Ontology: Summary & Introduction
The ontology of Neutral monism that I’m proposing inherits the ‘begottenness’ ontology proposed by some versions of Panentheism But my further step towards spiritual –or neutral- monism brings the two holistic and individualistic phases much closer together –though emphatically stopping short of the paradoxical fusion demanded by classical monism. In terms of the formalism of inequalities: where panentheism might say: I < H. I would rather put it as: I <= H. For panentheists we are, so to speak, vanishingly small subsets within an infinite divine holism, whereas in my case each of us is the whole from a unique point of view –that of our haecceity. Whereas for them we are ‘normal’ –if infinitesimal- subsets of the whole, what I’m proposing is something nearer to the mathematician’s ‘improper’ subset. We are aspects of the Holistic presence, rather than just participants within His presence. Whereas for mainstream panentheism we vanish into the vastness of infinity/eternity, neutral monism allows us to have it both ways. At one and the same time each of us is the whole from the station of our haecceity, yet in a way that forbids our vanishing into that whole. By way of analogy, consider the set of prime numbers. This has been known to be infinite since the the days of ancient Greece, yet their density, within the set of all integers is zero!!.
What might seem at first to be something of a contradiction is the way in which a monist ontology should assign so commanding a presence to individuality –one thinks, classically of monism in terms of a universal solvent of personal identity. Within the weltanschauung of Neutral Monism, pluralism is more than something tolerated, allowed, or made possible by that holism of an eternal infinite unity. Rather, holism depends upon pluralism without which it could not be what it is. I would be tempted to say that holism is ‘grounded upon’ or ‘composed of’ the set of all possible haecceities, were is not for the fact that such terms belong to domain of μ-Logos alone. Within the complementary ψ-Logos, it might be more appropriate to say that holism is inversely dependent upon the haecceity set somehow harboured within it; its elements hang from its unitary apex-of-the-All. In order to maintain this inversion it is necessary to postulate a closure link whereby the ‘contents’ of Holism fold back within itself.
The first of the two illustrations below compares four alternative ontologies in terms of a progressive closing of the gap between individualism and holism. The first and fourth images of the series provide the benchmarks bracketing the spectrum of possibilities. The first emphasizes the virtual disjunction characteristic of the classical theisms. We are not of His substance, being instead created entities, conjured out of thin air, as it were, in the celebrated creatio ex nihilo. At the other extreme is the indistinguishable identity offered, for example, by classical Eastern monism. In the Brahman == Atman that it proposes, these two are little more than different names for the same entity; this is pictured in the fourth of the images. The second image of the series conveys the twin advantages consequent upon an adoption of the panentheism ontology. We are no longer objects ‘out in the cold’ but are safely inside; more than this, we are of the same substance as the Holistic context within which we find ourselves. That is to say we are begotten, rather than created; we enjoy a diophysite ontology. Finally, the third image drives home the point already made above, that within Neutral monism we are more than begotten. Each of us paradoxically, is the whole, comprehended from the uniqueness of our haecceity. We stand astride the Great Divide; one foot in heaven and the other upon earth
The second of the two illustrations emphasizes an attribute that Neutral Monism shares with its classical counterpart. Monad are totally lacking in ontological self-sufficiency, hence are forever absolutely dependent upon an ongoing emanational support from Logos.
|
|
