I'm not sure if anyone brought this up yet (haven't read the entire thread) but have you considered an "essence dualism" - this so as to avoid all the pitfalls of "substance dualism"?

Here is one possible example of an essence dualism; Here leaning on Hindu views as one example, one could then posit an essence of "maya (illusion or magic-trick in an ultimate sense of reality, which would in traditional views include both mater and mind)" and a separate essence of "pure awareness" (which is non-illusory actuality).

No worries if this doesn't make much sense or else work for you. But I thought I'd mention it just in case.

---

BTW, the distinction between substance and essence can get easily complex and maybe at times convoluted, but for example:

Substance theory, or substance–attribute theory, is an ontological theory positing that objects are constituted each by a substance and properties borne by the substance but distinct from it. In this role, a substance can be referred to as a substratum or a thing-in-itself.[1][2] Substances are particulars that are ontologically independent: they are able to exist all by themselves.[3][4] Another defining feature often attributed to substances is their ability to undergo changes. Changes involve something existing before, during and after the change. They can be described in terms of a persisting substance gaining or losing properties.[3] Attributes or properties, on the other hand, are entities that can be exemplified by substances.[5] Properties characterize their bearers; they express what their bearer is like.[4] — https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Substance_theory

vs.:

The English word essence comes from Latin essentia, via French essence. The original Latin word was created purposefully, by Ancient Roman philosophers, in order to provide an adequate Latin translation for the Greek term ousia.

The concept originates as a precise technical term with Aristotle (although it can also be found in Plato),[1] who used the Greek expression to ti ên einai[2] literally meaning "the what it was to be." This also corresponds to the scholastic term quiddity or sometimes the shorter phrase to ti esti[3] literally meaning "the what it is" and corresponding to the scholastic term haecceity (thisness) for the same idea. This phrase presented such difficulties for its Latin translators that they coined the word essentia to represent the whole expression. For Aristotle and his scholastic followers, the notion of essence is closely linked to that of definition (horismos).[4] — https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Essence#Etymology

So roughly construed - to provide just one more example - the Neoplatonic "the One" could then not be a substance - but it might conceivably be referred to as essence (in at least certain interpretations of it, such as in addressing it as that which is "essential" to being itself - this in contrast to something like the aforementioned maya being essential only relative to existence (that which "stands out") at large ... but maybe all this is a bit off topic).

Again, though, no problems if this seems to hinder your position rather than help it.

It's terminological mess, and I'm not overly bothered what term I settle on. I'm a substance monist, and I think there is more than one fundamental property. So the stuff of the universe is both conscious, extended, and/or whatever properties you need to generate a universe. I don't actually know what they are except that I think consciousness has to be one of them. I am definitely not a strong emergentist about consciousness, and probably not about anything else either.

I don't call myself a physicalist because most physicalists are emergentists about consciousness - the view that consciousness is reducible to structure and function seems a central tenet of many physicalists' views. But like physicalists, I don't believe in mental ectoplasm. I think everything we observe is structure and function.

Nor would I call myself an idealist, as that has the same error as physicalism but in the opposite direction. You can't get structure and function from just the property of consciousness. @javra mentions dual-aspect monism, maybe that's me.

interesting, thanks for elucidating

I don't know much about the terminologies. It seems every term has a dozen sub-categiries. Matter and energy are all the same thing, aren't they? It's all particles. But there are multiple primary particles, right? Photons and electrons are not made of anything else. Protons and neutrons are made of quarks. Aren't neutrinos also primary? Can monism be the answer if we already have those? And I believe there are others.

But there are multiple primary particles, right? Photons and electrons are not made of anything else. Protons and neutrons are made of quarks. Aren't neutrinos also primary? Can monism be the answer if we already have those? — Patterner

On a physical level of understanding, all quanta themselves emerge from the quantum vacuum state:

In quantum field theory, the quantum vacuum state (also called the quantum vacuum or vacuum state) is the quantum state with the lowest possible energy. Generally, it contains no physical particles. The term zero-point field is sometimes used as a synonym for the vacuum state of a quantized field which is completely individual.[clarification needed]

According to present-day[when?] understanding of what is called the vacuum state or the quantum vacuum, it is "by no means a simple empty space".[1][2] According to quantum mechanics, the vacuum state is not truly empty but instead contains fleeting electromagnetic waves and particles that pop into and out of the quantum field.[3][4][5] — https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_vacuum_state

... which is located neither here nor there but, quite literally, is physically everywhere - omnipresent.

In then interpreting the vacuum state to be physical, such that all physicality emerges from it in one way or another, physicalism can well be preserved despite the many different variants of quanta that are known to occur.

Can monism be the answer if we already have those? — Patterner

Funnily enough I had the same question myself the other day. "If physics has many quantum fields, does that mean it's not technically monism?"

I guess the reason it is is, even though they're different, they're still the same type of thing.

On a physical level of understanding, all quanta themselves emerge from the quantum vacuum state — javra

There’s an author you might find interesting if you haven’t encountered him, Federico Faggin. He’s a notable Silicon Valley pioneer who had a profound experience of spiritual awakening in his 30’s and has gone on to devote his life to consciousness studies. His recent book is Irreducible:Consciousness, Life and the Physics of the Self. I am currently reading it, although it’s not an easy read. In any case, the whole thrust of the book is (as I understand it) the quantum nature of consciousness. He presents the idea of ‘seity’ - the individual, conscious subject as a unique center of experience that cannot be reduced to anything more fundamental. The term is derived from the Latin se, meaning “self” or “itself,” and is meant to emphasize irreducible individuality and interiority. In some respects it is quite Liebnizian, although without Liebniz’ ‘pre-established harmony’. A seity is not an organism, but it is what the organism expresses. It’s also close in some ways to the Greek ‘psuche’.

In any case, the whole thrust of the book is (as I understand it) the quantum nature of consciousness. He presents the idea of ‘seity’ - the individual, conscious subject as a unique center of experience that cannot be reduced to anything more fundamental. — Wayfarer

Yes, that's indeed up my alley, so to speak. Thanks for the reference. :up:

I think you will like it. He's not well known in academic philosophy circles as he's come from outside the ivory tower, but I think he's the real deal.

I also noticed your explication of substance/essence above. It's an important topic. I tried to introduce the topic of what substance means in philosophy as distinct from everyday use earlier in the thread. I think I'll write an OP on it.

I think you will like it. — Wayfarer

A fellow "mystic"? Sure! I think I'd like it as well. :wink:

I also noticed your explication of substance/essence above. I tried to introduce the topic of what substance means in philosophy as distinct from everyday use earlier in the thread. I think I'll write an OP on it. — Wayfarer

If you do, substances aside, I'd be interested on any offerings regarding the notion of essence-dualism. Again, this for example as per the Hindu distinction between maya and pure-consciousness/atman.