I hope I have cleared that up.
To a point. Although it baffles me why you would post:
I always thought that an entity as I describe the C C to be would not be able to help but go insane over time and or be terribly unhappy, but it seems that I was wrong. It is not bored to tears at all.
When you meant:
The (they) are the permanent residents there. All were here before they died.
You originally posted referring to "an entity". Singular. You referred to it as "it" - again, singular. Yet you are now saying that was a complete mispost. This is where I struggle with you, GIA - where, sorry to say, I see you as no different from the god-botherers who slip and slide and shift the goalposts.
When you first spoke of the "cosmic consciousness", you were referring to it as a single entity, and (at least) implying sentience to it. Over the course of many posts we were finally at a stage where you'd agreed the cosmic con. had no sentience in and of itself.
And then….in the next post, you are back to referring to "it" as "an entity", back to making it a singular thing that could think and feel. A cynic might feel that you are once again trying to imbue your pet theory with sentience and will again, in hopes that it might get missed.
So yeah - sorry to be so "lawyerish", but it reminds me of the same sleight of hand that Christians deal when they talk about "faith", where they try to jump from a singularity at the start of the universe to a deity with sentience and will.
I'm sure I'm wrong. I'm sure that wasn't your intent at all. But it would make me a whole lot MORE certain if these accidental lapses where you go back to (apparently) describing the cosmic con. as having thoughts and feelings of its own didn't keep happening.