Against monism and metaphysical absolutism (a phenomenological critique)

[Magical Realist]

If there is after all only ever one metaphysical state, be it physicalist or idealist or theist or nihilist, then we would never know it. Because to be the one and only ontic state entails a static and self-contained and eternalist allness without any contrast to anything opposite to it or beyond itself. It would only exist forever tautologically in itself and not to anything else. Stranded off alone without any objectifying space from the outside, it would lack all possibility of being subjectively phenomenal from the inside. An unknown and indeed unknowable beingness that never changes and festers with all the dullness of a monotonous infinity. Disinfected from all messy and contagious possibilities it becomes both raw and arbitrary fact and infallibly predicatable. Supremely self-explainable and so supremely meaning nothing. A 3D map of only itself. A mere lifeless simulacrum or Rube Goldman contraption of repurposed objects that cannot be escaped from nor transcended. It would forever be a given and nihilistic hell indistinguishable from being real or hallucinatory..

It is only between 2 dialectically relative ontic states that there can be possibility and knowledge of themselves as well as of each other. It is the dialectical reciprocity of the two--their mutually instantiating diametricality-- that opens it up to an outsideness and a contrasting otherness and change and a knowable and dazzling omni-presencing that no mere singular state can ever be conceived of possessing.

"How wonderful that we have met with a paradox. Now we have some hope of making progress."---Neils Bohr

[C C]

If there is after all only ever one metaphysical state, be it physicalist or idealist or theist or nihilist, then we would never know it. Because to be the one and only ontic state entails a static and self-contained and eternalist allness without any contrast to anything opposite to it or beyond itself. It would only exist forever tautologically in itself and not to anything else. Stranded off alone without any objectifying space from the outside, it would lack all possibility of being subjectively phenomenal from the inside. An unknown and indeed unknowable beingness that never changes and festers with all the dullness of a monotonous infinity. Disinfected from all messy and contagious possibilities it becomes both raw and arbitrary fact and infallibly predicatable. Supremely self-explainable and so supremely meaning nothing. A 3D map of only itself. A mere lifeless simulacrum or Rube Goldman contraption of repurposed objects that cannot be escaped from nor transcended. It would forever be a given and nihilistic hell indistinguishable from being real or hallucinatory..

It is only between 2 dialectically relative ontic states that there can be possibility and knowledge of themselves as well as of each other. It is the dialectical reciprocity of the two--their mutually instantiating diametricality-- that opens it up to an outsideness and a contrasting otherness and change and a knowable and dazzling omni-presencing that no mere singular state can ever be conceived of possessing.

"How wonderful that we have met with a paradox. Now we have some hope of making progress."---Neils Bohr

SUMMARY: "A Pluralistic Universe" is a work by William James that explores his philosophical theory of radical empiricism. This theory posits that the relations between things are as real as the things themselves and that the world is interconnected through direct experience. James argued against monism, the idea that reality is fundamentally a single, unified entity, and instead championed pluralism, emphasizing the changeability, multiplicity, and unfinished nature of the world as experienced. He believed that the "one and the many" is a central philosophical problem, and his work suggests that reality is composed of many distinct experiences and relations that hold together without needing a transcendent support.

A Pluaralistic Universe (online Gutenberg Project)
https://www.gutenberg.org/cache/epub/119...mages.html

[Magical Realist]

Pluralism never occurred to me. I've recently discovered a sort of mix of phenomenalism and dualism---a sort of investigatory enactment of the dualist dynamism between concurrent thinking and experiencing itself. Between semantic knowing and conscious phenomenalizing. I will have to study James's ideas when I get back from the VA hospital. More grist for the mill! It sounds similar to what I'm currently on the scent of. A sort of practiced demonstration/self-extrication from conceptual objectification itself. From all absolutist metaphysical systemization and reification. I think the existentialists keyed on this as well when Hegel was all the rage. Here's a quote that just popped up on my newsfeed:

“That Socrates belonged to his teaching, that his teaching ended in himself, that he himself was his teaching, that in the actual environment he was artistically what he himself taught — we have learned to recite that by rote, for it can hardly be said that people grasp it. Even the systematizers speak of Socrates in this way. But everything now is supposed to be objective… Objectivity is taken to be higher than subjectivity. Quite the contrary; that is to say, an objectivity which takes shape in a corresponding subjectivity, that is the goal.”–Søren Kierkegaard

[Ostronomos]

If there is after all only ever one metaphysical state, be it physicalist or idealist or theist or nihilist, then we would never know it. Because to be the one and only ontic state entails a static and self-contained and eternalist allness without any contrast to anything opposite to it or beyond itself. It would only exist forever tautologically in itself and not to anything else. Stranded off alone without any objectifying space from the outside, it would lack all possibility of being subjectively phenomenal from the inside. An unknown and indeed unknowable beingness that never changes and festers with all the dullness of a monotonous infinity. Disinfected from all messy and contagious possibilities it becomes both raw and arbitrary fact and infallibly predicatable. Supremely self-explainable and so supremely meaning nothing. A 3D map of only itself. A mere lifeless simulacrum or Rube Goldman contraption of repurposed objects that cannot be escaped from nor transcended. It would forever be a given and nihilistic hell indistinguishable from being real or hallucinatory..

It is only between 2 dialectically relative ontic states that there can be possibility and knowledge of themselves as well as of each other. It is the dialectical reciprocity of the two--their mutually instantiating diametricality-- that opens it up to an outsideness and a contrasting otherness and change and a knowable and dazzling omni-presencing that no mere singular state can ever be conceived of possessing.

"How wonderful that we have met with a paradox. Now we have some hope of making progress."---Neils Bohr

SUMMARY: "A Pluralistic Universe" is a work by William James that explores his philosophical theory of radical empiricism. This theory posits that the relations between things are as real as the things themselves and that the world is interconnected through direct experience. James argued against monism, the idea that reality is fundamentally a single, unified entity, and instead championed pluralism, emphasizing the changeability, multiplicity, and unfinished nature of the world as experienced. He believed that the "one and the many" is a central philosophical problem, and his work suggests that reality is composed of many distinct experiences and relations that hold together without needing a transcendent support.

A Pluaralistic Universe (online Gutenberg Project)
https://www.gutenberg.org/cache/epub/119...mages.html

Hmm. We as humans concern ourselves with everyday affairs.

It is not a huge logical leap to conclude that the pluralistic can be dismissed as an illusion. Whereas monism is in the truest sense the non-separation between things.

[Magical Realist]

"James concludes that experience is full of connections and that these connections are part of what is actually experienced:

'Just so, I maintain, does a given undivided portion of experience, taken in one context of associates, play the part of a knower, of a state of mind, of 'consciousness'; while in a different context the same undivided bit of experience plays the part of a thing known, of an objective 'content.' In a word, in one group it figures as a thought, in another group as a thing. And, since it can figure in both groups simultaneously we have every right to speak of it as subjective and objective, both at once. (James 1912, Essay I)' "---- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radical_empiricism

This aligns remarkably well with what I'm thinking. I posit a third what I call "transjective" state of flow including both enactment and expression that differentiates and yet unites the subjective with the objective.
The knowing and experiencing finding resonance and harmonization in the pure energetic merging of both towards future possibility. It's like how physical sound and phenomenal music dialectically instantiate each other thru the violinist both playing and listening to his playing at the same time.