Dual-Aspect Monism: A Metaphysical Proposition

In previous posts, I had examined the schools of idealism and materialism and explained why both were unsatisfactory in many regards. But as previously mentioned, dualism fails to explain how something of an abstract, incorpereal existence can interact with something of a concrete, corpereal existence. But if all we are left with is monism, yet materialism and idealism are not satisfactory, what else is left. One theory that has gained some attention in recent years is dual-aspect monism, which regards both the mental and the physical to be two different aspects of the same substance. This theory explains the interaction between the physical and the mental. Let us examine further. Dual-aspect monism, as the name implies, is a monistic school of thought. This being the case, it rejects the notion that reality consists of different substances; everything is of one kind. The appearance of different substances, such as physical and mental, are in reality two-aspects of the same thing. The true substance of a thing is of one nature, with percieved differences arising when viewed from another perspective. For example, when viewed from an objective, scientific methodology, we can observe a physical brain with firing neurons, diffusion of chemicals across synapses and electrical impulses across cellular membranes. However, when viewed from a psychological or introjective stand point, what we observe is an abstract mind with various psychoanalytic structures, introjective thoughts and subjective affect states. At first glance, epiphenominalism would seem to explain this view better. Epiphenominalism simply upholds the notion that the mind is simply a byproduct of the brain, much like steam from a tea kettle or a shadow from an object. However, it can not explain as to how mind influences the brain. One may say that that is simply matter influencing itself, to which I respond how is it then that introjection allows for physical changes to occur within the brain. Furthermore, why do we have emotions and a conscience that guide our actions? If it was merely the byproduct of material interaction, what is it precisely that creates these messages. It seems to me that materialism suggests a deterministic metaphysics, much like that of a machine. A machine only performs in regards to its predetermined programing and design. If humans were merely machines, we would not have need for mere suggestions implimented by our mind. I propose that dual-aspect monism may provide an explanation, as mind and matter are not only one and the same within the human being, but reality as well. Let us examine further. Throughout life, human beings tend to concieve and imagine phenomena as existing in a series of dualistic dichotomies. These are typically seen as opposite, opposing forces, each possessing the opposite nature of the other. Examples include chaos and order, light and dark, sharp and blunt, front and back and masculine and feminine. This opposing nature is central to a dualistic metaphysical account. However, if one examines more closely, one can discern that such opposites are likely multiple aspects of the same thing. For instance, a house possesses both a front and back. Though they seem like opposites, we must remember that everything with a front possesses a back also, and vice versa, showing the intricate connection between the two. Furthermore, what is the front and what is back is contingent upon the view of the observer. If the house was built in the opposite direction, then the back would now be the front. Furthermore, if an observer is facing the back, then the back of the hoouse is in front of the observer, while the front of the house is in the back. Finally, if one enters the house, they have entered the inside and exited the outside. What is an entrance to the inside is also an exit to the outside, and vice versa. As we can see, such opposing dichotomies are intricately connected. One cannot exist without the other. The only exception to this rule are those in which the percieved opposite is actually an abscence (e.g., darkness is an abscence of light). What we must ponder now is whether the substance in question is both substances simultaneously, or if a third substance is central to the two. I propose that the thing in question is both substances, as well as possibly more. My reasoning is that if both substances are merely two aspects of the same thing, then they are not truly different in the objective sense. They merely appear different do to a different perspective taken on the thing in question.