There is a monist view in which everything is the same, and therefore to make any distinction is already wrong. (This is often termed "nondualism," although that term also means other things in other contexts.) Monism is silly; different things are different. Chalk is not cheese.
On the dualist view, everything is exactly one thing and perfectly distinct from everything else. There is a Truth about whether something is, or is not, a sandwich. This is also silly.
Nebulosity and pattern can't be separated, and neither of them can be nailed down and made perfectly definite. But that doesn't mean they're identical. We can see patterning in everything, and also nebulosity in everything, and they are not the same.
Is that statement then a useful example of when it *is* useful to engage with the seperation of nebulosity and pattern, to non-destructively bridge the spaces between monistic clumping and dualistic splitting, to afford meta-systemic fluidity between those modes and implicit transcendence to an "encompassing" space that includes them both?
Things generally go better when you don't try to seperate them, but learning past that requires stepping into the frame where you did?
Hmm, I think "yes" to your first sentence and "not quite" to the second?
"Not separating" isn't meant to mean "treating as identical." It's recognizing that both are always there; and that they blur into each other, so to speak.
Bless you, David!
Does the phrase "nebulosity and pattern" do exactly what the sentence it's in implores to avoid?
I'm not sure what you have in mind here, but to take a guess:
This is a matter of monism and dualism (https://meaningness.com/monism-dualism-and-participation).
There is a monist view in which everything is the same, and therefore to make any distinction is already wrong. (This is often termed "nondualism," although that term also means other things in other contexts.) Monism is silly; different things are different. Chalk is not cheese.
On the dualist view, everything is exactly one thing and perfectly distinct from everything else. There is a Truth about whether something is, or is not, a sandwich. This is also silly.
Nebulosity and pattern can't be separated, and neither of them can be nailed down and made perfectly definite. But that doesn't mean they're identical. We can see patterning in everything, and also nebulosity in everything, and they are not the same.
Is that statement then a useful example of when it *is* useful to engage with the seperation of nebulosity and pattern, to non-destructively bridge the spaces between monistic clumping and dualistic splitting, to afford meta-systemic fluidity between those modes and implicit transcendence to an "encompassing" space that includes them both?
Things generally go better when you don't try to seperate them, but learning past that requires stepping into the frame where you did?
Hmm, I think "yes" to your first sentence and "not quite" to the second?
"Not separating" isn't meant to mean "treating as identical." It's recognizing that both are always there; and that they blur into each other, so to speak.
Ah! Appreciate that subtle pointing out. We give you thanks.
Unifying the hewn and the unhewn.