James Gray thank you actually because my brain is a bit wobbly here.
I have noticed that ontological pluralism is an uncommon stance.
monism in my schema that I had been working on a little, currently has emergence at the base.
from everything I can see, emergence seems to always be from The activities of large amounts of the same substance.
whether it is bits or flocks of birds or sand.
and yes there is something positively magical about these universal behaviors from different base substances
HOWEVER : three grains of sand and three birds are different.
I enjoy the fierce disagreement and I hope I benefit.
I am unclear here but I don’t see a reason yet not to use ontological pluralism.
What about modes of existence? Is there only one “be”?
to be faithful.
to be a tree.
to be consistent.
to be illogical.
James Gray in an ultimate sense, i’m all for “it’s all one”.
now let’s put together all the different ways humans have devised an “all is one”.
do their ontologies line up?
from what I can gather, ontological pluralism is NOT ontological relativism.
For example, humans have attempted many ways to decide that the base substance of everything is singular in type.
you’ve mentioned Buddhist way.
information theory has a way.
various quantum field theories have ways.
church’s untyped lambda calculus has no types yet “no type” and “only one type” can be equivalent.
that way of thinking allowed for a multitude of typed lambda calculi.
so with a multitude of monisms operating simultaneously, there may be one that is a dominant monism.
maybe it is one that we have discovered and maybe not yet.
but can the substance of that best monism range over every concept in every functioning monism?
The other monisms may be less complete.
but having a different base they may have different abilities that dominating base of reality can’t range over.