Nonunity: A Metaphysical Concept Where One Thing Is Never One Thing

What if the "one" we seek in metaphysics (whether the soul, the self, or the cosmos) is never truly one? I propose a new metaphysical framework called nonunity, which suggests that every apparent unity is a dynamic convergence of relations, never static, always becoming. The theme of nonunity is simple yet profound: one thing is never one thing. Below, I outline its core structure: A triad of singularity, wholeness, and oneness. I invite discussion on how it challenges traditional monism, nonduality, and pluralism.

The Triad of Nonunity:

Nonunity reimagines the structure of being as a dynamic interplay of three aspects:

1. Singularity: At the core of every experience lies a singular point; not a substance or essence, but a convergence where perception and existence meet. This "soul" is not a static entity but a still center, akin to Heraclitus’ flux or Whitehead’s "actual occasion." It is one, yet its oneness depends on its relation to what surrounds it. Is this singularity the soul, as Plotinus might suggest, or merely a focal point of becoming?

2. Wholeness: Around the singularity emerges wholeness; the coherent, ever-forming field of mind, body, and experience. Wholeness is not a fixed unity but a dynamic organization, like Bergson’s élan vital, constantly shaping itself around the singular point. It bridges the individual and the universal, yet it is never complete, always in process. Can we call this selfhood, or is it too fluid to be named?

3. Oneness: Beyond singularity and wholeness lies oneness; the infinite, ever-becoming totality of existence. Unlike nondual traditions (e.g., Advaita Vedanta), which posit a singular, unchanging reality, nonunity’s oneness is inherently plural, a multiplicity-in-relation. It echoes Deleuze’s rhizomatic multiplicity, where the "one" is a network of connections, never reducible to a single essence. Is this a new form of monism, or does it transcend the monism-pluralism debate?

One Thing Is Never One Thing:

Nonunity challenges the idea that any "one" (be it the soul, self, or universe) is ever truly singular. Each unity is a convergence of relations, a point within a field within a totality, always in motion. The soul is one, yet it exists only through its interplay with wholeness. Wholeness is unified, yet it emerges from multiplicity. Oneness is all, yet it is never fixed, always becoming. This resonates with Whitehead’s process philosophy, where reality is not static being but dynamic events. Yet, nonunity emphasizes the experiential center; the "invisible center" through which all this flows.

Why does Nonunity Matter? Traditional metaphysics often seeks a final unity (e.g., Spinoza’s substance, Hegel’s absolute). Nonduality dissolves distinctions into oneness. Nonunity, however, suggests that no unity is ever complete. The soul is not a thing you have but a point of convergence you are. The self is not a fixed identity but a process of becoming. The cosmos is not a single reality but an infinite interplay of singularities. This perspective invites us to notice the relational nature of existence, not through belief but through awareness of the dynamic center within us.

Questions for Discussion

• Does nonunity align with process philosophy (e.g., Whitehead, Bergson) or offer something distinct?

• Can the soul as a "singularity" fit within analytic metaphysics, or is it too phenomenological?

• How does nonunity’s claim that "one thing is never one thing" challenge monism or nonduality?

• Is the triad of singularity, wholeness, and oneness a viable framework for understanding subjective experience?

I’m curious to hear your thoughts. Does nonunity resonate as a metaphysical movement, or does it risk being too speculative for academic philosophy? Let’s discuss!