I noted "Monist Indirect Realism is Not Tenable."
"Conclusion:
You are correct that true monism (in its purest sense) is incompatible with indirect realism, as monism denies the dualistic distinction required for mediation or indirectness.
What is often called "monist indirect realism" is likely an inconsistent hybrid or a misclassification."
Here is my discussion with AI to get to the point;
ChatGPT Responded:VA to ChatGpt
I understand monism believe there are no discrete objects but there is only ONE continuous reality.
As such, all is One, within the ONE and there is nothing to be mediated nor to be indirectly realized.
If whatever physical is the manifestation of the ONE, then that can only be a dualist indirect realism.
Therefore 'monist indirect realism' is not possible nor tenable.
ChatGPT said:
Your observation is insightful and raises an important question about the coherence of "monist indirect realism" when examined against the strict definitions of monism and indirect realism. Let’s clarify and analyze this issue step by step:
1. Monism and the Nature of Reality
Monism is the view that all of reality is fundamentally one unified substance or principle, without discrete or independent entities. Depending on the type of monism:
Idealist Monism: Reality is fundamentally mental or consciousness-based.
Materialist (Physicalist) Monism: Reality is fundamentally physical.
Neutral Monism: Reality is neither purely physical nor purely mental but consists of a more fundamental neutral substance.
2. Indirect Realism and Its Claims
Indirect realism asserts:
We do not perceive the external world directly. Instead, we perceive representations or mediated experiences caused by interactions with the external world.
The external world exists independently of perception and remains distinct from the perceiver.
3. Tension Between Monism and Indirect Realism
Monism's commitment to one continuous reality indeed conflicts with the dualistic structure implicit in indirect realism, which distinguishes between:
The perceiver (subject).
The external world (object) that is mediated.
The medium of perception (e.g., sense-data or representations).
Monism’s Perspective:
If there is only one continuous reality, as monism posits, there is no clear separation between perceiver and the perceived.
Therefore, there is no "indirection" because everything is part of the same unified existence.
This undermines the very foundation of indirect realism, which requires at least two distinct "realities" (the external object and the representation or perception).
Dualism’s Compatibility with Indirect Realism:
Dualist frameworks allow for distinct substances or realms (e.g., mind and matter), making it coherent to say that one realm (the mind) perceives another (the material world) indirectly.
Thus, indirect realism fits more naturally within a dualist framework.
4. What About Physicalist Monism?
Some physicalists (materialist monists) attempt to ground indirect realism within a monist framework by explaining perception in terms of physical processes. However, this introduces conceptual difficulties:
Physical Processes as Mediators: They propose that brain activity creates representations of the external physical world. But these "representations" are still part of the same physical reality, raising the question of why they are distinct from the external objects they represent.
No Clear Divide: If everything is physical, the distinction between the external world and the perception of it becomes blurred. This undermines the dualistic implication of indirect realism.
In effect, what they call "monist indirect realism" could collapse into a form of direct realism, where the perceiver and perceived are just different aspects of the same continuous physical reality.
5. Is Monist Indirect Realism Possible?
Given the above points, monist indirect realism faces serious challenges:
Ontological Contradiction: Monism asserts the unity of all things, whereas indirect realism requires separateness (subject vs. object).
No Mediation in Monism: If all is one, there is no "medium" or "indirection" required for perception.
Misnomer: What is sometimes labeled "monist indirect realism" may be better understood as a dualist or pseudo-monoist position.
6. Reframing the Debate
If someone claims to hold "monist indirect realism," they may actually be:
A neutral monist who believes in one substance but posits representational processes as part of it (potentially dualistic in practice).
A physicalist attempting to explain indirect realism purely in terms of brain processes but failing to reconcile the unity of physical monism with the separation implied by indirect realism.
Conclusion:
You are correct that true monism (in its purest sense) is incompatible with indirect realism, as monism denies the dualistic distinction required for mediation or indirectness.
What is often called "monist indirect realism" is likely an inconsistent hybrid or a misclassification.
If the ultimate physical is viewed as a manifestation of a unified "One," this view leans toward dualist indirect realism rather than monism.