An excellent concise and accurate statement of the interactive dualism theory of mind

On my understanding, experience is not a substance: although it is irreducible, it is also contingent (on the experiencer). True substances can't be contingent.

Actually, it's not just more mysterious, but logically incoherent. Pure potential by definition has no capacity to actualise anything. You need an actual existent in order to actualise potential.

My modest background in chemistry tells me the entire body of knowledge of catalytic reactions are based on substances that are contingent.  Speaking in science lingo the terms "pure" and "true" are used with suspect.  Chemical purity is not a state but a count by a detection device.  True is an element of logic - a part of information science - and I have never seen the term "true substance" in either metaphysics or chem.

That potential objects can be actualized is obviously real.  The idea of an information object made of real-world probability is not yet commonly accepted, but I would argue strongly for its relevance.

Let me also say, I appreciate the work that went into that post.

[Laird]

My modest background in chemistry tells me the entire body of knowledge of catalytic reactions are based on substances that are contingent.

You're using "substance" in the non-philosophical sense there though, which is fine, except that Valmar and I are using the philosophical sense.

Speaking in science lingo the terms "pure" and "true" are used with suspect.  Chemical purity is not a state but a count by a detection device.  True is an element of logic - a part of information science - and I have never seen the term "true substance" in either metaphysics or chem.

I was using "true" there in a sort of rhetorical sense for emphasis - otherwise, more strictly, it was redundant.

That potential objects can be actualized is obviously real.

Yes, but only given a real actualiser in the first place. If all that exist are potential objects, then there is no real actualiser to actualise them.

Of course, we do live in a real world, so that conditional isn't satisfied for the world as we know it. It is only satisfied in a hypothetical scenario.

The idea of an information object made of real-world probability is not yet commonly accepted, but I would argue strongly for its relevance.

I'd probably endorse that argument, with the caveat that the information object is in a different category of being to real objects.

Let me also say, I appreciate the work that went into that post.

Cheers.

I'll admit I'm having a bit of a hard time keeping track of the arguments...but could there be a reconciliation via Animism?

If the key distinction is between Experiencer and Experienced, and even Experiencers are part of the Experienced for other Persons...

Could Everything just be Persons? This doesn't have to mean the chair or car is a Person, but rather it is made up of "Persons".

The key difference from Panpsychism is that there is no combination of smaller conscious "bits" since my Person is distinct from the agents (Persons really) making up the experience of my body. Similarly I may constitute a part of Gaia's body (assuming She exists as a Person) but She is a distinct Person as well.

One could say this is another type of Idealism, but I think Persons are not by necessity just mental entities. They can have some kind of extended body...in fact I think the body, as part of the Experience, may be inside the Experiencer...

Anyway just throwing some ideas out there...

Since you think I'm misrepresenting it, I'll try in this post to learn more about it by asking questions or prompting you. I hope you participate. For ease of responding in case you do choose to participate, I've coloured all explicit, non-rhetorical questions in green.

We need a better quoting system, because this starts to get unwieldy, ahaha... I don't like copying and pasting everything...

Since you think I'm misrepresenting it, I'll try in this post to learn more about it by asking questions or prompting you. I hope you participate. For ease of responding in case you do choose to participate, I've coloured all explicit, non-rhetorical questions in green.


Working with intuition is fine, but its outcome needs to stand up to rational scrutiny. You criticise dualism on what you seem to intend to be a rational basis, so it's only fair that you equally accept rationally-based criticism of your own theory.

I am trying to marry experience, intuition, logic and rationality here, and it means having to move past old beliefs that simply get in the way of what I am rawly experiencing ~ namely, non-physical entities that have form, existence, age, memories, and so on. They have minds... and forms that those minds inhabit. They also apparently have souls, implying that astral form is just another form of incarnation and life. I have not really fully wrapped my head around the implications, but I only have one example to work with.

Oh... and that's to say nothing of what my angelic spirit guides ~ the loong spirit finds them... sort of weird and abstract and hard to comprehend. And that's... well, I don't know, actually. It's beyond my ken, frankly. All in all, different perspectives force a new paradigm.

And that paradigm does not fit into the box that Interactive Dualism wants it to. So, something better representative is required for me to actually understand what I am experiencing, else the mental friction might break me sooner or later. I need to expand my mental horizons.

And in that expansion, Interactive Dualism just starts loses any and all coherency. That is the blessing and curse of inexplicable and jarring new experiences that just... blast your old worldview more or less slowly or quickly apart.

Could it though be fair to say then that it is an origin story but in a logical sense rather than a causal one: that logically prior to actual, finite forms is an infinite, formless potential? If so, does this have any particular explanatory power or other theoretical value? Can it not be simply discarded as redundant?

It has explanatory power as to why such apparently different substances can interact at all, despite their natures being so distinct in quality. Because all forms have quality ~ physical, mental, astral, etc. It is curious that in NDEs, the NDEr does have a sense of form, and yet cannot interact with the physical and can go through walls. It is apparently distinct from both mental and physical.

On that note... yes, astral entities, spirits, what-have-you ~ they're neither physical nor mental, so where do they fit? Interactive Dualism requires an ad hoc solution here. One can invoke divine fiat for anything, but that itself starts to uncomfortably feel a little close to "divine fiat of the gaps", as much as I disdain that phrase now. (I rather dislike internet Physicalists...)

Firstly: Dualism doesn't entail God; the two just complement each other well. It's possible that minds (plural) and matter are the preexistents rather than a singular Mind.

Dualism cannot explain why God exists, frankly ~ because what is God, if not a substance-unto-itself? It is distinguished from matter and mind, making it a third substance, contradicting Dualism. Mind and matter cannot "preexist"... because what is their origin? A singular Mind, capital, can just be God proper, with God as the ground of being, like Tao or Brahman or what-have-you. But then "Mind" starts to look like an overextended concept in want of something superior.

Christian Dualism at least makes vague sense, because that divides reality into the worlds of Earth and Heaven, not substances per se. (Doesn't explain Hell, though, amusingly.)

Secondly: The assertion that two substances can't interact is arbitrary and in that respect in itself makes no logical sense.

Two base substances have no logical reason to interact ~ they need to interact per the metaphysic, yet there is no explanation other than introducing a flimsy, ad hoc divine fiat by a third-party. (that just comes across as an unacknowledged third substance, contradicting Dualism...)

Thirdly: God-as-person can create (and design as part of that creativity) because creativity is one of the definitive attributes of God in this context. There's nothing illogical about a creator creating.

The strange thing is why is it easier for God, as an infinite entity, to create outside of God, in... emptiness, a void, rather than within God proper? The mystical and philosophical branches of religion have no problem with existence resting within God. They do not say, from my understand, that God created outside of itself.

Fourthly: When you get down to the basic level, all methods of interaction are left entirely void. All we can do is observe the rules that seem to apply to interactions; we have no deep understanding as to why they apply. This objection is, then, an empty one. It's worse than that though, in that "because a creative agent designed it that way" is a lot more explanatory than "because an infinite, formless potential is logically prior to the finite, actual forms of a neutral substance".

Why does the creative agent need to be a separate substance from the stuff being used to create? It seems rather arbitrary. At the basic level, there is infinity, a canvas upon which all creation exists and can interact by virtue of being the same essential stuff, just in different masks, as it were. It seems much more intuitive and logical that in a common medium, interaction occurs thusly. Physical stuff interacts with physical stuff despite not all physical stuff being of the same apparent nature.

Humans and chair interact, despite being different entities ~ because both have clear physical aspects, allowing interaction.

Lately, I have found myself consider the idea of resonance, vibration, attunement ~ the physical form focuses the mind, allowing it to tune into this reality, to interact through the physical form. It explains why NDErs cannot interact with the physical ~ they have no physical form to attach to, to drive, a bit like a vehicle, vaguely.

Fifthly: The jarring could be because you caricature dualism as more impoverished than it need be (for more on this see below).

I do not caricature, but rather bemoan it's lack of explanatory power.

Sixthly: If you reject the notion that minds (persons aka souls aka consciousnesses) are substances distinct from the substance of matter (broadly conceived), then you need to explain what a mind is in relation to this neutral substance. For an explicit question on this, see further below.

Mind is a dissociation of soul, its existence, expression, perception being limited, modulated, altered, shaped by physical form. Soul itself can exist in apparent isolation from awareness of all else... and take on any identity, any form.

Finally: You seem to be indulging in something of a double standard: critiquing others based on logic, but defending yourself based on intuition.

I am arguing with logic, derived from my intuitions, and moreso, my experiences of non-physical forms that need to be put somewhere in some model.

OK, so, again (you ignored my last prompt to clarify), is the infinite, formless potential the putative neutral substance, or does that neutral substance have some other identity or nature?

It has always been the former for me ~ you sort of need something infinite and formless in order for it to be neutral. It is not identifiable as being any particular form, because it is the root of all of them. Infinity always remains infinite, so limitation merely creates form, and so, quality.

I address this implicitly via my questions re the neutral substance below.

So, is the meat of the matter not logical? On what basis do you suggest we (those to whom you are presenting it) evaluate it if not a rational one?

"Rationality" is slightly vague when talking metaphysics and the nature of reality, which tend to be highly irrational in their comprehensions.

So rationality and logic alone are not enough ~ experience and knowledge are what define the limits of how far we can comprehend, and so how far we can think rationally and logically. New realities provide a new logic... and so, a natural desire to try and fit different systems of logic together that are perceived.

If, though, matter is entirely phenomenal and doesn't exist independently outside of a perceptual state, then this entails idealism, not neutral monism. The SEP entry on neutral monism warns about this under 7.2 The Mentalism Suspicion. The defence described there does not seem to apply to your contention, or, at least, we'd more details about your theory to know whether it could, given that "There is no quick way to adjudicate this dispute. A careful assessment of each case is required."

I used to be Idealist, but that became very uncertain that "consciousness" and "mind" hold comprehensible meaning when I have now experienced multiple astral and angelic entities, including what almost appears to be a microcosm of my soul. I started to worry that using the word "mind" and "consciousness" to describe starts far beyond the usual and even comprehensible can even fit within such now apparently narrow definitions like "mind" and "consciousness", which carry very certain connotations. I hesitate to call "God" a "universal mind", as what does that even mean for an omni-infinity, beyond even the concept of an entity, perhaps?

The angelic entities... they have an existence that feels piercing and profound in their vastness and quality. The bird god... its existence is much too vast to be confined to such tiny notions as "consciousness" or "mind". "Spirit" feels far more comprehensible, as it allows for more expansiveness, without the connotations and appearances that "consciousness" and "mind" bring to the table.

Hence Neutral Monism...

I think that, like Sci has in the past (although I think he understands better now), you present a caricature of substance dualism, because, while substance dualism distinguishes at the fundamental level between minds (which experience) and the "stuff" within which they experience and into which they incarnate, it doesn't limit the richness and variety of those minds (including their properties and capacities) nor of that stuff, which might vary from "dense" physical matter to the astral and ethereal to the "vibration-energy-form-stuff" that you reference later in your post.

It seems rather arbitrary to distinguish between minds and "stuff"... when minds happily contort themselves into the shape of form to express existence through that form. The ultimate identity of mind may not be matter ~ but mind can identify with the matter of the body so closely that they are indistinguishable, as perception has been so closely identified with.

I consider the idea of dreams... especially lucid dreams, which occur entirely within our own consciousness, minds, as we sleep. We can create entire worlds filled with inhabitants in them, that range from robotic to curiously aware and intelligent. So... what is the nature of the lucid dream? Why can this physical reality not be akin to a dream, except that there are powerful rules in place, where instead of being the creation of the dreamer-creator of this reality, we inhabit avatars that exist made of dream-stuff? The dreamer being... souls, I guess, considering that there are higher levels of reality than this.

By mind or matter being "derived" from this neutral substance, do you mean that that substance transmutes into mind or matter? If not, what do you mean by mind or matter being "derived" from it?

In any case, under which conditions is mind derived from this neutral substance, and under which conditions is matter derived?

Note in particular that your explanation has to account for the capacity of minds to experience. This is important and I will return to it later.

Souls, are forms, limitations, which bequeath to them qualities, and so, existence by which they can distinguish themselves as existing comparing to other forms of existence. Minds are portions, aspects, dissociations, of soul, which experience the physical through incarnation, possession, attachment, of a physical avatar, form.

Returning to the dream analogy... we can create anything we want inside dreams through intentionality. We can create, because it is our medium, our creation. We are more or less basically a god in our dreamscape.

But... what limits souls from having the spiritual faculties of creation outside of their existence with enough potential, power, force? The neutral substance is infinite, so it can take on any form that creator creates.

Dualism is by definition strictly incompatible with neutral monism. I understand though that you mean that your neutral monist theory allows for an apparent dualism, but that's not saying anything meaningful, because dualism is apparent on any ontology (with perhaps rare exceptions such as eliminativist materialism).

There is no incompatibility ~ you do know about dual-aspect monism, right? Even Daoism has had a dualism within monism for a very long time.

Wuji ~ emptiness, void ~ becoming Taiji ~ infinite oneness ~ becoming Yin and Yang ~ the duality, complimentary and competitive forces of Earth and Heaven ~ becoming the Ten-Thousand Things ~ manifest reality in full.

I perceive Yin and Yang to be form and formlessness respectively ~ Yang being infinite and pure potential without meaningful existence, with Yin imposing limitation and so existence onto that potential, granting it actualized reality and purpose.

At first I assumed that by this you meant psychophysical parallelism, but later in your post you qualify "Parallelism" with "Interactive", which is oxymoronic: by definition, on parallelism, there is no interaction.

Can you please explain, then, how you differentiate "Dualism" (which is interactive) from "Parallelism" (which you also seem to say is interactive, even though that's not standard usage)? (Not a facetious or rhetorical question: I genuinely don't understand the supposed difference).

Oops. I think I meant Pluralism... words, bah.

As I've made clear, I, too, am using the philosophical meaning.

On my understanding, experience is not a substance: although it is irreducible, it is also contingent (on the experiencer). True substances can't be contingent.

Now, that in itself doesn't invalidate neutral monism, because, on neutral monism, experience doesn't have to be a substance either, merely in some sense derivative of "the" (neutral) substance.

You are using the meaning of substance in the sense of discrete objects. For me, substance is something implying beingness, existence, which doesn't demand that it be stuff that can be sensed. I consider my sense of self to be beingness and existence ~ it is substance in this regard.

The neutral substance is an ultimate beingness and existence which is infinite in scope and take on any number of finite aspects. Because it is infinite, it can even act as the ground upon which interactions between limitations, manifestations, of itself can occur.

The real problems though that I see here for neutral monism as you're defending it are those properties of experience that I've just mentioned, in particular its being irreducible: experience simply is what it is, and can't be reduced to anything logically prior, let alone a prior substance. How could it be that, say, the redness of red, a quale as experienced by a conscious subject, is derived from anything? I'm not talking about the quale in an abstract sense, I'm talking about it as an experience; that is, as undergone by an experiencer. To put it another way, it makes no sense that experiencing-as-a-verb could ultimately be anything other than what it actually is.

It is all the other way around... infinity is irreducible, so there can be infinite finities without infinity proper being lessened. It's still infinity ~ just a subtle shift in perspective... more or less.

Our senses of experience are much limited compared to what a soul can experience ~ it is just a different form of experience. Nothing has been truly reduced ~ it just appears to be, from our perspective, so we can experience this existence as intended.

The contingency is important too: experience logically entails an experiencer. Before considering that more directly, consider that, further, aside from experiencer and experience, you need to explain that which is experienced, much of which is that to which we conventionally refer as "matter". Recall that unless your position reduces to idealism, that matter has to be mind-independent. What, on your theory of neutral monism, is the distinction between (experiencer-independent) matter and (experiencer-contingent) experience?

There is, in a sense, no distinction... because we take on the shape of our experiences, mentally. And yet through that, we can distinguish ourselves through experience. Without experience, there is existence in isolation, infinite nothingness.

That is to say, you unintentionally oversimplify what experience is in relation to the experiencer. The experiencer and experience are one, and yet distinguished by the experiencer realizing that they are not the contents of their experiences. Which is the power of introspection and self-awareness that can only come with experience.

There is no true duality here... it is rather that... experience happens within the field that is the experiencer. The experiencer is everywhere and nowhere within its range of experience ~ yet it can also at the same time be shaped by the structure of the ego into how it perceives its experiences, many being unconscious, some subconscious, a minority consciously.

Thus the duality is an artifact of perception, created a divide from confused framings and definitions. Language can shape our world unwittingly. Hence why my tiger spirit has been slowly coaxing me to look beyond definitions, words, concepts towards pure feeling, to see reality beyond filters, to go beyond the confusion language can bring, as it is limited in scope, and frames things in ways that may not reflect reality. A rather difficult process, as I realize my mind seems primed for language, concepts, definitions. It's almost painful to break through.

Concerning contingency more directly: how does neutral monism explain this contingency (of experience on experiencer)? How can a single, neutral substance both undergo experience as well as be experience? This relates to my question above as to under which conditions mind (the experiencer) derives from the neutral substance.

Without experience, there is no experiencer... hence there is nothing to be distinguished ~ there is just existence in isolation. A monad, without experience, unable to know that it is an existence ~ it is nothing, because it is undefined. With experience comes the experiencer, all at once.

The experiencer creates its own form through experience ~ thus is exists. A sphere, a limitation, caused by experience.

This intuition just hit me now... and I am still a little baffled by it. I don't know quite how to describe it, so feel free to poke at me more. It seems to help me... intuit stuff, hahaha...

Most importantly, how does your theory explain the capacity of this experiencer to experience in the first place if all that an experiencer consists in is a neutral substance that - lest your theory devolve into idealism - at least in some instances (as "matter") does not experience? I have assumed in that question that the experiencer consists in this neutral substance, but maybe that's not what you think. Is it? If not, how do you account for experiencers on your neutral monist theory?

Experience isn't infinite, so an experiencer is defined and so limited by experience. I am uncertain as to the causal nature of why experiencers come to exist, or how experience works... does it start vast, or small? Do we choose to limit ourselves for the sake of unique experiences that limitation provides...?

Summing up: this neutral substance has to be capable of manifesting firstly as undergone experience contingent on an experiencer, secondly as non-experiential matter independent of any experiencer, and thirdly also as the experiencer (who has not just the capacity to experience but who also actually - versus "matter", which does not - experiences) themself. How does it do these three very distinct things as a single substance?

If this post in its entirety is way too overwhelming for you to respond to, then please simply focus on this section and these questions. They are the most relevant and crucial to your defence of neutral monism.

I do not defend Neutral Monism explicitly... I merely seek the ontology, metaphysic, framework that logically and intuitively fits the mental horizons of my experiences. Dualism used to be logical, but then interaction bothered me more and more... hence Idealism, but that bothered me more and more, before being shattered by the experience of... profoundly vast spiritual, angelic entities and then astral entities I can comprehend yet be baffled by, as they are composed of form, animated by mind, have souls, yet have no physical or material nature... and yet my physical form can... interact with them through the medium of... an aura, my astral body, something.

Maybe you can or cannot see the problems that suchexperience bring to the table. Old frameworks cease to fit into this new reality. They just break apart, unable to contain it.

Actually, it's not just more mysterious, but logically incoherent. Pure potential by definition has no capacity to actualise anything. You need an actual existent in order to actualise potential.

Why does it supposedly have no capacity? By what definition? Yours...? I'm just seeking through intuition, then trying to make sense of it.

Pure potential *is* existence ~ just unmanifest, due to being infinite, without form.

There is nothing incoherent about a creator creating.

Of course, the creator's existence is not explained, but the lack of an ultimate explanation as to why anything exists at all is a problem for every metaphysic of which I'm aware.

Not for Neutral Monism or Idealism ~ the Creator is existence itself. Pantheism or Panentheism, if you will, just without the religious aspects.

Souls can create. We create worlds in our dreams. I have no explanation for parallel physical realities that have other incarnations of my soul and have their own rules of how they function and work.

Why should there be only one creator? What if souls are the "gods" of religion, just misconceptualized?

Your theory of infinite, formless, pure potential cannot be that ultimate explanation given that it is incoherent as I've just explained. Hence, aside from its being incoherent, it seems to serve no purpose, hence my asking near the start of this reply whether it is redundant and can simply be discarded.

I could just as easily state that Dualism seems to serve no purpose... but that's just as meaningless a criticism.

My theory feels far more coherent for me and my mental horizons of experience of reality thus far, because it solves a lot of logical conundrums in my mind ~ it resolves a lot of issues that Dualism and Idealism had for me. It explains how inanimate form can be endowed with life, even... because the experiencer exists through experience and the boundaries of it.

Infinite ranges of experience just lead to being... one with the godhead, per the mystical experience, as it were.

That's theoretically possible, but I don't see a need for it, and it unnecessarily complicates things.

The complication for me is how do truly distinct substances, things, even interact? Everything thing that interacts that we know of requires a medium, an interface.

Because the contortions to which the purported common medium would seem to need to go through - if they are even possible, which seems unlikely - to serve the three required roles (experiencer, experience, and experienced-as-matter) that I pointed out above would be avoided.

You haven't even been able to explain why it is contorted or why Dualism is better apart from being apparently more satisfying from an immediate logical and intuitive standpoint as perceived from this human perspective. I seek beyond incarnate perspective, and I have had glimpses of such that force me to seek outside the known.

See above re your having caricatured dualism.


You're literally on a board on which we discuss NDEs, which often enough feature encounters with a being understood to be the personal God.

You might have reasons to dismiss it, but it is evidence, and there are other types of experiential evidence of God too; the story of a prisoner in his cell to whom God appeared, transforming his life, in particular comes to mind.

They encountered beings that they *identify* with God ~ but that doesn't mean that the being literally is what they think it is.

Some certainly do. For example, The Desert Fathers, St. Teresa of Ávila, St. John of the Cross, and St. Francis of Assisi. If they're too Western for you, consider Sri Ramakrishna, who wrote that the Supreme Being when active is the Personal God, who is no different from the Impersonal God when inactive. There are other examples of similarly ambivalent mystical understandings of God, such as those who experience God as both transcendent and immanent. They can't be dismissed as wholly "impersonal" experiences of God.

All of these are human perceptions of something beyond comprehension, interpreted through limited religious frameworks. Not what I was talking about.

It's interesting that you dismiss the relevance of institutionalised religion except for one of the rare exceptions that supports your view.

It's not an "exception" so much as an example that appears to look beyond the limits of religious belief. Which is, well, rare, for obvious reasons, I hope.

Maybe, though, you count Buddhism as a spiritual tradition rather than an institutionalised religion, but in that case, surely Hinduism counts too, in which case: you must have heard of the supreme personal being Krishna. A quick bit of googling turns up plenty of accounts of personal experiences with this personal God.

In Hinduism, Brahman is the supreme existence. It is the very source of even the gods themselves. It is that mystical element in a religion full of humanized deities. Brahman isn't even really a deity ~ it is far beyond that, definitionally.

Probably because that's a totally different experience. Plenty of psychedelic users do experience a personal God.

Yes, but that isn't evidence that God is actually a person proper. Just that they experienced beings or entities they believed were God.

I ran into Jesus Christ during one Ayahuasca journey... it was... odd, but cool, I guess. I asked him about his nature, and he confirmed that he was an egregore, but that he cannot help but be what he is, as defined by the beliefs of so many Christians that believe in him. He is conjured into being by the power of belief ~ and so, he basically exists, I guess. Just not as God or whatever. I also encountered Zeus this one time, but it was... one-off, and a bit funny and weird. Very stern character, all serious.

Fine, but a sample size of one isn't much to go by.


A couple of quickly-researched counter-examples (thanks, ChatGPT): Theosophy and New Age Spirituality.


Some more quickly-researched counter-examples: Bhakti Spirituality, Sufism, Neo-Vedanta, and some variants of Tantra.

All nice and good, but they're examples of beliefs in personal gods ~ which we can debate until the sun explodes.

I am talking about mystical experiences of an infinite light, of the godhead, that mystics experience, that those who go through full-blown classical ego death experience, where they expand to become one with the universe and such.

That's very declaratively and definitively expressed, but the above proves it false.


This is merely an argument from personal incredulity. It carries no logical weight.

Incredulity through personal experience... so it must mean something, if for me alone, alas.

It hasn't been scientifically investigated yet as far as I know - if it even could be - so it seems premature to expect a causal explanation.

I would never expect science to be able to ever give an explanation for metaphysical and ontological statements about reality.

Again, it isn't necessarily due to divine fiat. It might be a brute fact about reality, just as some would say that the causal interaction by which mass attracts mass is a brute fact about reality.

It might be a brute fact of reality ~ yet my spiritual experiences push back against the possibility of such a notion. Theory and experience conflict... I must choose experience, to see where it leads.

I don't know what you mean by this, but it anyway seems like semantic quibbling.

Causal interaction is experienced mentally, but doesn't explicitly happen within the mind ~ we're just witness to physical interactions that we sense.

I'll admit I'm having a bit of a hard time keeping track of the arguments...but could there be a reconciliation via Animism?

I do believe so... in Animism, everything is alive, everything has spirit. Thus, all of reality must be alive in and of itself.

Shamanism itself is strongly animist! And my experiences strongly tend towards shamanism proper, so... I don't know whether I believe in animism. I need more experience...

If the key distinction is between Experiencer and Experienced, and even Experiencers are part of the Experienced for other Persons...

Could Everything just be Persons? This doesn't have to mean the chair or car is a Person, but rather it is made up of "Persons".

That would make it a neutral substance... a Neutral Monism of Persons? Sure!

The key difference from Panpsychism is that there is no combination of smaller conscious "bits" since my Person is distinct from the agents (Persons really) making up the experience of my body. Similarly I may constitute a part of Gaia's body (assuming She exists as a Person) but She is a distinct Person as well.

I have had the very odd feeling that the entity Mother Ayahuasca that people experience on Ayahuasca is soul of the Earth itself. Others have reported getting that feeling from the entity too. But I do not even know how to confirm this. Sure, I could ask Mother Ayahuasca... but that leaves room only for ~ accept or doubt... :/

One could say this is another type of Idealism, but I think Persons are not by necessity just mental entities. They can have some kind of extended body...in fact I think the body, as part of the Experience, may be inside the Experiencer...

Well... is our body not within our experience already in a very direct way, heh. What is the body proper after all, but an... amalgam of physical matter, aura(?), astral body, mind, and whatever other stuff psychics and such say they are witness to? What is that feels the body and all that happens within? The mind, or some... glue that informs the mind in a feedback loop? Maybe the aura is what organizes the matter of the body... and then there is stuff like the immune system...

Anyway just throwing some ideas out there...

All excellent food for thought.

That would make it a neutral substance... a Neutral Monism of Persons? Sure!

I'm not sure it's a Monism necessarily as Persons could be quite different in capacity, with the strongest difference being the potential presence of a self-aware Ground of the Real (what some might call "God"). All we would need is some commonality between Persons that allowed for interaction.

Though I increasingly suspect whether one is a Monist or a Pluralist is tied to how we demarcate the "physical" and "mental".

For example gravity and matter are "physical" but seem quite different as "stuff". Similarly my thoughts about, say, calculus and the taste of a fudge brownie also seem rather different even though both are "mental" in terms of their substance.

In fact one could say matter, gravity, and taste are experiences. My thoughts are also experienced, though this is where we start to enter a grey area AFAICTell. My volition also seems rather distinct from what is merely experienced. And Reason seems to rely on thoughts & subjective feeling, yet also seems distinct as logical chains have a difference from my other thoughts and other feelings.

So then does the distinction end up separating Persons from everything else, including feelings/thoughts/reasoning? Is that a Dualism within an Idealism? Yet the experience of gravity, of matter, even the taste are experiences *of something* that that is in a consensus experience. So is that an important difference, given that in those cases there's a directional "for-ness" that at the very least suggests something outside of my personal mental realm?

All this said, I still personally lean toward Monism....but I am unsure if this is more based on aesthetic preference or a clear logical case. This isn't to say I think Dualism, or any other Pluralism, is more logically grounded...just that it seems after a point we hit a limit that leaves no definitive conclusion.

Stafford Betty - who wrote the article mentioned in the OP - actually wrote a book on the ancient Indian arguments for a Dualist Vedanta, will probably end up getting it and see what the arguments are. Maybe some headway will be made...

I'm not sure it's a Monism necessarily as Persons could be quite different in capacity, with the strongest difference being the potential presence of a self-aware Ground of the Real (what some might call "God"). All we would need is some commonality between Persons that allowed for interaction.

The commonality is the Monist substance ~ nothing prevents it taking on any number of appearances and apparently entirely different guise, shapes or masks or what-have-you. The Persons are all distinct compared to each other, despite sharing the same ultimate underlying nature.

The confusion comes from it not being at all obvious how apparently radically distinct entities can be the same. Do not all entities have qualities and forms? All entities have similarities in one sense or another, even if it as as basic as both existing.

In Taoism, Yin and Yang appear radically distinct in apparent nature ~ on the surface, they appear to share nothing in common, yet they are defined by each other's existence, and have the same ultimate root in Taiji. In Hinduism, Brahman is the ultimate reality, and the source of all existences, forms and manifestations ~ from gods to people to mere matter.

Though I increasingly suspect whether one is a Monist or a Pluralist is tied to how we demarcate the "physical" and "mental".

For example gravity and matter are "physical" but seem quite different as "stuff". Similarly my thoughts about, say, calculus and the taste of a fudge brownie also seem rather different even though both are "mental" in terms of their substance.

Indeed... yet gravity and matter are inexorably reducible to physicality, as NDErs, OBErs and spirits are not affected by gravity or matter, nor do they seem to have any easy time interacting with gravity or matter. All require a physical form in order to interact with the medium of physical stuff. Gravity and matter are... species of physical stuff, I guess, sharing some certain nature. Maybe it's because they are tied to this... plane, frequency, resonance, of existence. The astral plane existing just above this one, which makes sense, considering that astral projectors note that things there don't always match ~ a door confirmed to be closed in physical reality may be open on an astral level, adding uncertainty as to what is going on.

In fact one could say matter, gravity, and taste are experiences. My thoughts are also experienced, though this is where we start to enter a grey area AFAICTell. My volition also seems rather distinct from what is merely experienced. And Reason seems to rely on thoughts & subjective feeling, yet also seems distinct as logical chains have a difference from my other thoughts and other feelings.

Indeed... but as we experience different sets of qualities, we can distinguish between things and categorize them based on those qualities and the nature of their interaction. Sets of things are physical, and cannot be interacted with by things that are not physical... "thing" being used loosely to define an existence or beingness of whatever kind. I would consider minds to be "things" as they are limited in range and scope and have defined sets of qualities, as observed by that mind itself.

So then does the distinction end up separating Persons from everything else, including feelings/thoughts/reasoning? Is that a Dualism within an Idealism? Yet the experience of gravity, of matter, even the taste are experiences *of something* that that is in a consensus experience. So is that an important difference, given that in those cases there's a directional "for-ness" that at the very least suggests something outside of my personal mental realm?

What is an experiencer without experience? An infinite scope and range of experience just leads to an infinite experiencer... making it indistinguishable from anything else, as it is everything... maybe that is "God", though impossible to quality as a "Person", which feels a bit torturous and nebulous to stretch the definition that far, if we were to try...

All this said, I still personally lean toward Monism....but I am unsure if this is more based on aesthetic preference or a clear logical case. This isn't to say I think Dualism, or any other Pluralism, is more logically grounded...just that it seems after a point we hit a limit that leaves no definitive conclusion.

Indeed... Monism seems to work well for those that have experienced the godhead... but it doesn't explain the apparent multiplicity of experience and experiencers... which must logically demand Monism **and** Pluralism... so, Pluralism grounded in Monism, the Monist substance being the ground of interaction...

At some point, it just becomes words and definitions, and confusion that arises from trying to find definitions to describe things that ultimately defy definition... only feeling and intuition can help us at a certain point. After all... concepts, definitions and words are just encapsulations and abstractions of feelings and intuitions.

I say "consciousness", you say "consciousness", a Physicalist says "consciousness" and we all have very different feelings about what that is, and so, concepts...

Stafford Betty - who wrote the article mentioned in the OP - actually wrote a book on the ancient Indian arguments for a Dualist Vedanta, will probably end up getting it and see what the arguments are. Maybe some headway will be made...

It's always good to expand your mental horizons.

The commonality is the Monist substance ~ nothing prevents it taking on any number of appearances and apparently entirely different guise, shapes or masks or what-have-you. The Persons are all distinct compared to each other, despite sharing the same ultimate underlying nature.
The confusion comes from it not being at all obvious how apparently radically distinct entities can be the same. Do not all entities have qualities and forms? All entities have similarities in one sense or another, even if it as as basic as both existing.

In Taoism, Yin and Yang appear radically distinct in apparent nature ~ on the surface, they appear to share nothing in common, yet they are defined by each other's existence, and have the same ultimate root in Taiji. In Hinduism, Brahman is the ultimate reality, and the source of all existences, forms and manifestations ~ from gods to people to mere matter.

I think the challenge here is we can identify two radically different kinds of Persons at minimum, the One & the Many.

Of course this assumes the One is a Person, but here we're assuming there are only Persons. Yet it seems the One would be the Ground of all other Persons.

Now if we add in spirits, including the gods of polytheism, are those the same as human souls? There is an argument that there is only a Ladder of Being which can be found in varied faiths such as Jainism and Voudon. But others would say the gods are in some sense of a different kind than human souls AND the God of Gods. Consider also the idea of angels existing in a state of "Avevum" between the temporal realm of mortals and the eternity of God.

It would seem one could argue these different kind of Persons are different in kind rather than degree. So you could say the[r]e is Pluralism, with common points of interaction between substances that nevertheless maintain radical dissimilarity.

Indeed... yet gravity and matter are inexorably reducible to physicality, as NDErs, OBErs and spirits are not affected by gravity or matter, nor do they seem to have any easy time interacting with gravity or matter. All require a physical form in order to interact with the medium of physical stuff. Gravity and matter are... species of physical stuff, I guess, sharing some certain nature. Maybe it's because they are tied to this... plane, frequency, resonance, of existence. The astral plane existing just above this one, which makes sense, considering that astral projectors note that things there don't always match ~ a door confirmed to be closed in physical reality may be open on an astral level, adding uncertainty as to what is going on.

Indeed... but as we experience different sets of qualities, we can distinguish between things and categorize them based on those qualities and the nature of their interaction. Sets of things are physical, and cannot be interacted with by things that are not physical... "thing" being used loosely to define an existence or beingness of whatever kind. I would consider minds to be "things" as they are limited in range and scope and have defined sets of qualities, as observed by that mind itself.

But we know apparitions and OOBErs can interact with the physical world. I mean obviously they are seen with eyes and heard with ears, but there are cases of them touching the physical world in some way from planting a kiss on a distant lover to poltergeist activity.

This could suggest, if one were so inclined, that the causal "breaks" are an indicator of multiple substances. OTOH, as you note, this could also be different levels/resonances of a singular substance/reality.

I tend to look at this through game design/programming, as it isn't too hard to program seemingly different substances that are ultimately all in the programmed game world. But this might be taking too easy of a Computationalist route though not for consciousness but Everything Else heh.

What is an experiencer without experience? An infinite scope and range of experience just leads to an infinite experiencer... making it indistinguishable from anything else, as it is everything... maybe that is "God", though impossible to quality as a "Person", which feels a bit torturous and nebulous to stretch the definition that far, if we were to try...

It could be the Dual Aspect Monism is ultimately about Persons. There's a Person in whom we exist and have our being - the One aka "God". But there might be bodies of varied kinds, what Eric Weiss would call conscious Occasions in the Whiteheadian sense.

Where this seems to falter is our notion of particles as fundamental corpuscles is giving way to the idea that particles are field "excitations". But we could nevertheless have a Panentheism where our bodies are made from God's body. A more "polytheistic" way of looking at this might be that the physical body is only an experience within our souls.

As Attanasio writes, "He was struck by the sky-wide realization that his soul was not in his body...but rather his body existed in the cosmic immensity of his soul".

This would also return us, potentially, to the idea of a Ladder of Being. So my body in one incarnation may only be at the particle level, and another incarnation may have me being a god in some pantheon...and so on...

[I think there are strong arguments for the One aka "God" being a Person, but this may be best separated to another thread.]

Indeed... Monism seems to work well for those that have experienced the godhead... but it doesn't explain the apparent multiplicity of experience and experiencers... which must logically demand Monism **and** Pluralism... so, Pluralism grounded in Monism, the Monist substance being the ground of interaction...

At some point, it just becomes words and definitions, and confusion that arises from trying to find definitions to describe things that ultimately defy definition... only feeling and intuition can help us at a certain point. After all... concepts, definitions and words are just encapsulations and abstractions of feelings and intuitions.

I say "consciousness", you say "consciousness", a Physicalist says "consciousness" and we all have very different feelings about what that is, and so, concepts...

I guess the question is does the Pluralism reduce to a Monism? This also depends on what we mean by Monism. Is the distinction of Experiencer and Experienced enough to say these are distinct substances?

Perhaps the problem is [we] reach the limit of logical argument without making the [conclusive] case for either [Monism or Pluralism], so all that's left is intuition...though as you note even logic depends on how something feels logical to us...

I think the challenge here is we can identify two radically different kinds of Persons at minimum, the One & the Many.

Of course this assumes the One is a Person, but here we're assuming there are only Persons. Yet it seems the One would be the Ground of all other Persons.

Oneness cannot be a Person, as it is all encompassing... but the Many? Most certainly. It is illogical for a boundless, limitless infinity to be a Person, because that implies qualities... Oneness cannot logically have any perceivable qualities, as it has all, and so, in a sense, none of them.

Now if we add in spirits, including the gods of polytheism, are those the same as human souls? There is an argument that there is only a Ladder of Being which can be found in varied faiths such as Jainism and Voudon. But others would say the gods are in some sense of a different kind than human souls AND the God of Gods. Consider also the idea of angels existing in a state of "Avevum" between the temporal realm of mortals and the eternity of God.

I don't think we can really say that there are "human" souls and non-human souls ~ there are just souls that can take on any form or aspect. So, I would happily define the gods of polytheism and angels as also just being souls.

It would seem one could argue these different kind of Persons are different in kind rather than degree. So you could say the[r]e is Pluralism, with common points of interaction between substances that nevertheless maintain radical dissimilarity.

Indeed ~ but all share the nature of existing and having qualities and not being infinite. So all could still logically have their root in the One.

But we know apparitions and OOBErs can interact with the physical world. I mean obviously they are seen with eyes and heard with ears, but there are cases of them touching the physical world in some way from planting a kiss on a distant lover to poltergeist activity.

Indeed ~ but it is oddly irregular and seems to require a number of things to intersect. The entity needs to have sufficient amount of energy, it needs to understand how to interact, it almost seems to need a powerful emotional connection in some way or another. Ghosts of traumatic deaths are energetically linked to the location of their death.

This could suggest, if one were so inclined, that the causal "breaks" are an indicator of multiple substances. OTOH, as you note, this could also be different levels/resonances of a singular substance/reality.

For me, the idea of "substance" is of something that is the ultimate reality. But that doesn't mean that existence of the individual can be annihilated. I see the individual as a reduction of infinity into existence ~ part of infinity becomes real, and seems to be eternal and undying, because its nature is ultimately of infinity.

I tend to look at this through game design/programming, as it isn't too hard to program seemingly different substances that are ultimately all in the programmed game world. But this might be taking too easy of a Computationalist route though not for consciousness but Everything Else heh.

The problem with this analogy is that the game works through the common interface of the computer, where everything boils down to common CPU instructions.

It could be the Dual Aspect Monism is ultimately about Persons. There's a Person in whom we exist and have our being - the One aka "God". But there might be bodies of varied kinds, what Eric Weiss would call conscious Occasions in the Whiteheadian sense.

This is what I believe ~ the Many may have their root in Oneness, but it makes them no less unique and individualized compared to each other. Infinity may be infinity, but finite entities can be entirely unique compared to each other, yet still interact without any issues.

Where this seems to falter is our notion of particles as fundamental corpuscles is giving way to the idea that particles are field "excitations". But we could nevertheless have a Panentheism where our bodies are made from God's body.

This implies a separation. Does it not make more sense for infinite finities to exist within infinity? Each finity is still separate and unique, but are able to interact through the common medium of infinity.

A more "polytheistic" way of looking at this might be that the physical body is only an experience within our souls.

As Attanasio writes, "He was struck by the sky-wide realization that his soul was not in his body...but rather his body existed in the cosmic immensity of his soul".

This would also return us, potentially, to the idea of a Ladder of Being. So my body in one incarnation may only be at the particle level, and another incarnation may have me being a god in some pantheon...and so on...

[I think there are strong arguments for the One aka "God" being a Person, but this may be best separated to another thread.]

"God" being a "Person" has many fundamental problems, at it has implications of desires, wants, needs, a sense of self, etc. The ultimate substance of every mystical spiritual movement does not describe "God" as a person, but rather as transcendental of any and all such concepts. It is the source of concepts, so it cannot be reduced to one.

I guess the question is does the Pluralism reduce to a Monism? This also depends on what we mean by Monism.

This feels like a common misconception ~ rather, Monism expands into Pluralism, with the Monad and the Plurality existing simultaneously. The true essence of the individual seems to be entirely indestructible, undying and eternal, only ever changing its form, so it seems to be a common trait for all essential existences, perhaps the aspect that it closest to infinity. Without definition or form, essence truly is definitionally infinite... and basically non-existent, as it is non-phenomenal, without defined quality. But that doesn't mean it doesn't exist ~ it does, just with absolute purity of existence. Existence in isolation, perhaps.

Is the distinction of Experiencer and Experienced enough to say these are distinct substances?

Can we distinguish them properly, though? What is an Experiencer if not defined by experience? Only through Experience can the Experiencer understand what experiences that define it, and what experiences it considers separate from it. That is, the Experiencer limits and defines themselves.

Perhaps the problem is [we] reach the limit of logical argument without making the [conclusive] case for either [Monism or Pluralism], so all that's left is intuition...though as you note even logic depends on how something feels logical to us...

All systems of logic are based inevitably on intuitions and axioms, so there is no such thing as absolute logic.

To append to the above... Oneness, the Monad, the Godhead, is truly infinity... and so the infinite Many must also be infinities unto themselves. Each essential individual existence is a point of existence ~ and so, as infinite or finite as it defines itself to be. So... individuals define their own existence out of infinity through the power of limitation, of formation. Which is simply a... power, potential, that Oneness "has" or is or something.

Perhaps... each individual essential existence, of which there are infinite, are simply manifestations of the infinity of Oneness. Like a... fractal.