundamental and matter is its extrinsic appearance—and applies it systematically to psychopathology. Under analytic idealism, individual minds are not produced by brains but are dissociated segments of a transpersonal consciousness—bounded perspectives within a unified field of mentation. Dissociation is the single mechanism by which consciousness partitions itself, operating at every scale: universal consciousness dissociates into individual minds, individual minds dissociate further into semi-autonomous complexes (Jung), and when dissociation within an individual intensifies, the result is DID. The differences are of degree—boundary strength and permeability—not of kind. Within this ontology, mental disorders become disturbances in dissociative boundaries: between individual consciousness and the broader field, but also within the individual, between the ego and its own dissociated contents. This reframing generates a dimensional model organized along two axes: boundary permeability and integrative coherence.

The model offers several potential advantages. It may explain why patients with identical diagnoses respond differently to treatment. It clarifies structural relationships between psychosis and mystical experience without romanticizing the former or pathologizing the latter. It situates neurobiological findings within a coherent interpretive framework. It suggests why, for certain depths of suffering, contemplative development becomes relevant rather than merely optional.

A central observation is that the ordinary ego functions as a form of dissociation—mild, stable, and adaptive, but dissociation nonetheless. This observation is not unique to this framework. Various traditions have noted structural features of ordinary consciousness that limit human flourishing. Jesus spoke of hamartia (missing the mark). The Buddha spoke of avidyā (ignorance). Freud spoke of inevitable neurotic conflict. These traditions observed convergent structural features of egoic consciousness, even as their ontological frameworks led to different prognoses. Where Freud, within materialist constraints, saw tragedy, the contemplative traditions saw the possibility of awakening.

This essay is part of the broader Return to Consciousness project, which explores how consciousness-first metaphysics might address questions that other frameworks address differently.

I. Ontological Foundation and Methodological Notes

The Ontological Assumption

This framework adopts analytic idealism as its ontological ground: consciousness is the sole fundamental reality; what we call matter and brains are the extrinsic appearance of mental processes within consciousness. Individual minds are dissociated centers of experience within a universal field of consciousness.

This ontology is assumed, not argued. The philosophical case for idealism is developed elsewhere in the Return to Consciousness project. This essay explores what follows if idealism is true — how psychopathology, trauma, and spiritual development would be understood within that framework.

A Note on “Dissociation” Language

Within this framework, dissociation is not a metaphor borrowed from clinical psychology. It is the fundamental mechanism by which consciousness partitions itself into bounded, relatively autonomous perspectives. Clinical dissociation (DID, dissociative amnesia) and ordinary individuation (the fact that you cannot read my thoughts) are the same process operating at different scales and boundary strengths. DID is not an analogy for how individual minds relate to universal consciousness—it is the same dissociative mechanism operating within an individual, producing stronger internal boundaries than the milder dissociation that constitutes the ordinary ego and its complexes.

The structural point is that dissociation admits of degrees—more or less permeable, more or less integrated—and that these degrees have consequences for phenomenology and function at every level, from the cosmic to the intrapsychic.

Structure and Interpretation

A crucial methodological distinction: the two-axis model (permeability × coherence) is a phenomenological and clinical structure that can stand on its own. It describes observable patterns—how experience is organized, what interventions help, what predicts risk. A clinician need not accept idealism to find the model useful.

Idealism provides an interpretive layer: an account of why this structure coheres, what the axes ultimately represent, and how phenomena like terminal lucidity or ego dissolution fit a larger picture. The ontology explains the model; it does not generate it. Readers who find the clinical structure useful but remain agnostic about ontology are using the essay as intended.

Types of Claims

This essay makes three types of claims, which should be distinguished:

The first two types of claims can be evaluated independently of one’s metaphysical commitments. The third type is offered as interpretation, not demonstrated fact.

Several questions are intentionally left open: the detailed dynamics by which permeability changes (psychedelic pharmacology, trauma mechanisms, contemplative process), the formal laws governing boundary-coherence configurations, the precise relationship between this framework and physics, whether all psychopathology reduces to boundary-coherence dynamics (it does not claim this), and the metaphysical status of archetypes and other Jungian constructs invoked as interpretive aids. The framework describes structure at a certain level of analysis; finer-grained dynamics and broader metaphysical questions lie outside its scope.

Why Consider Idealism?

Within the idealist interpretation, several otherwise puzzling phenomena become coherent:

Within the idealist interpretation, these phenomena become structurally coherent — not by adding explanatory machinery, but by removing the ontological barrier between mind and world that made them anomalous in the first place.

Why Categorical Nosology Falls Short

The predominant diagnostic systems, particularly the DSM, rely on categorical classifications that group patients by symptom clusters. “Major Depressive Disorder” and “Schizophrenia” collect heterogeneous presentations—different mechanisms, different treatment responses, different prognoses—under single labels. Many clinicians and researchers, regardless of their metaphysical views, recognize that this categorical rigidity fails to capture the continuous, dimensional nature of psychopathological experience.

The boundary-coherence model offers a dimensional alternative. Rather than asking “Does this patient meet criteria for Disorder X?”, it asks: “Where does this patient’s experience fall along the axes of boundary permeability and integrative coherence?” This reframing identifies what actually needs to change—boundary regulation, coherence development—rather than merely which symptoms to suppress. This clinical utility is independent of whether one accepts the idealist interpretation.

II. The Two-Dimensional Framework

Within this ontology, dissociation is not a pathological anomaly but a fundamental mechanism of mind. Dissociation allows consciousness to localize, individuate, and survive overwhelming intensities. It is the process by which universal consciousness generates the appearance of separate subjects—each experiencing from a distinct perspective, each unable to directly access the experiential contents of others.

Two axes organize the space of conscious states. These axes are derived as distinct control variables with different properties, failure modes, and time constants.

Axis One: Boundary Permeability

Dissociative boundary permeability describes how open or closed the boundary between an individual alter and the broader field of consciousness is.

What it regulates: How much content from the broader field of consciousness can enter individual awareness.

Failure modes:

Intervention levers: Psychedelics, breathwork, meditation, trauma (involuntary), life transitions, relational intensity, certain medications.

Time constants: Can change rapidly—minutes to hours with substances, seconds in trauma or peak experiences.

The spectrum runs from rigid/impermeable (the boundary admits little from outside established identity) through flexible/regulated (controlled exchange with broader fields) to hyperpermeable (the boundary admits most or all content—unstable and chaotic in psychosis, fluid and regulated in awakening).

A note on “boundary” language: The term “boundary” is a spatial metaphor for something that may not be spatial. What the metaphor captures: that whatever individuates consciousness admits of degrees, and that the degree affects what content is accessible. The metaphor should not be taken to imply a literal wall or membrane. It is a visualization aid for the structural constraint that individual minds vary in their openness to what lies beyond the individual.

Axis Two: Integrative Coherence

Coherence describes the capacity to integrate whatever content permeability admits. It involves three distinguishable but unified capacities:

Stabilization (śamatha-like): The capacity to remain present, grounded, and not overwhelmed. Stabilization provides the container—the basic ability to stay with experience rather than dissociating, fleeing, or fragmenting.

Discernment (vipassanā/prajñā-like): The capacity to see clearly what arises—neither inflating it into ultimate truth nor dismissing it as nothing. Discernment recognizes content as appearance and does not mistake arising for independently existing reality.

Compassion (karuṇā): The capacity to receive what arises without contraction—neither grasping nor rejecting. Compassion holds content with warmth and does not require content to be other than it is. This is ontological hospitality.

What it regulates: The capacity to hold, process, and integrate whatever permeability admits.

Failure modes:

Intervention levers: Psychotherapy, contemplative practice, relational healing, ethical development, time and life experience.

Time constants: Generally changes slowly—months to years of sustained practice and developmental process.

The spectrum runs from low coherence (content fragmented, literalized, externalized) through moderate (sufficient for ordinary functioning) to high (capacity to hold intense, contradictory, or overwhelming experience without fragmentation).

A note on “container” language: When we speak of coherence as the capacity to “hold” or “contain” experience, this is a metabolic metaphor. What it captures: that experiences can be integrated or not, and that integration requires capacity. The metaphor of a container with variable capacity visualizes the structural constraint that coherence is a developmental achievement, not a given.

Why Two Dimensions Are Necessary

The asymmetry in time constants is clinically crucial: permeability can spike in moments while coherence develops over extended periods. This is why rapid boundary-opening without coherence preparation is dangerous, and why integration work must continue long after a peak experience has passed.

But more fundamentally, the axes are developmentally correlated under favorable conditions yet dynamically dissociable. Many life experiences and practices increase only one dimension, producing imbalance rather than maturation.

Permeability without coherence results from:

Coherence without permeability results from:

This dissociability is what makes the two-dimensional framework necessary. If the axes always rose together, a single dimension would suffice. The clinical reality is that they can diverge dramatically.

When Development Is Coherent

Under favorable conditions—disciplined contemplative training with ethical and relational scaffolding, skilled therapeutic work, supported life transitions—the axes tend to rise together. This occurs because:

  1. Practices that genuinely develop coherence (stabilization, discernment, compassion) inherently reduce the contractions maintaining rigid boundaries
  2. Gradual permeability increase, met with adequate coherence, provides material for further integration, building further coherence
  3. Ethical and relational scaffolding prevents dissociative collapses that would decouple the axes

Mature practitioners achieve maximal development on both axes: boundaries become essentially transparent and fully regulated, allowing voluntary access to the full field of consciousness (the Buddha recounting countless past lives, mystics perceiving universal mind), while their development of stabilization, discernment, and compassion provides coherence to integrate whatever arises. Unlike psychotic permeability, which is chaotic and involuntary, the sage’s openness is fluid and responsive—they can modulate access as context requires. The ordinary practitioner’s challenge is that permeability can increase faster than coherence develops; the sage has completed both movements in coordination.

The Boundary-Coherence Space: A Formal Map

Configuration Boundary State Coherence State Phenomenology Therapeutic Direction
Ordinary ego Moderately rigid Moderate Separation, anxiety, projection Increase flexibility; build coherence
Depression Rigid, over-sealed Variable Isolation, emptiness, anhedonia Carefully increase permeability
Panic Acute rupture Insufficient Terror, annihilation anxiety Restore containment; build coherence
Psychosis Hyperpermeable, unregulated Low/collapsed Literalization, fragmentation Restore boundary; then build coherence
DID Internally partitioned Local but unintegrated Fragmented identity, amnesia Gradual internal boundary dissolution
Witness states Moderately permeable High Observing awareness, equanimity Deepen non-identification
Mystical states Temporarily open High Unity, meaning, ego transcendence Integration; grounded return
Awakening (non-dual realization) Transparent, regulated Maximal No separation, spontaneous compassion Embodied expression

The path from ordinary ego to awakening requires coordinated development: coherence must expand to match permeability increases. Jumping ahead on permeability without corresponding coherence produces pathology, not liberation.

The Non-Integrable Zone

A critical clinical distinction: not all states are on the integration trajectory. Some configurations represent coherence collapse severe enough that integration is not the immediate therapeutic goal.

In acute psychosis, the boundary has ruptured and coherence has collapsed. The patient cannot symbolically process anything. The immediate need is boundary restoration and coherence stabilization, not opening or integration.

The non-integrable zone comprises configurations where coherence has fallen below the threshold for integration. In this zone:

The non-integrable zone is not permanent. With stabilization, coherence can be rebuilt, and the patient may eventually move into configurations where integration becomes possible. But attempting integration before coherence is adequate produces further fragmentation.

This distinction prevents the dangerous romanticization of psychosis as “failed mysticism needing better integration support.” Psychosis and mysticism share increased permeability but differ decisively in coherence.

III. The Ordinary Ego as Normative Dissociation

A central claim of this framework is that the ordinary ego is not the baseline of mental health. It is itself a form of dissociation—a bounded, localized perspective within a broader consciousness—mild, stable, and adaptive, but structurally incomplete.

The Ego as Dissociative Boundary

The ego is a dissociative boundary that:

This dissociation is mild compared to DID (Dissociative Identity Disorder), stable compared to psychosis, and adaptive for social survival. But it is incomplete with respect to total reality.

The ego works by exclusion. “This is not me” is its fundamental operation. It maintains identity through repression of incompatible content, projection of disowned material, selective attention confirming existing identity, moralization defending the ego’s goodness, and fear of death protecting boundary integrity.

Within this framework, the ego is a dissociative structure—a bounded, localized perspective that maintains itself through exclusion while experiencing itself as the totality of the self.

This is not pathology in the clinical sense—the ego functions well enough. But it is alienation in the existential sense: a contraction of consciousness experiencing itself as separate from what it actually is.

Within the boundary-coherence model, the ordinary ego has moderately rigid boundaries and coherence sufficient for survival but insufficient for truth. Its characteristic affects are anxiety, guilt, resentment, and craving.

This explains why normal people feel chronically dissatisfied even when material needs are met, why morality must be externally enforced, why projection dominates politics and religion, why compassion feels heroic rather than natural.

The ego is not evil. It is incomplete. Its characteristic distortions are structural consequences of dissociative contraction, not moral failures.

Complexes: Meso-Level Structures

Even within the ordinary ego, dissociation is not monolithic. Jung’s complexes are semi-autonomous structures—clusters of emotionally charged content organized around archetypal cores that can temporarily “take over” consciousness.

Complexes are meso-level dissociative structures: partial dissociations within the already-dissociated ego. When activated—when someone “loses their temper” or is “triggered”—the ego temporarily loses executive control. The complex acts with its own agenda and affects.

Complexes bridge ordinary ego and DID (Dissociative Identity Disorder). The difference is quantitative: in DID, barriers between complexes become strong enough to produce distinct identities with separate memory streams; in ordinary functioning, complexes influence but do not supplant egoic identity.

Much of psychotherapy involves working with complexes: making patterns conscious, reducing autonomous activation, integrating emotional charge. This occurs within the egoic level but demonstrates that integration is relevant even for ordinary psychological health.

IV. Convergent Observations Across Traditions

As examined in Consciousness Across Cultures, independent traditions converge on a shared diagnosis: ordinary egoic consciousness is limited, contracted, or distorted in structurally similar ways. The present section does not rehearse that convergence but examines what it implies within the boundary–coherence framework.

The Structural Claim

The convergence points to a structural feature of ordinary consciousness: the dissociative contraction that constitutes egoic identity also generates characteristic limitations—separation experienced as estrangement, grasping at permanence where there is none, identification with a bounded self that is not ultimate. Different traditions have named this differently, but the structural observation is consistent.

What varies is the prognosis. Ontological frameworks determine what transformation is imaginable. If the ego is the highest organizing principle and the brain its generator, the prognosis is limited. If the ego is a dissociative contraction within a larger field, dissolution becomes conceivable.

Illustrative Examples

Jesus spoke of hamartia (“missing the mark”)—a structural failure to reach human possibility, not primarily moral depravity. Within the framework, this describes identification with the dissociative ego, living from separation rather than integration. Features of his teaching align: treating sinners as needing healing rather than punishment, framing salvation as awakening (“the Kingdom of Heaven is within you”), and treating fear of death as bondage from which liberation is possible. Sin, structurally read, is egoic dissociation experienced as existential estrangement; redemption is reintegration.

Buddha diagnosed avidyā (ignorance)—not lack of information but fundamental misperception. The ego grasps at permanence where there is none, at separate selfhood where there is interdependence. The Four Noble Truths map onto the framework: suffering characterizes egoic dissociation; craving rooted in illusory separate selfhood is its cause; liberation is possible through dissolution of this illusion; practices reduce dissociative contraction. The ordinary human condition is treated as curable because the diagnosis is structural.

Freud observed the same structural features: the ego is not sovereign but buffeted by unconscious forces; repression is endemic to egoic functioning; civilization is built on managed neurosis. Given materialist ontology where the brain produces consciousness and the ego is the highest organizing principle, these observations yield more pessimistic conclusions: human beings are incurably divided, happiness is limited, therapy is relief rather than transformation. Freud’s pessimism was consistent within his metaphysical framework.

Perspective Structural Observation Prognosis
Jesus Egoic contraction, separation Awakening possible
Buddha Egoic contraction, misperception Liberation possible
Freud Egoic contraction, conflict Relief possible

The convergence is in observation; the divergence is in what each ontology permits imagining as possible.

V. Psychopathology Reframed

The boundary-coherence framework allows psychopathological conditions to be understood as specific configurations within a unified space.

Psychosis: Permeability Without Coherence

Psychosis is a syndrome—hallucinations, delusions, disorganized thinking, loss of contact with shared reality—arising from multiple etiologies. This framework addresses the phenomenological configuration while remaining agnostic about diagnostic categories.

Psychosis represents hyperpermeable and unregulated boundaries combined with insufficient coherence. Contents from the broader field enter awareness chaotically, without voluntary control, and cannot be symbolically integrated. They are literalized and experienced as persecutory or commanding agents.

Archetypes literalized: Within analytic idealism, archetypes are recurrent organizational structures of universal consciousness—dynamical attractors, constraints on experiential morphology, the “shapes” awareness naturally assumes. (This use of “archetype” is itself interpretive—a Jungian concept adopted as heuristic, not ontological commitment.) In psychosis, these patterns penetrate without mediation a psyche incapable of integrating them. The problem is not that content is “unreal” but that it is not symbolically processed.

Specific symptoms reframed:

These mappings are interpretive hypotheses within this framework, not established etiological claims.

The psychosis-mysticism distinction: Both involve increased permeability. The differences lie in coherence and regulation.

In mystical states, the individual recognizes content as māyā—real as appearance, empty of inherent existence—and returns to a cohesive ego. Permeability is high but regulated. In psychosis, content is literalized, permeability is chaotic and uncontrolled, producing fragmentation. The difference is not in what is accessed but in how it is held: with stabilization, discernment, and compassion (mysticism) or without (psychosis). In awakening, permeability becomes maximal and stably regulated—the boundary transparent but the sage retaining full capacity to function and modulate access as needed.

Clinical safety imperative: Confusing psychosis with mystical experience—treating a patient in the non-integrable zone as needing “integration support” rather than stabilization—causes serious harm. The proper question is not “Is this psychosis or mysticism?” but “What is the coherence state, and does it permit integration?”

Depression: Excessive Closure

Depression is characterized by an over-sealed dissociative boundary. The ego becomes sequestered, cut off from vitality and meaning.

In depression, the DMN (Default Mode Network) shows excessive internal coherence and reduced connectivity—the neural appearance of an over-sealed boundary, the ego talking only to itself.

Psychedelic therapy: Psilocybin (20-30 mg/70kg) in controlled settings has shown efficacy for treatment-resistant depression. Within this framework, these agents transiently increase boundary permeability, facilitating renewed access to meaning and connectedness. The therapeutic effect correlates with experience depth, particularly mystical-type experiences of unity.

Panic: Transient Boundary Rupture

Panic attacks are acute micro-failures of dissociative containment. Sudden permeability spikes allow intrusion of intense content—terror, annihilation anxiety—without sufficient coherence.

The ego interprets this as imminent death. This is not fear of death but fear as death—direct encounter with dissolution that would occur if boundaries failed completely. Physical symptoms are somatic correlates of ego-threatening breach.

This explains why sages do not fear physical death: their identity is no longer confined to the egoic alter. The boundary whose dissolution panic anticipates has already been transcended.

DID: Partitioned Coherence

Dissociative Identity Disorder involves multiple internal dissociative partitions, each with local coherence but limited cross-integration. The psyche fragments to survive overwhelming experience—typically severe childhood trauma exceeding the developing ego’s integrative capacity.

Each alter maintains coherent identity and memory continuity. The system survives at the cost of unified experience. Therapeutic integration involves gradually dissolving internal boundaries while preserving coherence—a process that cannot be rushed.

Aging and Dementia: Boundary Softening With and Without Coherence

Aging and dementia both involve changes in dissociative containment, but they differ structurally in ways that pure deficit models fail to capture.

Normal aging often involves gradual personality changes: reduced inhibition, increased emotional transparency, traits becoming more pronounced—sometimes described as becoming “more oneself.” These patterns are consistent with gradual reduction in dissociative containment while coherence remains relatively preserved. The elderly person who speaks more freely, cares less about social performance, and settles into their character may be experiencing boundary softening without coherence collapse. This is not pathology but a natural trajectory—potentially conducive to wisdom when coherence remains intact.

Dementia shows overlapping phenomena—trait intensification, emergence of long-suppressed behaviors, emotional transparency, social disinhibition—but under fundamentally different structural conditions. The key difference is coherence:

Dementia involves degeneration of integrative and control mechanisms, which secondarily reduces dissociative containment. The result is content leakage, not content liberation. Sub-personal structures—affective complexes, habitual traits, implicit relational patterns—emerge not because the person has achieved insight but because the boundaries that contained them have failed.

This structural account predicts what pure deficit models do not: the selectivity and directionality of personality change. Some traits intensify rather than erode. Some behaviors emerge rather than disappear. Some patients become emotionally warmer while losing executive function. These patterns suggest boundary failure releasing previously contained content, not uniform cognitive loss.

Critical distinctions prevent romanticization:

Epistemic limits: This account cannot determine the veridicality of emerging content, cannot assume access to a “truer self,” and cannot generalize across dementia types (Alzheimer’s, frontotemporal, vascular, Lewy body each involve different degeneration patterns). The framework supports structural hypotheses about why personality changes show the patterns they do—not narrative interpretations about what the changes mean.

Terminal lucidity—unexpected cognitive clarity in patients with severe dementia shortly before death—presents a related puzzle. Within this framework, terminal lucidity might reflect temporary boundary reconfiguration as the dissociative structure loosens toward dissolution. This remains speculative but structurally coherent, unlike materialist accounts where lucidity despite severe neural degradation appears paradoxical.

VI. Memory and Veridicality

Within analytic idealism, experiential information is not destroyed. Memory may be inaccessible due to dissociation rather than erased. But a crucial distinction must be maintained: availability is not accuracy.

Dissociated Memory

Traumatic memory is often fragmented, somatically encoded, and triggered associatively rather than voluntarily recalled. This reflects dissociative partitioning: content not integrated because integration would have overwhelmed the system.

Therapeutic work involves gradual re-access with sufficient coherence to integrate. The memory does not change; the affective capacity to hold it without rejection does.

Transpersonal Memory

The framework accommodates—but does not require belief in—veridicality of experiences involving past-life memories, collective trauma residues, terminal lucidity, or near-death experience. If dissociation creates the appearance of separate individuals, boundaries between “my” memory and “collective” memory may be less absolute than assumed.

Whether this occurs is empirical. The framework establishes it is not a priori impossible—unlike materialism where memory must be stored in individual brains.

The Three Levels

Increased access to content does not entail increased epistemic reliability. Dissociation regulates availability, not correspondence to fact. Integration concerns the capacity to host what arises without fragmentation; it does not require affirming the narrative form in which experience appears.

This distinction is central to Buddhism, where liberation is tied to non-reification: seeing phenomena as appearances rather than intrinsically real. Insight consists not in acquiring better stories but in releasing identification with stories altogether.

Three levels must be distinguished:

  1. Phenomenological availability: What contents arise when boundaries loosen
  2. Affective integration: Capacity to hold contents without fragmentation or literalization
  3. Historical accuracy: Whether narrative corresponds to events in shared reality

Therapeutic integration operates at levels (1) and (2). Healing does not require certainty about level (3). Insisting on factual resolution can obstruct integration by reinforcing compulsive narrative closure.

Clinical safeguard: No memory—recovered, symbolic, or transpersonal—should be treated as factually authoritative without independent corroboration. Experiential intensity does not confer historical truth. The task of therapy is not to determine what happened but to enable the psyche to relate to what appears without distortion, reification, or harm.

Māyā Recognition vs. Materialist Dismissal

When this framework speaks of content as “symbolic” or “not literal,” it does not mean what materialism means.

Materialist “not literal”: The experience is not real—brain malfunction, hallucination, subjective noise. Dismiss it, medicate it away.

Contemplative “not literal”: The experience is māyā—real as appearance, empty of inherent existence. It arises, has effects, matters—but does not exist the way the grasping mind takes it to exist.

The Buddhist insight is not that phenomena are unreal but that they are empty of svabhāva—inherent, independent existence. They appear dependently, arise conditionally, pass. Recognizing māyā is not dismissal; it is seeing clearly. The dream is real as dream; it is not real as the dreamer takes it to be.

Consider a patient who hears voices:

The integrative frame neither dismisses phenomenological reality nor grants the ontological status the patient attributes. This is the middle way.

Do not open what cannot be held—and do not reify what opens.

VII. The Nature of Integration

Integration is not merely cognitive insight, narrative reframing, or acceptance-through-explanation.

Integration is the capacity to host experience without rejection.

Understanding why something happened does not, by itself, integrate it. Recognizing trauma “wasn’t your fault” does not metabolize the terror. Accepting intellectually that death is inevitable does not dissolve the fear. Cognitive understanding operates at the ego level, which is itself the structure that dissociates.

Extreme experiences—being torn apart, subjected to cruelty, annihilated—cannot be metabolized at the ordinary egoic level. The ego survives by exclusion. Some contents are dissociated precisely because they would destroy egoic identity if admitted.

The Three Capacities

Integration requires the three capacities that constitute coherence, functioning together:

Stabilization: Remaining present, not dissociating or fleeing. Without stabilization, intense content cannot be approached.

Discernment: Seeing clearly, recognizing content as appearance without reification. Without discernment, content is literalized or mistaken for independent reality.

Compassion: Receiving without rejection, holding with warmth. Without compassion, content is rejected or met with coldness—intellectual understanding without metabolic integration.

These manifest as:

This is stable, clear, warm presence. Content is seen for what it is and held for what it is, without distortions of grasping or rejection.

Where Cognitive Work Fits

Cognitive-behavioral approaches operate at belief and narrative level. They address distorted interpretations, test assumptions against evidence, establish adaptive inference patterns. CBT serves coherence by supporting stabilization (reality testing, reducing cognitive chaos) and discernment at ordinary cognitive level.

This is genuinely valuable. Where beliefs are distorted or reality testing has faltered, cognitive work restores orientation and reduces suffering, creating conditions for deeper integration.

But cognitive correction is not full integration. One can have correct beliefs about trauma while remaining dissociated from affective reality. Cognitive work prepares the ground; development of stabilization, discernment, and compassion completes integration.

The relationship is complementary:

  1. Where coherence is fragile: Cognitive stabilization may be essential first
  2. Where coherence is adequate: Deeper integrative work can proceed
  3. Where integration is advanced: The three capacities function spontaneously

VIII. Why Saints and Sages Matter Structurally

The figures called saints and sages—Jesus, the Buddha, the great mystics—are not merely moral ideals. They exemplify maximally coherent alters: consciousness capable of integrating extreme content without fragmentation.

Ontological Re-identification

Their reported lack of fear of death is not bravery. Bravery involves feeling fear and acting anyway. The sage does not feel the fear because the structure generating fear—identification with the dissociative ego—has been transcended.

When identity is no longer confined to the individual alter, that alter’s dissolution loses existential weight. The sage knows experientially that what they fundamentally are is not what can die. This is ontological re-identification.

Descents into Hell

Many traditions describe the sage’s capacity to enter extreme suffering without destruction. Christ’s descent into hell, the Buddha’s direct perception of the hell realms and hungry ghost realms, the shaman’s journey through dismemberment—these describe what maximal coherence makes possible.

The sage holds what the ordinary ego cannot: full intensity of suffering without contraction. This is not masochism but metabolic capacity. Content is fully experienced and integrated.

Structural Pioneers

Saints and sages are structural pioneers—demonstrations of what consciousness becomes when dissociation gives way to total inclusion.

This does not mean their path is immediately available or that falling short is moral failure. It means that for certain depths of suffering, their mode of being represents the only adequate response. Where the ordinary ego can only fragment or reject, the sage’s consciousness can hold.

IX. Spiritual Development as Structural Necessity

Spiritual development is not belief acquisition, metaphysical speculation, or moral conformity. It is coordinated movement along both axes: increasing coherence (stabilization, discernment, compassion) and increasing regulated permeability—the progressive dissolution of the contractions that maintain dissociative closure.

Limits of Conventional Intervention

At shallow levels, psychotherapy and pharmacology may suffice. Moderately rigid boundaries causing moderate distress can often be addressed through cognitive reframing, emotional processing, behavioral change, and medication.

These interventions work within egoic structure, helping the ego function better. For many conditions and people, this is entirely appropriate.

Where Conventional Approaches End

At deeper levels—extreme trauma, existential crisis, transpersonal material—conventional approaches reach inherent limits. If the problem is the ego structure itself, strengthening the ego cannot solve it.

This is not criticism of psychotherapy or psychiatry but recognition of scope. Ego-level interventions are excellent for ego-level problems. Some problems are not at the ego level.

Spiritual Development as Expanded Capacity

Spiritual development expands capacity along both axes:

Coherence development:

Permeability development:

The integration of both:

The traditions mapping this territory—Buddhist, Christian mystical, Sufi, Vedantic, indigenous shamanic—offer technologies for expansion. Meditation, contemplative prayer, ethical discipline, service, plant medicine under proper conditions—these are means of structural transformation.

Not Spiritual Bypass

This framework does not advocate spiritual bypass—using spiritual concepts to avoid psychological work. Bypass occurs when spirituality is adopted cognitively without actual coherence increase. The person believes they have transcended ego while remaining identified with it; speaks of compassion while rejecting shadow; claims non-attachment while avoiding engagement.

The framework predicts bypass is unstable. Dissociated content does not disappear because spiritually reframed. It remains, generating symptoms and erupting under pressure. Genuine development requires confronting what has been dissociated, not floating above it.

Pride as Frozen Coherence

A distinct failure mode emerges at higher levels of development: pride, understood not morally but structurally as false or frozen coherence—an over-integrated self-narrative that resists updating even as permeability continues to increase.

The form of pride discussed here is not ordinary arrogance or defensiveness, but a late-stage failure mode that arises after genuine integration has occurred, when coherence has become locally stable and self-confirming. This specificity matters: early or gross ego inflation operates differently and may yield to ordinary insight. The pride addressed here is subtler and more resistant.

This creates a dangerous condition: interpretive openness outpaces error-correction capacity. The practitioner has access to expanded content (high permeability) but interprets it through a crystallized framework that cannot accommodate disconfirmation. The result is literalization of a different kind—not the naive literalization of psychosis, but the sophisticated literalization of someone who knows they have attained insight and filters all experience through that certainty.

Structurally, pride is a coherence that has stopped being responsive. Genuine coherence involves ongoing integration—the capacity to hold new content, revise interpretations, and update self-understanding. Frozen coherence holds its shape by rejecting what would require change. This explains why advanced contemplative or spiritual development can sometimes correlate with increased epistemic brittleness rather than clarity: the very success of early integration becomes a template that subsequent experience must fit.

Importantly, pride differs from the non-integrable zone discussed earlier. The non-integrable zone involves coherence collapse—the system cannot process what permeability admits. Pride involves coherence rigidity at high function—the system processes fluently but within a framework that has become impervious to revision. Both are dangerous, but they require different responses: collapse requires stabilization; rigidity requires destabilization through renewed integration pressure.

Buddhist treatments of māna (conceit, pride) are instructive here. The tradition recognizes that pride persists even after genuine insight—it is among the last fetters to dissolve. Crucially, the remedy is not exhortation to “be humble.” One cannot will humility without reinforcing pride (“I am now humbly recognizing my pride”). Instead, pride resolves through renewed integration pressure: failure, correction, relational friction, exposure to content that resists the crystallized framework, descent into what the achieved identity cannot metabolize.

What might be called “humility” in ordinary language is better understood as structural revisability—the ongoing capacity of coherence to be updated by what arises. This is not a moral posture to adopt but an effect of unfrozen coherence. It emerges when integration remains active rather than settling into a fixed interpretive structure. The distinction matters: moral humility can be performed while pride deepens; structural revisability cannot be faked because it is tested by what actually destabilizes.

Self-diagnosis of pride is inherently unreliable. Pride is definitionally self-sealing: it interprets evidence of its own presence as evidence of something else, and the very act of “recognizing one’s pride” can become another achievement the frozen structure incorporates. Introspective insight may sometimes recognize the presence of pride, especially when gross or early. What it cannot reliably do is apply sufficient destabilizing pressure once coherence has become self-sealing.

External friction—teachers, peers, critics, traditions, failures—provides the most reliable pressure for revealing and destabilizing frozen coherence, precisely because it is not generated by the structure it challenges. “External” here does not mean hierarchical authority or epistemic submission. It refers to pressures that originate outside the self-confirming interpretive loop—whether interpersonal, situational, or existential.

For practitioners, this means that pride is not overcome by trying to be humble but by continuing to expose oneself to what requires genuine integration—including the metabolically resistant content that achieved status tends to avoid. Relational asymmetry (teachers, critics, traditions that do not confirm one’s self-assessment), failure, and unanticipated suffering function not as obstacles to development but as the very pressures that prevent coherence from freezing.

Related distortions—addiction to spiritual experiences, compulsive drama, identification with victimhood, motivational collapse—can be understood as coherence failures under stress. But pride is distinct in that it scales with apparent success rather than failure. It is the shadow of genuine attainment, and therefore harder to recognize from within.

The Unavoidable Demand

Reality contains intensities that exceed the integrative capacity of ordinary egoic consciousness. Certain configurations of suffering, fragmentation, and existential exposure cannot be metabolized through explanation, reassurance, or surface-level coping—not because these approaches are wrong, but because they lack sufficient capacity. When such configurations arise, transformation of identity itself becomes the only path to integration. What transforms is not belief or behavior but what one takes oneself to be—the locus of identification must shift from the bounded ego-structure to something capable of containing what the ego cannot.

The lifting analogy clarifies what this means: if a weight exceeds what ordinary muscles can lift, additional strength is required—not as moral imperative but as physical fact. The requirement is structural, not ethical. One does not fail for lacking the capacity; one simply cannot integrate beyond the capacity one has. The sages’ consistent advice—that extensive inner development is necessary for encountering certain depths—reflects this structural reality. They report what they have discovered about conditions for full integration.

This claim applies specifically where extreme suffering, annihilation anxiety, trauma, or existential exposure have already occurred or cannot be avoided; where egoic strategies have been genuinely exhausted; where permeability has increased beyond what current coherence can contain. Many people never encounter such configurations. For ordinary difficulties—moderate suffering, manageable transitions, typical psychological distress—ego-level strategies often suffice, and spiritual development may be optional.

Structural necessity does not imply recommendation. The demand arises from configuration, not from virtue. Many who face it would prefer not to. Encountering the demand is not a sign of progress; it is a sign of having encountered something that exceeds current capacity. The essay describes what integration requires when certain conditions obtain—not what anyone should pursue, not what indicates spiritual advancement, and not what replaces psychotherapy, medicine, or social support. These other forms of help remain essential; the claim is only that they reach inherent limits at certain depths, as all bounded capacities do.

X. Neural Correlates: An Idealist Reading

If analytic idealism is correct, brain states are the extrinsic appearance of mental processes—how consciousness looks from outside, not what it is. Neurobiological findings represent observable correlates of dissociative dynamics rather than their causes.

Boundary permeability appears externally as:

Boundary rigidity appears externally as:

The psychedelic paradox resolved: Phenomenologically rich psychedelic experiences correlate with reduced activity in key hub networks and large-scale reconfiguration. This challenges production intuitions that richer experience should track greater neural activation. Within idealism, this makes sense: reduced activity represents weakening of dissociative boundaries, allowing access to contents always present but normally filtered.

This reinterpretation does not reject neuroscience; it situates it. The goal is understanding what neuroimaging tracks: the extrinsic appearance of boundary dynamics, not consciousness generated from neural tissue.

XI. Safety Considerations and Contraindications

Because this essay discusses boundary dissolution, psychosis-adjacent states, and contemplative/psychedelic practices, explicit safety boundaries are essential. Description is not recommendation.

High-Risk Conditions

The following conditions contraindicate boundary-opening interventions (psychedelics, intensive meditation retreats, breathwork, deep trauma processing):

The Non-Integrable Zone Revisited

The concept of the non-integrable zone is not merely theoretical. When coherence has collapsed below the threshold for symbolic processing, integration-oriented interventions cause harm. The appropriate response is:

  1. Stabilization first: Medication, supportive therapy, grounding, safety
  2. Coherence-building: Only after stability is established
  3. Gradual permeability: Only after coherence is adequate

Rushing this sequence—or romanticizing psychotic states as “spiritual emergencies needing integration”—is dangerous.

Insight Does Not Imply Integration

A crucial distinction: having an experience of expanded awareness, ego dissolution, or mystical union does not mean integration has occurred. Integration requires:

Many who have profound experiences during psychedelic sessions or meditation retreats return to baseline functioning without lasting integration—or worse, destabilize because the opening exceeded their coherence capacity.

Practitioner Responsibilities

For clinicians, therapists, and meditation teachers working with boundary states:

For Self-Practitioners

Those exploring contemplative or psychedelic practices independently should:

XII. Implications

For Diagnostic Practice

Beyond behavioral symptoms and neurochemical correlates, clinicians might assess:

This dimensional assessment cuts across DSM categories. Two patients with “Major Depressive Disorder” may need different interventions if one suffers from excessive rigidity while the other has adequate permeability but insufficient coherence.

For Therapeutic Practice

Psychedelic-assisted therapy: Not “neurochemical resetting” but temporary boundary loosening under integrative conditions. Setting, preparation, and integration work provide coherence scaffolding determining whether loosening produces insight or fragmentation.

Conventional psychotherapy: Coherence-building—developing stabilization (remaining present), discernment (reality testing, insight), and compassion (affect tolerance, self-acceptance). Different modalities emphasize different aspects; effective therapy builds all three.

Pharmacology: Affects the extrinsic appearance of boundary dynamics. Antidepressants may restore energy without addressing rigidity; antipsychotics may reduce boundary breach appearance without building coherence. Understanding these limitations clarifies when medication suffices and when coherence-building work is needed.

For Spiritual Practice

Experiences of expanded awareness are not automatically progress; they may indicate increased permeability without corresponding coherence. Difficult experiences are not automatically failure; they may indicate integration of previously dissociated material.

The framework warns against practices increasing permeability faster than coherence develops. Opening to transpersonal content before capacity to hold personal shadow is established invites the boundary-coherence mismatch characterizing psychosis.

For a Compassionate Psychiatry

By situating suffering within a non-reductive ontology of mind, this framework fosters phenomenologically attuned and compassionate psychiatry. Mental disorders are not cerebral malfunctions to correct but configurations of consciousness to understand and, where possible, transform.

Perhaps psychiatry’s task is not merely repairing machinery but helping consciousness recognize and integrate itself more fully.

XIII. Limitations, Scope, and Testable Implications

Any framework claiming broad explanatory power must specify its limits, clarify what would disconfirm it, and articulate predictions that could guide research and clinical decision-making. This section addresses these requirements directly.

Scope and Applicability

The boundary-coherence model applies most clearly to:

The model is less directly applicable to:

The framework does not claim to replace neurobiological or behavioral models. It offers a complementary phenomenological and structural layer. For some conditions, that layer adds little; for others—particularly those involving meaning, integration, and self-organization—it may prove essential.

Testable Predictions

The boundary-coherence model is a theory-level construct — a mid-level clinical theory developed within idealism’s expanded ontological space, not the ontology itself. As The Generativity Question argues, ontologies do not generate predictions; theories do. The boundary-coherence model generates predictions that could, in principle, be tested and disconfirmed:

Prediction 1: Permeability-coherence interaction determines outcome.

Prediction 2: The non-integrable zone is real and clinically relevant.

Prediction 3: The three coherence capacities dissociate and predict differentially.

Prediction 4: Boundary-coherence configuration predicts treatment response beyond diagnosis.

Prediction 5: Mystical and psychotic states are structurally distinguishable.

Prediction 6: Contemplative development follows the model’s trajectory.

Contrasts with Alternative Frameworks

Versus standard psychiatric nosology: The DSM groups by symptom cluster; this framework groups by boundary-coherence configuration. The critical test: does boundary-coherence assessment add predictive value beyond DSM categories? If two patients with “Major Depressive Disorder” differ in boundary-coherence profile, do they respond differently to the same treatment? If boundary-coherence adds nothing, the framework’s clinical utility is limited.

Versus purely neurobiological models: Neuroscience identifies correlates (DMN integrity, thalamic gating, prefrontal activity). This framework interprets those correlates as extrinsic appearances of boundary dynamics. The models diverge on whether consciousness organization can change in ways not fully predicted by neural substrate. Extreme cases—terminal lucidity with severe neural degradation, rapid post-traumatic transformation, durable change from single psychedelic sessions—test this divergence.

Versus social constructionist accounts: Some approaches treat “mystical experience” and “psychosis” as socially constructed categories without structural differences. This framework predicts measurable structural differences (coherence, regulation) regardless of cultural framing. Cross-cultural studies testing whether coherence measures predict outcomes independent of local diagnostic categories would adjudicate this.

Versus trauma-focused models: Trauma models emphasize historical etiology; this framework emphasizes current structural configuration. The models converge on many predictions but diverge on whether structural reconfiguration can occur without processing historical content. Evidence on whether coherence-building interventions (without explicit trauma narrative work) produce durable integration would test this.

Toward Operationalization

The framework’s two core constructs—boundary permeability and integrative coherence—require operationalization for empirical research. This section sketches plausible measurement approaches:

Boundary permeability (how much content enters awareness):

Integrative coherence (capacity to hold and process what enters):

Coherence is operationalized through its three constituent capacities:

Stabilization (remaining present without overwhelm):

Discernment (seeing clearly without reification):

Compassion (receiving without rejection):

Coherence as composite:

Discriminant validity requirements: The boundary-coherence constructs must be shown to be distinct from existing measures (emotion regulation, mindfulness, cognitive flexibility, psychological flexibility) while potentially overlapping with them. The framework predicts that boundary-coherence assessment will add explanatory power beyond these existing constructs, particularly for predicting response to boundary-altering interventions.

Current Status

Until operationalization and validation work is complete, the framework remains a conceptual model with clinical heuristic value rather than a fully testable scientific theory. This essay does not claim otherwise.

However, the model is not merely speculative. It generates specific, falsifiable predictions; it identifies where existing measures might serve as proxies; and it specifies what empirical findings would challenge its core claims. The pathway from conceptual model to testable theory is visible, even if not yet traversed.

Conclusion

Within analytic idealism, psychopathology, trauma, and spiritual realization are not separate domains but expressions of how consciousness manages dissociation and integration. The ordinary ego is not baseline health but functional compromise—a dissociative alter working well enough for survival while remaining incomplete.

Different traditions have diagnosed this condition with different prognoses. Where Freud, within materialist constraints, saw incurable conflict, contemplative traditions saw awakening’s possibility. The difference lies in what ontology permits imagining.

Healing is not achieved by eliminating content or forcibly opening boundaries, but by cultivating the three capacities constituting coherence: stabilization (remaining present), discernment (seeing clearly without reification), and compassion (receiving without rejection). These same capacities, under disciplined development, also reduce the contractions maintaining dissociative closure. This is why contemplative development is coherent: the same practices building capacity to hold also allow more to open.

At shallow levels, conventional interventions may suffice. At deeper levels, spiritual development becomes structurally necessary—not optional enhancement but the only adequate response to what integration demands. This involves not only healing personal dissociations but progressively accepting reality as it is: impermanent, groundless, marked by suffering, inclusive of death.

The ultimate limit of integration is maximal coherence—stabilization, discernment, and compassion without remainder—combined with maximal permeability that is fully regulated. Boundaries become transparent, consciousness open to its full field, yet the sage retains the capacity to modulate access as context requires. The saints are not moral outliers but structural pioneers: demonstrations of what consciousness becomes when dissociation gives way to total inclusion.

This is not a conclusion that can be forced or rushed. It describes a possibility, not a requirement. But for those facing depths of suffering exceeding egoic capacity, it offers something pure pessimism cannot: a coherent account of how liberation remains possible, and what it would require.

References

Albahari, M. (2006). Analytical Buddhism: The Two-Tiered Illusion of Self. Palgrave Macmillan.

American Psychiatric Association. (2013). Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (5th ed.). American Psychiatric Association.

Andreasen, N. C. (1997). The role of the thalamus in schizophrenia. Canadian Journal of Psychiatry, 42(1), 27-33.

Carhart-Harris, R. L., Erritzoe, D., Williams, T., et al. (2012). Neural correlates of the psychedelic state as determined by fMRI studies with psilocybin. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 109(6), 2138-2143.

Carhart-Harris, R. L., & Friston, K. J. (2019). REBUS and the anarchic brain: Toward a unified model of the brain action of psychedelics. Pharmacological Reviews, 71(3), 316-344.

Carhart-Harris, R. L., Muthukumaraswamy, S., Roseman, L., et al. (2016). Neural correlates of the LSD experience revealed by multimodal neuroimaging. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 113(17), 4853-4858.

Chalmers, D. J. (1996). The Conscious Mind: In Search of a Fundamental Theory. Oxford University Press.

Freud, S. (1930). Civilization and Its Discontents. Hogarth Press.

Greyson, B. (2021). After: A Doctor Explores What Near-Death Experiences Reveal about Life and Beyond. St. Martin’s Essentials.

Grof, S. (1985). Beyond the Brain: Birth, Death, and Transcendence in Psychotherapy. SUNY Press.

James, W. (1902). The Varieties of Religious Experience. Longmans, Green.

Jung, C. G. (1991). The Archetypes and the Collective Unconscious. Routledge.

Kastrup, B. (2019). The Idea of the World: A Multi-Disciplinary Argument for the Mental Nature of Reality. iff Books.

Kelly, E. F., Kelly, E. W., Crabtree, A., Gauld, A., Grosso, M., & Greyson, B. (2007). Irreducible Mind: Toward a Psychology for the 21st Century. Rowman & Littlefield.

Ko, K., Kopra, E. I., Cleare, A. J., & Rucker, J. J. (2023). Psychedelic therapy for depressive symptoms: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Journal of Affective Disorders, 322, 194-204.

Nahm, M., Greyson, B., Kelly, E. W., & Haraldsson, E. (2012). Terminal lucidity: A review and a case collection. Archives of Gerontology and Geriatrics, 55(1), 138-142.

Schneider, K. (1959). Klinische Psychopathologie. Thieme.

Stahl, S. M. (2018). Beyond the dopamine hypothesis of schizophrenia to three neural networks of psychosis: Dopamine, serotonin, and glutamate. CNS Spectrums, 23(3), 187-191.

Tonetto, B. (2025). Return to Consciousness: A Philosophical Journey from Materialism to Meaning.

van der Kolk, B. (2014). The Body Keeps the Score: Brain, Mind, and Body in the Healing of Trauma. Viking.

Veltri, A. (2026). Could Analytic Idealism offer a new framework for psychopathology? Essentia Foundation.

Welwood, J. (2000). Toward a Psychology of Awakening: Buddhism, Psychotherapy, and the Path of Personal and Spiritual Transformation. Shambhala.

Available at: https://returntoconsciousness.org/

Return to Consciousness (rtc) — The core framework this essay presupposes

Biological Competency (bio) — Constraint analysis that may connect to clinical frameworks

Consciousness Across Cultures (cac) — Reference catalog of phenomena this essay analyzes

License

This work is made freely available under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (CC BY 4.0). You are free to share and adapt the material for any purpose, even commercially, provided you give appropriate credit, provide a link to the license, and indicate if changes were made. To view a copy of this license, visit creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0.