@paulhanke,
paulhanke;127544 wrote:... then I think you're using the wrong words to express what you mean ... if each of these presents a different face of a thing and at the same time each are the thing, then this thing is not a concept ... perhaps "concept" is the closest word to what you are trying to convey, but I think you're going to run into the same problem Schopenhauer ran into when he made the poor choice of "will" as a name ... but even with a better word choice, I think the fact that this thing you are speaking of appears to break all the rules of mereology (i.e., "being" is at once both the thing and a part of the thing, and the same for "perception", et al., while each remains different from the other) renders it pretty mystical - it sounds more like a Zen koan that is intended to make you think, than an actual claim about the nature of reality ...
... having had a bit of time to digest this, I think the key to understanding this thing (at least for me) is its origin ... and unless I'm mistaken, its origin is quantum mechanics (something else that sounds more like a Zen koan
) ... so if this thing is an inference from quantum mechanics, then perhaps the best name for it is "quantum being" ... and in that respect, whereas quantum mechanics is said through analogy with the classical to be wave-like and particle-like, perhaps a better way to state things is to say that quantum being is, through similar analogy, "classical-being-like" and "perception-like", etc.
But the question then is, is quantum being any more an indicator of what classical being is than quantum mechanics is an indicator of classical mechanics? ... that is, given that the classical behavior (e.g., determinism) that emerges from quantum (e.g., random) interactions ("more is different") is so different than that from which it emerges, is it logical to infer that classical being must be anything like quantum being? ... (I would hazard to guess not).
Where this could get really interesting, though, is when you combine quantum behavior with classical behavior ... presumably, there was a time (perhaps a fraction of a second after the big bang) when the only behavior that existed was quantum behavior - quantum behavior was (as far as behavior goes) monistic ... but as soon as these quanta started to interact with one another, out emerged classical behavior ... so now you have quantum-quantum (random) interactions going on as well as classical-classical (deterministic) interactions going on ... but what about the possibility of quantum-classical interactions? (that's what's cool about the creativity of the universe - as soon as it creates one new thing, it also creates the exponential possibility for the next new thing
) ... photosynthesis is the actuality of this quantum-classical possibility - photosynthesis fuses the quantum with the classical to produce behavior that is more efficient at capturing solar energy than a purely quantum or purely classical behavior alone ever could ... so does the actuality of quantum-classical behavior imply the possibility of quantum-classical being? ... and is this mode of being yet again something emergent? - something entirely different in nature than what it emerges from?
Under these monstrously speculative premises, an example of quantum being is electron being ... an example of classical being is rock being ... is life an example of quantum-classical being?