{{Multiple issues|
 | This article includes alist of references,related reading, orexternal links,but its sources remain unclear because it lacksinline citations. Please helpimprove this article byintroducing more precise citations.(April 2013) (Learn how and when to remove this message) |
 | This articleneeds additional or more specificcategories. Pleasehelp out byadding categories to it so that it can be listed with similar articles.(March 2025) |
Indefinite monism is a philosophical conception ofreality that asserts that onlyawareness is real and that the wholeness ofreality can be conceptually thought of in terms ofimmanent andtranscendent aspects. The immanent aspect is denominated simply as awareness, while thetranscendent aspect is referred to asomnific awareness.
Awareness in this system is not equivalent toconsciousness. Rather, awareness is the venue for consciousness, and the transcendent aspect ofreality, omnific awareness, is whatconsciousness is of.
In this system, what is real is distinguished from that which exists by showing that everything that we are conscious of exists but is not real since it is contingent upon awareness for its existence. Awareness is the source of its own energetic display -- its omneity. Rather than leading to a solipsistic account of reality, it is claimed through an analysis of consciousness that it is an error on our part to conceive of individuated awareness. That error being found in a conflation of the objects of consciousness with the subject of consciousness within an assumed form of reality of separate physical things. Proceeding from the onenecessarily true and unquestionable fact – that we are present to our experiences – an understanding of reality is developed that is neither amaterialist nor anidealist conceptualization. This way of viewing the world is referred to assurjective, a metaphorical use of a concept found in mathematical set theory that means a function that works upon every member of a set, where awareness is the function and omnific awareness is the set, in order to distinguish this position from both subjectivity and objectivity.
Within this system anything whatsoever can arise from omnific awareness, thus the use of the term “indefinite” in labeling this monism. What does arise as the existents that we are conscious of is conditioned by the affections of awareness for its display. Thus this system does away with the idea of an active, creative force calledfree will and replaces it with an active volitional component known as affections, that does not itself create anything, whether movement or structure, but instead, constrains the possibilities of what arises naturally. Arguably, the concept of free will necessitates a world of separation as it implies an actor and that which is acted upon. In this conception there is no such separation. Yet our intuitive modeling of the existents of reality as arising from natural processes, as well as our intuitive understanding that we can ‘cause’ things to happen by our ‘will’, are both cleanly supported.
The distinction between physical phenomena and mental phenomena is also removed by this system. Omnific awareness gives rise to everything – thus the use of the termomnific – and this includes thoughts that phenomenally arise in brains as well as existents that arise phenomenally as things in the world. By removing this distinction this system cuts off the inevitable paradoxes that otherwise arise in philosophical systems. The implications of this move create a number of novel, but necessary, modifications in current categorizations of ideas about reality and our study of it. For instance,ontology – the study of being – is necessitated by the assumption of a physical world of separate things, but when viewed surjectively ontology collapses intoepistemology – the study of the methods or grounds of knowledge. Similarly, by removing the distinction between mental and physical phenomena the tensions created in dualist understandings of reality of how the mental and physical interact with one another are dispelled. Surprisingly, the removal of this distinction also completely removes the need for claims of metaphysical realms of being or metaphysical processes, thus collapsing all of reality into this reality.
The implications of this view of reality are carried as far asethics, where the lack of separation between awareness and that which it gives rise to necessitate a far-reaching adjustment in our ethical beliefs. One such difference that is highlighted for instance is that all conscious beings, which are called “knowings” in deference to this new conception of reality, are qualitatively the same; thus our current distinction between “human beings” and “animals” is based upon afalse dichotomy, and this new understanding will necessitate an adjustment in our ideas of who or what can be “property” and who or what can be a “person.”