Non-monist Framework for the Emergence and Reconciliation of Subject–Object Division

Abstract

This chapter seeks to engage and develop contemporary metaphysical discussions on the foundations of human knowledge (epistemology) from the standpoint of understanding the emergence and reconciliation of dualism (subject–object; mind–matter distinctions). All forms of human knowledge teach us something about an outside (external world) or an inside (internal world), but do not teach us about either the conditions of the appearance of knowledge in the world, or the ultimate possible role and function of knowledge for being. I utilize the dialectical method in order to meta-analyze the contemporary field of knowledge, articulating its ontic strengths and weaknesses, as well as offering a possible way to interpret an open and incomplete synthesis of this contemporary field (Visual representations are used to aid conceptual comprehension of difficult theoretical abstractions). A ‘non-monist’ form of knowledge is developed and proposed. Non-monism can be defined as the efficacy of the absence or negativity of non-unity in or of being. This metaphysics has practical application for constructivist theorists, which is here demonstrated in relation to a specific and pragmatic problem that cannot be adequately confronted with our current epistemological horizon: the ontology of sexual difference and experience of sexual reality as resisting unity. Consequently, this chapter boldly proposes a new foundation for understanding the emergence and reconciliation of dualism with a speculative yet pragmatic engagement in the field of human knowledge as one process circling the absence of unity. The result is a form of knowledge that synthesizes external and internal forms of knowledge as an effect of the absence of unity which in-itself governs trans-subjective individuation. Thus, the contents and frame of this work reflect a constructivist engagement with second and higher-order knowledge, inclusive of a meta-analysis of the possibility space for historical and future knowledge construction (in traditions ranging from physics, complexity science, phenomenology, social deconstruction), and the limits of construction.