it’s useful to me.
what ontological pluralism allows me to do is not try to change 7.5 billion people today.
I can prioritize now.
its a wager. i’m betting that I’m probably not entirely correct right now.
by embracing ontological pluralism I accept that what i seek is probably down some other path.
but it does not prevent me from pursuing the direction I’m going in either.
this way I can cross my t’s and dot my i’s right now.
an example of how I just did that is the long path I took to get from ontology down to emergence.
it’s taken me several years and I’ve been going around several strange attractors .
now I have them in a line. going small to big it’s:
emergence
processes
properties
objects
categories
concepts
ontology
it suits how i think.
but what if my ontology is wrong and this path, while good, obscures a deeper more correct path to a proper ontology?
enter ontological plurism – not relativism not reductionism – at the top.
There probably *is* a best most correct path. i know my direction is good but i know it’s not enough and i may have to relegate it to a side part of the whole thing, encased in its own section someday as i go on a more correct path.
seeking ultimate things is of course my heading. but i have to leave room for mystery and uncertainty or else i get too cocky. too much more learning i gotta do.