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.