In any event, instead of trying to find creative ways to pretend that you don't know what I'm talking about, how about realizing that differentiation isn't actually necessary for identification in some regards.

I sincerely don't understand what you're saying. What does 'being everything' mean?

I already answered this above.

Let's try this: what part of this sentence do you not understand?

"Everything is a term for all objects, all phenomena, etc. Anything that occurs, appears, etc. in any manner. "

Do you understand any of those words? Any of them in conjunction with each other? If you don't understand any of those words, or any of them in conjunction with each other, you sure do not need to be on a philosophy board. You need to be taking remedial English or getting some other kind of rudimentary assistance.

We've stalled on 'being everything' - which you seem oddly reluctant to elaborate on. We have to get past that before we can move on. You've explained what you mean by 'everything.' What needs explaining, of course, is the very strange phrase 'being everything' which you've used multiple times.

The elaboration of what "everything" refers to is this: "a term for all objects, all phenomena, etc. Anything that occurs, appears, etc. in any manner."

What words there do you not understand?

What does "being everything" mean?

Everything is a term for all objects, all phenomena, etc. Anything that occurs, appears, etc. in any manner.

Do you understand the sentence above?

What does "being everything" mean?

I'm not interested in pursuing any line of conversation until we work through the one you've stalled on.

How about explaining why the answer I'm giving you doesn't count as an answer in your view? If you don't know the answer and I do, then how would you know that what I'm saying isn't the answer?

You've explained what you mean by 'everything.' I'm asking what the phrase 'being everything' means. I ask that because you've used it multiple times in order to explain your point.

They're not differentiated in terms of being everything — TerrapinStation

'Everything' is, of course, a word I'm very familiar with. "being everything" is a phrase I've never heard, and it's very strange, and I don't understand what it means at all.

You've explained what you mean by 'everything.' I'm asking what the phrase 'being everything' means. I ask that because you've used it multiple times in order to explain your point. — csalisbury

Obviously there's no difference in my usage. "Being everything--x is part of what I just defined as everything"

So, why isn't that an answer?

Just to make sure I understand.

In your usage "being everything" means 'being a part of everything"?

I'm not making a technical point whatsoever, so stop trying to interpret it like I'm writing a computer program. "Being everything" = "everything" as I defined above is fine.

I'm trying to get you to clarify, to be as precise as possible, because what you're saying is not clear. The phrase 'being everything' is confusing and demands clarification. I can't agree or disagree with you if I don't know what you mean.

But alright. Are you saying that, in you usage, 'being everything' and 'everything' can be substituted for one another? I assume that's what the equals sign means. If it isn't, what does it mean?

Are you seriously not trolling? It seems incredibly difficult for you to understand something really simple.

So is that a yes or no?

Ditto

Again:

Are you saying that, in you usage, 'being everything' and 'everything' can be substituted for one another? I assume that's what the equals sign means. If it isn't, what does it mean?

Again: Are you seriously not trolling? That's not a rhetorical question. I want you to seriously answer.

We've stalled again. I'll try one last time:

Are you saying that, in you usage, 'being everything' and 'everything' can be substituted for one another? I assume that's what the equals sign means. If it isn't, what does it mean?

Seriously, are you trolling?

I'm probably not going to talk about anything else until you answer that, no? You could ask again, as if that might make me not think that you're trolling, lol

I'm not trolling

Are you saying that, in you usage, 'being everything' and 'everything' can be substituted for one another? I assume that's what the equals sign means. If it isn't, what does it mean?

You're either trolling or you're unbelievably dense.

I note you're either unable or unwilling to answer the question and so there is no way to progress the conversation.

In both cases, the monistic idea can only be precipitated out of a non-monistic stew. The intent of the monist is always to correct an error, to show how everything is actually one. But that intent can only arise from a situation in which there is, at minimum, a duality. The monist is always required to have some kind of 'fall' story. There was oneness, then there was duality. — csalisbury

“W. T. Stace nicely summarizes the matter :Neutral monism appears to be inspired by two main motives. The first is to get rid of the psycho-physical dualism which has troubled philosophy since the time of Descartes. The second motive is empiricism. The “stuff” of the neutral monists is never any kind of hidden unperceivable “substance” or Ding-an-sich. It is never something which lies behind the phenomenal world, out of sight. It always, in every version of it, consists in some sort of directly perceivable entities – for instance, sensations, sense-data, colours, smells, sounds. […]” From Wittgensteins Metaphysics, Chapter Two John Cook

“In the philosophy of mind, neutral monism is the view that the mental and the physical are two ways of organizing or describing the same elements, which are themselves "neutral", that is, neither physical nor mental.[1] This view denies that the mental and the physical are two fundamentally different things. Rather, neutral monism claims the universe consists of only one kind of stuff, in the form of neutral elements that are in themselves neither mental nor physical” Wikipedia Neutral Monism

I am familiar with the classical monisms, especially materialism or physicalism and idealism. The more interesting form of monism for me is neutral monism. A philosophical notion entertained or adopted by a number of famous philosophers including James, Russell, Wittgenstein and Whitehead.

I have perused most of the preceding discussion in the thread and frankly, I can’t make sense of the majority of it. I feel I do understand the above quotes on neutral monism.

I am drawn to the notion of neutral monism, because I am drawn to the notion of the universe as One, as Unity. In some ways I suppose that is a religious notion and in other ways a unified explanation seems more intellectually and scientifically satisfying than pluralisms. I find both idealism and physicalism as monisms to be inadequate to the realm of experience.

My current view is aligned with the type of monism that arises out of process philosophy. The fundamental units of nature are events which take place in the medium of spacetime. Events have both physical and experiential aspects, attributes or poles. In its basic conception I have yet to find a superior formulation of neutral monism and for me the process approach is superior to physicalism or idealism as a conceptual framework to explain all of our experience of the world. That is the goal of speculative metaphysics, conceptions to explain or help us try to understand our experience of the world.

I don't know all that much about neutral monism, I'll admit. But, from what I do know - and based on the quotes you've provided - it certainly strikes me as a step beyond either material or idealist monisms.

My stumbling block, here, is the difficulty I have understanding what it means for everything to be 'one' or 'unified.' I have difficulty understanding this concept except through visual metaphors (such as an all-encompassing sphere.)

My stumbling block, here, is the difficulty I have understanding what it means for everything to be 'one' or 'unified.' I have difficulty understanding this concept except through visual metaphors (such as an all-encompassing sphere.) — csalisbury

There is a conception in classical philosophy of "independent objects" with "inherent properties".
In truth no "object" exists independently of the world in which it arises and on which it depends. Properties are always relations and not independent or inherent. So the world is already much more unifed, interactive, and interdependent than our typical language and operational conceptions suggest.