There is one monism: "the truth". It remains the same regardless of what we make of it. As its the truth - it doesn't change. Science is not equal to the truth as ethics, spirituality, consciousness, art, religion and philosophy also exist and aren't explicable by scientific method (one tool out of many).

However they all have overlap, and the overlap portends to the truth.

I've seen "beyond being," i.e., beyond existence, taken to mean that the source and foundation of all existence must itself be, in some sense, independent of existence... — Art48

There's a crucial point behind this, which is the meaning of what exists and what is, are not necessarily synonymous, whereas it is usually assumed that they have the same meaning: to say 'something exists' and 'something is', is to say the same thing. That is made explicit in positivism generally, and logical positivism in particular, which says that only statements about matters of fact carry any meaning. But it is also characteristic of empiricism and naturalism: that what is real are natural phenomena, which can be known objectively - what is 'out there, somewhere', ascertained to exist, or inferred as existing based on observed phenomena. But 'what is real' holds a larger sense than that, because (among other things) it includes the observing subject. It also includes the ever-shifting network of dynamic causal connections that together comprise the unique attributes of this moment.

It is the intuitive insight into that totality which has been called 'the unitive vision'. In Western philosophy, it is associated with Plotinus:

Plotinus's philosophy is difficult to elucidate, precisely because what it seeks to elucidate is a manner of thinking that precedes what one terms discursive thought. Discursive thought is the sort of thinking we do most often in a philosophical discussion or debate, when we seek to follow a series of premises and intermediate conclusions to a final conclusion. In such a thinking, our minds move from one point to the next, as if each point only can be true after we have known the truth of the point preceding it. The final point is true, only because we have already built up one by one a series of points preceding it logically that are also true. In the same way, the meaning of the sentence I am now speaking only builds itself up by the addition of each word, until coming to its conclusion it makes a certain sense built of the words from which it is constituted.

Because discursive thinking is within ordinary time, it is not capable of thinking all its points or saying all its words in the very same moment. But Plotinus wishes to speak of a thinking that is not discursive but intuitive, i.e. that it is knowing and what it is knowing are immediately evident to it. There is no gap then between thinking and what is thought--they come together in the same moment, which is no longer a moment among other consecutive moments, one following upon the other. Rather, the moment in which such a thinking takes place is immediately present and without difference from any other moment, i.e. its thought is no longer chronological but eternal. To even use names, words, to think about such a thinking is already to implicate oneself in a time of separated and consecutive moments (i.e. chronological) and to have already forgotten what it is one wishes to think, namely thinking and what is thought intuitively together. — Plotinus, Class Lecture Notes

Plotinus' philosophy was enormously influential on the successive ages of philosophy, up until and including Hegel, although subsequently deprecated, at least in English-speaking philosophy. The point being, that something like this 'unitive vision' is required to make sense of philosophical monism, if it is not to be reduced to a kind of caricature which takes 'the one' to consist of a kind of agglomeration of everything that exists. It is within the context of that unitive understanding that the distinction between 'what is real' and 'what exists' is, at least, intelligible, and which provides a framework for the meaning of monism.

↪Art48
There is one monism: "the truth". It remains the same regardless of what we make of it. As its the truth - it doesn't change. Science is not equal to the truth as ethics, spirituality, consciousness, art, religion and philosophy also exist and aren't explicable by scientific method (one tool out of many).

However they all have overlap, and the overlap portends to the truth. — Benj96

I agree, mostly, but have one question: if there’s a truth about ethics, would that imply that moral values are objective, not subjective?

I accept Hume’s is-ought distinction which rules out objective moral values. But if we choose a goal—human flourishing, for instance—then science provides the map of reality and we can use that map to determine optimum paths to the goal. The optimum paths imply moral values, i.e., the best way to behave to bring about human flourishing.

Wayfarer,

I’ve also seen the distinction that “exists” applies to what exists in spacetime and “subsists” applies to our ideas and other abstract objects.

If we take “is” to apply to everything, then we have the idea of direct experience of “isness.” The Hindu sage Ramakrishna taught we can “taste sugar” (i.e., experience isness as something other than ourself) and we can “be sugar” (which I take to refer to unitive vision).

P.S. as you may know, the thought of Plotinus entered the West via the mistaken identification of the “Dionysius the Areopagite” (also called Pseudo-Dionysius) who wrote in the 5th or 6th century with an individual named Dionysius that St. Paul is said to have converted.

I agree, mostly, but have one question: if there’s a truth about ethics, would that imply that moral values are objective, not subjective? — Art48

Morality is telling the truth. Because truth portends to knowledge, power, control, capacity to reveal the nature of things but most importantly, to use the truth to good/benevolent ends (ethics).

A well informed/educated person can take on more ethical responsibility because they know more of the truth.
For example one who discovers how to correct poor vision now is faced with the responsability of freely sharing their knowledge (of the truth) to aid those that cannot see. They may also decide not to share it and let the poor sighted stumble and fall. Or they may choose to share only part, just enough to empower themselves, to serve their own needs/purposes and gain an advantage.

That's objective/absolute moral because the fundamental truth exists (a singular thing that underlies all of reality) and is objective (unchanging/consistent at all times - it wouldn't be the whole truth if it wasn't) and absolute (fundamental). Thus telling it is also objective and essential/fundamental.

If we don't know what the truth is it we can't tell it. We can tell at most a "guesstimate" - a rough, flawed approximation of it, containing some lies, deceit or delusions. That is subjective morality as opposed to objective morality.

Absolute moral is at one end of the scale (knowing the truth and telling it). Absolute immorality is at the other (knowing the truth and telling none of it), and in the middle we have a mix of delusions - a lack of a full set of knowledge of the truth, or, subjective "partial truths" to varying degrees of truthfulness.

In this way objective moral and subjective moral both exist simultaneously. The difference is the degree of awareness. How much of the whole truth one knows, and thus how much responsibility one is willing to take on.

I accept Hume’s is-ought distinction which rules out objective moral values. But if we choose a goal—human flourishing, for instance—then science provides the map of reality and we can use that map to determine optimum paths to the goal. The optimum paths imply moral values, i.e., the best way to behave to bring about human flourishing. — Art48

Science is excellent at exposing the truth in a consistent measurable way. Sadly it is not a means to expose the whole truth. Because art is true. Emotions are true. Imagination is true. Science doesn't deal with these. If someone is alone and cries. Nobody witnesses it. Only that person knows it was true that they cried. Science is to no avail here. Therefore it cannot expose the whole truth. So in pursuit of a whole truth, science is but a single tool, common sense, reasoning, logic, empathy and intuition are a other tools that can be used to approach the aspects of fundamental truth that science does not deal with.

Monism: the idea that only one supreme reality exists. Why posit monism? — Art48

For Materialists, the term "Universe" is the ultimate reality. But philosophers have long postulated that there may be more than meets the eye. And we "see" that More in imagination. In some contexts, I call it "Ideality" as a parallel to "Reality". Since that unreal something More cannot be empirically proven to exist, I suspect that some philosophers created the Ontological term Monism (one substance) to represent both the physical substance of Universe, and the metaphysical substance*1 of The Whole --- including whatever gods may be, and abstract/ideal principles, such as Logos.

So, "why posit monism"? Probably because Monism is a philosophical ideal : unattainable perfection, by contrast with the complexities & contradictions of Pluralistic Dualism. Reductively, if you trace the evolution of everything real & knowable (the Universe : single circle : all encompassing) back in spacetime, you eventually arrive a singular point, at which Time & Space disappear into the immeasurable : Infinity. And that innumerable number has always seemed both scary & significant for philosophers, along with the all-encompassing notion of Unity : the bookends of reasoning : the Beginning and the End. E Pluribus Unum. Why stop short of perfection; even if it's only an Ideal?

Even before modern science began to put numbers on everything --- including invisible intangible things --- mathematical thinkers could imagine that all number series must begin with the concept of Infinite Possibility subsumed in Monism. Mundane Plurality is the beginning point for physical Science, which aspires to reduce complex things down to an essential Atom : the essence of Form. But Quantum Physics has discovered that it may be impossible to touch the bottom of an Infinite regression. So, the scientists eventually gave up on Atomism, and posited a singular universal virtual Energy Field of all physical possibilities. Yet, they still resist defeat of their doctrine of infinite Reductionism in the non-reductive concept of Monism/Holism/Infinity. That would be admission of a physical limit to human Reason. Which would require resort to the metaphysical Imagination of Philosophical postulation.

All encompassing Unity (real + ideal) is the ultimate goal for meta-physical {e.g.. the realm of ideas ; the Ideosphere ; the Dataome} Philosophy, which seeks to understand physical Reality by discovering what all things have in common : their Ultimate Pre-physical Source : The One. Ironically, both reasoning methods can only work with that which lies in between the imaginary brackets of First & Last : All = Alpha & Omega = Unity = The One = the Ultimate Category for both Reductionists and Holists. For all practical purposes, Infinity = Emptiness = Ultimate Ground : the limit of human Reason & Existence. Ooops! Is all that included in Monism? Metaphysical Ontology can get out of hand. And this stuff is over my head. :smile:



*1. Infinity and Unity : Mathematics and Metaphysics :
According to Leibniz, any living being admits of both infinite complexity and strict unity. The author develops an analogy between numerical and metaphysical unity: while substantial unities are presupposed by aggregates, a substantial unity is also presupposed by a substance’s infinite qualities, or by its sequence of states and perceptions. This point is exemplified and developed through Leibniz’s use of a law of a series to define an individual substance. The author seeks to show that Leibniz’s qualification of a substance as “one being” is primarily intended to emphasize the essential unity and indivisibility of a substance. This claim can also be expressed by noting that unity per se (or an indivisible unity) implies numerical oneness but not vice versa.
https://academic.oup.com/book/34904/chapter-abstract/298474842?redirectedFrom=fulltext

Monism: the idea that only one supreme reality exists. Why posit monism? — Art48

It occurs to me a tendency towards monism is built into our language when we recognize universals.

Suppose a child has a pet cat "Fluffy". If the child lives isolated, on a remote farm, for instance, the child may believe that Fluffy is unique in all the universe. But eventually the child learns that Fluffy is a cat and that there are other cats in the world. So, the child sees Fluffy as an instantiation of the class "cat." Later, the child learns that cats and dogs are instantiation of the class "pet," and that cats, dogs, elephants, and people are instantiations of the class "animal." An obvious idea is that all things are an instantiation of something deeper. Thus, positing monism is natural and understandable.

[To be explicit, I'm not claiming this proves monism, only that it makes the idea natural and obvious.]

I mentioned the book The One, by Heinrich Pas, earlier in the thread - see this Aeon essay by the author with a synopsis of some of the ideas in that book. (Also worth taking the time to peruse the reader comments and author responses.)

"Why posit an ultimate ground? Is not what is sufficient? Is the world too imperfect for it to exist without it depending on something else? Does being ungrounded cause vertigo? A yawning abyss one is too fearful to approach?" – Fooloso4
From the thread “Inmost Core and Ultimate Ground”
https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/14220/inmost-core-and-ultimate-ground

Monism: the idea that only one supreme reality exists. Why posit monism?

Science
Science tends towards monism. There are unnumbered physical objects but they are all composed of about 92 naturally occurring elements, which at one time were thought to be composed of 3 elements (proton, neutron, electron) but are today believed to be based on the 17 entities of the Standard Model. Science is searching for a “theory of everything” which unites quantum mechanics and relativity. If found, a theory of everything might provide a monist theory of all physical objects.

Philosophy
From the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy’s entry on Plotinus
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/plotinus
A central axiom of that tradition was the connecting of explanation with reductionism or the derivation of the complex from the simple. That is, ultimate explanations of phenomena and of contingent entities can only rest in what itself requires no explanation. If what is actually sought is the explanation for something that is in one way or another complex, what grounds the explanation will be simple relative to the observed complexity. Thus, what grounds an explanation must be different from the sorts of things explained by it. According to this line of reasoning, explanantia that are themselves complex, perhaps in some way different from the sort of complexity of the explananda, will be in need of other types of explanation. In addition, a plethora of explanatory principles will themselves be in need of explanation. Taken to its logical conclusion, the explanatory path must finally lead to that which is unique and absolutely uncomplex. — Art48

IMHO, Monism contradicts common sense as well other things such as concept of dukkha taught in Buddhism.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Du%E1%B8%A5kha

If "God" or something like "God" did exist, it pretty much begs the question as to why he/she/it would also allow dukkha to exist. In the West this issue is similar to the issue know as the "problem of evil".

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Problem_of_evil

I could be wrong, but religions based on Monism allow religions based on such teaching to have more power and control than religions NOT based on Monism. One only has to look at the difference between Abrahamic religions (the three most influent Monotheistic religions in the world) and compare them to non-monotheistic religions to see this difference.

Monism type religions are a means and a way to allow those in power to control those beneath them much like the totalitarian societies in George Orwell's book "1984" control the people beneath them. The only difference I see between them is Monism mostly rely on religious beliefs to control people where as the totalitarian societies rely on technology and psychology to control theirs.

If you think about a time line, with past present and future, and consider strict physical monism you should realize that only the present can be addressed because the past and future do not physically exist. So this exposes a fallacy of the monism/dualism question that doesn't get addressed in philosophy.

The best solution I can suggest is to develope our best models of physical matter and biological brains to explain (understand) why we perceive past, present and future.

When we recall the past we are thinking about something that is physically nonexistent. So you could say our brains have the ability to contain non-physicals. Similar with the future. And, by reason of similar acting mechanism, when we perceive the present we are containing a non-physical.

lol, forgot to ever submit this response from a while ago.



The last place I saw such a point being made was Quentin Lauer's "Hegel's Conception of God," which I realize has the unfortunate problem of coming from a commentary on a philosopher who no one can agree on :lol:.

That said, I can't think of any sense in which I've ever heard the contention of multiple types of logical necessity, as in, these different types being elements of fundamentally different things. Certainly, in the view that logic is merely a game, the different forms of logic are different, although the same sort of thing (games), but this would be a position that tends to deny that logic "really exists," independent of minds, not one that posits fundamentally different types of reason.

Anyone else know of one? The closest I can think of is the idea of different axioms in formal systems, but then those are still generally acknowledged to be the same type of reason, not multiple different types, and we have things such as model theory for looking across systems.

Saint Paul talks of the wisdom of the world versus the wisdom of God in the opening of I Corinthians, but this seems to be a difference in quality, not necessarily a difference in type. The hints at later Logos Theology in Paul's letters sort of undercut the idea of God's wisdom being its own type anyhow.

Plotinus' philosophy was enormously influential on the successive ages of philosophy, up until and including Hegel, although subsequently deprecated, at least in English-speaking philosophy. The point being, that something like this 'unitive vision' is required to make sense of philosophical monism, if it is not to be reduced to a kind of caricature which takes 'the one' to consist of a kind of agglomeration of everything that exists. It is within the context of that unitive understanding that the distinction between 'what is real' and 'what exists' is, at least, intelligible, and which provides a framework for the meaning of monism. — Wayfarer

Thanks. I know very little about Plotinus and Neoplatonism, but the notion of "unitive vision" seems to be common to both Early Greek and Eastern philosophies. I suppose that today we would call it subjective "Intuition", as opposed to objective "Observation".

The "distinction between 'what is real' and 'what exists' " may be the crux where Materialism and Monism part ways. For a materialist, the physical/material Universe is all that exists, excluding all metaphysical (mental) phenomena, and mathematical possibilities. Apparently, for Monists, "all" is more inclusive, going beyond the scientific Real, that can be observed, into the realm of philosophical Possibility & Potential.

Yet the same anti-metaphysical "deprecation" is applied to both Spiritualism and Holism. Although they are not the same thing. As you implied, the monistic Whole is not just an "agglomeration" of many parts, but a separate entity in its own right*1, with global properties/qualities that do not exist in isolated components. Ironically, Quantum Physics has discovered a new kind of Holism in the strange physical phenomena of Entanglement*2 : unreal statistical/relational existence*3. What then, is the nature of such incorporeal existence? :smile:


*1. A Spiritualist might call it "God" ; presuming to attribute humanlike properties to The One. But a Holist, lacking direct revelation, must be satisfied with a more abstract conception.

*2.Merelogical Holism :
A composite quantum system has properties that are incompatible with every property of its parts. The existence of such global properties incompatible with all local properties constitutes what I call "mereological holism"--the distinctive holism of Quantum Theory.
https://arxiv.org/abs/2102.01438

*3. In logic, philosophy and related fields, mereology is the study of parts and the wholes they form. Whereas set theory is founded on the membership relation between a set and its elements, mereology ... Wikipedia

I mentioned the book The One, by Heinrich Pas, earlier in the thread - see this Aeon essay by the author with a synopsis of some of the ideas in that book. (Also worth taking the time to peruse the reader comments and author responses.) — Wayfarer

Very interesting article. The comments and responses were indeed fascinating.

. I suppose that today we would call it subjective "Intuition", as opposed to objective "Observation". — Gnomon

I'd question that - it is because it is interpreted through the subject-object perspective that we fail to grasp its import. This interpretation subjectivizes or relativizes insight, making it a personal matter, whereas its import is precisely that it is transpersonal. Many will say that there is 'no intersubjective validation' available for such insights, but that is because today's criteria are generally empirical, recognising only what can be observed and validated by sense-perception.

There's a deep issue at the back of this that is central to my personal quest. It has to do with the emergence of objective consciousness at the basis of the modernity.

I put a question to ChatGPT:

Q: What did Heidegger say about the impact of 'objectification' of consciousness?

A: Heidegger argues that objectification involves reducing the world to a collection of objects that are available for manipulation and control. This way of looking at the world has the effect of distancing us from the world and from our own being. We come to see ourselves and others as objects, and our relationship to the world becomes one of mastery and domination.

According to Heidegger, this way of thinking and relating to the world obscures the true nature of things and leads to the forgetfulness of being. Instead of being attuned to the world and open to its possibilities, we become caught up in a narrow, instrumental way of thinking that limits our understanding and our experience.

Heidegger's solution to this problem involves a return to a more authentic way of being in the world, which he calls "being-toward-death." This involves facing up to the fact of our own mortality and recognizing the finitude and fragility of our existence. By embracing our own mortality and our own vulnerability, we can come to a deeper understanding of ourselves and our relationship to the world.

So 'objectification' is the hallmark of the modern condition and state of consciousness, it's the water we swim in. Whereas the 'unitive vision' occurs in a different register, usually associated with poets, artists and mystics, although it is spoken of by scientists at times, such as an oft-quoted letter from Einstein.

I like the fact that physicists are exploring these ideas.

I personally think that if all is "one" then that would pose a massive problem for ethics.

Can you say how?

I imagine that the objection is: one what?

I put a question to ChatGPT:

Q: What did Heidegger say about the impact of 'objectification' of consciousness? — Wayfarer

Here is what the Bingbot had to say in answer to the same question:

Heidegger believed that the human subject had to be reconceived in an altogether new way, as “being-in-the-world.” Because this notion represented the very opposite of the Cartesian “thing that thinks,” the idea of consciousness as representing the mind’s internal awareness of its own states had to be dropped. Heidegger makes a strong case that consciousness should not be considered either neurons firing in the brain or some substance in itself; instead, both of these understandings are inauthentic as they fail to recognize the primordial worlding that is necessary for consciousness to understand itself in either manner1.

In other words, Heidegger believed that objectification of consciousness is problematic because it fails to recognize the primordial worlding that is necessary for consciousness to understand itself

:100: :clap:

Well there would be no one to help or save, it would make no difference who suffers or how you treat others because there is no others.

Ok. I thought some expressions of monism (idealism) understand humans as being dissociated metacognitive alters from the one source, but still with their own experiences. No reason why we shouldn't do the right thing by ourselves?

This is your area - any thoughts on the above?

As I said, I think the basis of monist philosophy is another kind of cognitive mode or way of being. Saying 'all is One' in ordinary discourse is meaningless - as I said above, the only sensible response is 'one what?' So it needs to be understood in the framework of an interpretive model. Why Heidegger came to my mind, I'm not sure, as I'm by no means an expert in his philosophy, but I think he too grasps that this kind of insight requires a different way of being in the world. The point being, there are precedents in philosophy for the idea, but it takes some study to begin to grasp what it means.

Why Heidegger came to my mind, I'm not sure, as I'm by no means an expert in his philosophy, but I think he too grasps that this kind of insight requires a different way of being in the world. The point being, there are precedents in philosophy for the idea, but it takes some study to begin to grasp what it means. — Wayfarer

Yes, I guess I took this as a given. But as an idealist are you not an ontological monist? How would you tentatively resolve the notion of different beings as expression of a great mind/cosmic consciousness? Or is your idealism of a different ontological status?

I suppose the kind of expression I would reach for is that all being is 'cut from the same cloth', so to speak. It's not a numerical unity, an undifferentiated block, which is how it must seem, but that all beings arising from a single source. Of course it's a very difficult thing to articulate and I'm probably not doing a good job of it. I would have to do a search of some of the literature to flesh it out a bit.

That's perfectly reasonable and I can roll with that. I am interested in metaphysics and ontology. But owing to time limitations, I tend to look for the broad brushstrokes and count on people like yourself to do the hard thinking. :pray: It would possibly be helpful to flesh this idea out a little more by way of looking at some of the potential implications of monism.

Ok. I thought some expressions of monism (idealism) understand humans as being dissociated metacognitive alters from the one source, but still with their own experiences. No reason why we shouldn't do the right thing by ourselves? — Tom Storm

No reason to do the right thing because there is no one to help.

. I suppose that today we would call it subjective "Intuition", as opposed to objective "Observation". — Gnomon
I'd question that - it is because it is interpreted through the subject-object perspective that we fail to grasp its import. This interpretation subjectivizes or relativizes insight, making it a personal matter, whereas its import is precisely that it is transpersonal. Many will say that there is 'no intersubjective validation' available for such insights, but that is because today's criteria are generally empirical, recognizing only what can be observed and validated by sense-perception. — Wayfarer

Since my personal experience has been solely from the "subject-object" perspective, I have difficulty even imagining what a God-object perspective would look like. Also, I've had no "transpersonal" cognition. And what "insights" I have had are easily dismissed as mere opinion, since I have no "intersubjective validation". Is extra-sense-perception something that can be cultivated?

I've seen TV evangelists who demonstrate divinely inspired "word of knowledge" (gift of Holy Spirit). But I don't personally know anyone who claims to have transpersonal Visions, as opposed to mundane imagination (or TV tricks). In a sensory deprivation float tank I experienced unusual imagery, but not so out of the ordinary as to call it "transpersonal". I'm also generally unimaginative & boring, not prone to fantasy ideation. Should I just accept the evangelist's word for his word of knowledge?

Quite a few Catholic saints are reported to have experienced transpersonal divine messages from God or Mary. Should I just take them at their word, or should I require independent verification? Presumably, miracles performed by saints could be witnessed by objective observers. But a vision would be hard to validate, except by faith. Anyway, I'm personally familiar with internally-generated Intuition, but not with externally generated Visions or Knowledge. Are such extra-personal insights an aspect of your personal experience?

We humans have a talent that most animals lack : the ability to convert "sense perception" into mental conception (imagination ; to see what's not really there ; abstract mind pictures). When some of those non-sensory images arise unbidden by the perceiver, should they be interpreted as "transpersonal" --- I.e. originating from outside the conceiver? Even my notion of a Monistic Whole (of which I am a part, who can only postulate the Whole) is known by reason, not insight. :smile:

Extrasensory perception or ESP, also called sixth sense, is a claimed paranormal ability pertaining to reception of information not gained through the recognized physical senses, but sensed with the mind. The term was adopted by Duke University psychologist J. B. Rhine. ___ Wikipedia

GOD / WORLD PERSPECTIVE

Are such extra-personal insights an aspect of your personal experience? — Gnomon

I equate them with conversion experiences, or steps on the path. I don't regard such insights as instances of extra-sensory perception. In late adolescence, I had some pretty momentous acid trips, which were revelatory in their own right (but I won't dwell on that as I have no intention of advocating illicit drug use). But I also had some real epiphanies at quite a young age. They are practically impossible to convey to others, and if I try to do so it will usually be misunderstood, but one of them was a vivid realisation of the 'I' as the universal ground of being. When I later encountered books about Advaita Vedanta I recognised that insight in them.

I studied Buddhist philosophy and attempted to practice meditation along Buddhist lines for many years, although that's now fallen away. I was member of an informal discussion group for about ten years. Through all of that, certain insights arose, and some of them stayed with me, but it's hardly like its depicted in a lot of popular literature. I had hoped these insights would be sufficiently transformative to burn through all my bad habits (samskara, in yogic terminology) but alas not. Finding a milieu of like-minded others is difficult, and maintaining a commitment without that, also difficult.

I found kind of a bridge to Catholicism through the Christian mystics and ecumenicals, like Thomas Merton. There's actually a thriving albeit small sub-cultural grouping of Zen Catholicism. The Sermons of Meister Eckhardt are a perennial favourite. I like Richard Rohr.

: the ability to convert "sense perception" into mental conception (imagination ; to see what's not really there ; abstract mind pictures). — Gnomon

I don't see that as the key ability in this context, although it's hugely important in culture and technology. The key insight I see is the ability to cut through the illusion of otherness. The illusion of otherness is a fundamental aspect of the human condition, it comes with being born, and sits underneath all our experience. But as Albert Einstein wrote in a letter of condolence, 'A human being is a part of the whole, called by us "Universe", a part limited in time and space. He experiences himself, his thoughts and feelings as something separated from the rest — a kind of optical delusion of his consciousness. The striving to free oneself from this delusion is the one issue of true religion. Not to nourish the delusion but to try to overcome it is the way to reach the attainable measure of peace of mind.' That is very much the key insight of non-dualism.