Why mumorphism?

As a philosophy of mind, mumorphism is the claim that all mental activity is mumorphic. Take thinking. Thinking is not just thoughts (each of which has form), that is, the set of thoughts is just another thought. Rather it is what moves from one thought to another, unifying one concept with the next, which (if the thinking is original) changes the concepts. On the other hand, without the confining force of concepts, one would just have meaningless drivel. Thinking, then, in Coleridge's words, is a case of two forces of one power, which act against each other as they constitute the other.

All things have form, but are only actual through the force of formlessness. On the other hand, form is also a force, which restrains the force of formlessness. Thinking exemplifies this best in our experience.

Or consider hearing the sound of a bell. This is a change in my consciousness, but if my consciousness didn't continue (remain unchanged) through the hearing of the sound, I wouldn't have heard it. Now one can't say that most of my consciousness did not change, just the part that heard the sound changed, because if so, then the "most" part would not have heard the sound. Rather it is my entire consciousness that heard it, so my entire consciousness both changed and did not change.

In sum, if we restrict ourselves to conventional logic, one cannot only not say anything about the Absolute, we also cannot say anything about the working of our normal everyday minds. There is the additional point to make that we can, with mumorphic logic, infer the immanence of the Absolute in our everyday minds.

If one also holds (as I do) that there is nothing outside of experience, then all acts are mental (that is, experiential), which makes mumorphism an ontology as well. To be discussed: why this isn't obvious.

Why the word 'mumorphism'

As indicated, the term 'mumorphism', while new, has as referent an old idea, so one thing I want to do here is explain why I think a new term is useful. Some other terms used for this idea are 'polarity' (from Coleridge), "coincidence of opposites" (Nicholas of Cusa), and "self-contradictory identity" (Nishida).

The problem I have with Nishida's term is that I don't see the two nodes of mumorphism, formlessness and form, as being contradictory, so much as contrafactory, that is, as working against each other as they constitute each other. Of course the statement "formlessness is form" is, in conventional logic, a contradiction, but that just means that conventional logic does not apply in this case.

Cusa's term is not sufficiently precise. There are lots of opposites, but mumorphism only refers to one pair (though there are many names of the nodes).

Coleridge's term, 'polarity', captures the way the two nodes relate admirably (that is, constituting each other as they work against each other), as magnetic pole do. The problem is that magnetic poles are switchable -- switch the North and South labels and you haven't changed anything. But one cannot switch the labels 'form' and 'formlessness'.

I also think it useful to have the word take on the same form as the Aristotelian 'hylomorphism', as this suggests a fruitful round of comparing and contrasting, but that I will leave for another time.

Lastly, I just think it is useful to have a brand new word for the Absolute, as existing words, like 'Consciousness', 'Mind', or indeed 'God', which have been promoted to Absolute status carry with them differing connotations among readers.