In these brief reflections, he used the term "universal" on the meaning of the "universal." The reason for this is the prevalence of the first in current uses, including in particular the field of norms and values, and the restriction of the second, in use, to specific epistemological circles known to those familiar with logic and metaphysics, and to avoid confusion and similarity in contextual use. The cosmic has multiple and different levels of view and fields of investigation and testing, including metaphysics, logic, physics, law, right, ethics, religion, ideology, current etiquette, etc... In each of these fields, the concept of universalism operates in a specific way, and with the disparity of the fields, levels, and contexts of discourse, the goals of the cosmic differ and may contradict in some cases. What is by inclusion or exclusion in terms of the conceptual meaning or in terms of the expansive meaning, in terms of the value provisions that accompany the contextual statement of the universal or in terms of those that charge it from within it.