The Jay and the Quark

The Jay and the Quark

For Greg Crouch, whose reflections on the universe — and on the quarks at its foundation — taught me to see the world from without.

For Dr. Maria Strømme, whose vision of consciousness as a fundamental field taught me to see the world from within.

Two beacons on opposite shores of the world,

whose light met in a single moment of synchronicity

and drew this theory into one.

Algebra shows you that without i, many polynomials do not have solutions.

Theology shows you that without I, you are the solution.

— The Author

Abstract

This paper proposes a perspectival dual-aspect monism, on which reality is composed of a single class of fundamental events, each admitting two descriptions, complete in their own register but mutually exclusive in any single act of apprehension: an interior one in terms of experience and an exterior one in terms of physical structure. The fundamental event is the actual occasion of Whitehead’s process metaphysics, and the occasion as undergone from within is named the Jay. The quark is taken as the exemplar of the exterior description: an entity characterized wholly by its structural and relational properties and never encountered in isolation. Following Russell’s observation that physics discloses the structure of the world but not its intrinsic nature, the paper argues that the two descriptions are two vantages on one occasion, and that which vantage is available depends on the observer’s relation to what is described. An orientation toward coherence or away from it, named Intent and related to Whitehead’s subjective aim, carries the position toward a graded panpsychism and, read across a field from an attending Center, yields the quantity the framework calls Legibility. Written term by term, that reading is a weighted average of the cosines between the reader’s facing and every facing present, a form that gives the Trace, met in a later gathering, a place in the notation. Confinement is then read at a second scale: an invention is proposed as a bound state of perished occasions whose exterior is the made thing and whose interior is the accumulated Intent that settled each part. The paper keeps apart the two orders of priority its companion journals require: the occasions are fundamental in what is undergone, and the whole, which those journals argue is one consciousness, is prior in grounding. Spinoza, whose one substance is known under thought and under extension, is taken as the point where this whole-first view and the dual-aspect view first meet. The paper proposes that, from the whole’s vantage, which Boethius’s definition of eternity and Aquinas’s image of the road seen from a height describe, the occasions are present at once. The combination problem then gives way to the individuation problem, how one consciousness comes to be many perspectives, which the paper acknowledges as the framework’s principal open question.

1 Introduction

Two long-standing difficulties motivate the proposal developed here, and they turn out to be the same difficulty seen from opposite ends.

The first is the explanatory gap in the philosophy of mind. Even a complete physical account of a system — its mechanisms, its functional organization, its dynamics — appears to leave unexplained why there should be something it is like to be that system at all.¹ The physical description proceeds entirely in the third person, and no amount of third-person detail seems to entail the first-person fact of experience. This is the residue that resists reduction.

The second difficulty is less often noticed but structurally prior. Physics characterizes its objects exhaustively in terms of what they do: how they behave, how they relate, how they transform under measurement. It does not tell us what they are in themselves. Russell drew the consequence sharply: physics yields knowledge of the structure of the physical world (its relational and mathematical form) but is silent regarding the intrinsic nature of whatever it is that bears that structure. Matter, described physically, is a web of relations whose relata are left uncharacterized.²

The thesis of this paper is that these two silences are complementary, and that each supplies what the other lacks. Experience is the one phenomenon given to us not as structure observed from outside but as nature undergone from within. If physics leaves open the intrinsic nature of the physical, and experience is precisely an intrinsic nature made manifest, then the natural hypothesis is that the physical and the experiential are two aspects of one reality apprehended from two vantages. The remainder of the paper states this hypothesis, identifies its fundamental unit, anchors its exterior aspect in the clearest available physical example, carries it to the scale of made things, reads the occasions from the whole as well as from the parts, and takes up the objections any such view must meet.

The position belongs to a recognizable family. Its ancestors are Spinoza’s account of one substance conceived under distinct attributes,³ James’s neutral monism of pure experience,⁴ and Russell’s neutral monism.⁵ Of these, Spinoza’s is the bridge between the dual-aspect view and the whole-first view taken up in §7. His one substance, which he called God or Nature, is known to us under two of its attributes, thought and extension, so that “a mode of extension and the idea of that mode are one and the same thing, but expressed in two ways.”⁶ Whitehead, whose occasions this paper adopts, called his own philosophy “closely allied to Spinoza’s scheme of thought,” differing in that Spinoza’s modes “now become the sheer actualities.”⁷ The position’s contemporary relatives are the Russellian monist and panpsychist programs of Strawson, Chalmers, and Goff.⁸ The contribution offered here is a perspectival formulation built on Whitehead’s occasion, in which the duality of aspects is grounded in the relation an observing occasion bears to what it apprehends, and a graded extension, in which a single fundamental orientation underwrites the move from dual-aspect monism toward panpsychism. The paper stands on its own, but it is not solitary: it shares its central orientation with the author’s four-part Toward a Theory of Coherent Existence, which gives the same drive toward coherence a formal notation and carries it into theology and the sciences.⁹

2 The Thesis

Perspectival dual-aspect monism may be stated in four claims.

First, there is one fundamental category of the real, in the order of what is undergone: discrete events of becoming, each of which, taken from within, is a Jay. There are not two kinds of basic stuff, mental and physical; there is one kind.

Second, each such event admits two descriptions, complete in their own register. The interior description renders the event as experience, as having a felt character, a quality of what is undergone from within. The exterior description renders the event as physical structure: a node of measurable, relational properties.

Third, the two descriptions are mutually exclusive in any single act of apprehension. One cannot, in one act, apprehend an occasion from within as experience and from without as structure, any more than one can stand both inside and outside the same room at once. They are nonetheless jointly exhaustive: between them they say everything there is to say about the occasion.

Fourth, which description is available to a given observer is a function of the relation that observer bears to the occasion described. An observer has the interior of its own occasions because it is those occasions; it has only the exterior of other occasions because it stands to them in the external relation of observation. The duality of aspects is therefore not a duality in the occasion itself but a duality of access, fixed by perspective. This is the sense in which the view is perspectival. The two aspects are on a par only as ways of access, not in standing. Once §7 takes the whole to be conscious, the interior is what an occasion is and the exterior is how what it is stands to others, and here the view parts from classical dual-aspect monism, on which neither side is more basic. The paper keeps the name for the two descriptions every occasion admits, each complete in its own register, and readers who know the terms may file the view as a perspectival Russellian cosmopsychism. The broader framework calls the practice of reading one phenomenon from more than one vantage without collapsing it to one the Quantum Lens; in this paper its two vantages are from within and from without.

The position is to be distinguished from three neighbors. It is not substance dualism: there are not two substances, only two aspects of one kind of event. It is not reductive physicalism: the interior aspect is not reducible to the exterior, since the exterior, by Russell’s argument, does not by itself fix any intrinsic nature. And it is not idealism of the kind on which the physical is a construction out of mind or a mere appearance: the exterior aspect is real structure, which the one consciousness proposed in §7 realizes, and its description is indispensable. In the broader sense now in use, on which a view is idealist if all concrete facts are grounded in mental facts, the position of §7, which grounds them in the mental states of a single cosmic subject, is what Chalmers calls cosmic idealism, and the paper accepts the label in that sense. Chalmers adds that the most natural realist version of such a view is Russellian, which this one is.¹⁰

3 The Jay and the Actual Occasion

The fundamental event requires a name and a precise characterization. This paper retains the term Jay, introduced in earlier work, and identifies it with the inner aspect of the actual occasion (or actual entity) of Whitehead’s Process and Reality: the occasion as undergone from within.¹¹ The identification imports a developed metaphysics that gives the Jay its structure.

A Jay is a discrete, meaning-laden moment of experience, and every moment of experience is a Jay. It has three features. It has a perceiver, for it is always some occasion’s experience and never a free-floating quale; it has a felt quality, the particular character of what that moment is like from within; and it has an orientation, a directedness that leans the occasion toward one of the resolutions open to it. So characterized, the Jay maps closely onto the Whiteheadian occasion, which is dipolar, possessing both a physical pole, by which it inherits the settled past, and a mental pole, by which it entertains how that past might be taken up.¹² Journal One gives the definition in full, including the weight a Jay carries; what this paper needs is the three features and, below, the Trace.

Three consequences of treating the basic unit as an occasion rather than a thing matter for what follows.

First, the fundamental real is an event. What persists — a person, a stone, a particle — is a society or route of occasions, a pattern reproduced across a succession of momentary events, not a single underlying thing that has experiences as accidents. This dissolves at the outset the picture of a mind as a container and experiences as its contents.

Second, occasions are constituted by their relations. A Whiteheadian occasion arises through its prehensions: its takings-up of other occasions into its own constitution. Beneath those relations there is no residue of bare particularity. The Jay is therefore not isolated. Jays accumulate within a route into the patterns called character.

Third, and consequently, the world, in the order of what is undergone, is fundamentally a process of becoming; §7 returns to how that becoming stands when it is seen whole. Each occasion comes to be, achieves its determinate character, and perishes, surviving only as datum for the occasions that succeed it. The relational side of this temporal, perishing, contributory character is mirrored, §4 will show, in the physics of the entity chosen to exemplify the exterior aspect.

The Jay’s perceiver, its orientation, and the manner of its perishing carry directly into the vocabulary of the author’s wider work. Taken across a life, the perceiver is what the framework calls the Center: not the single occasion, which perishes, but the character the occasions of a route inherit from one another, which is how the Center that Journal One describes persists. The Jay’s orientation, the directedness named above, is Intent: the direction of Whitehead’s subjective aim. The manner of the Jay’s perishing is what the framework calls Trace: the settled deposit a perished occasion leaves in the occasions that inherit it; for a life, as Journal One sets it out, that deposit passes on through what the life makes and does, and another perspective that meets it lives it as a Jay of its own.

Set within the field of all such occasions, the Jay is the elementary unit the author’s Legibility framework gathers. In that framework each co-present occasion is carried at some intensity α and turned to some facing φ, and what they compose is written:¹³

Ψ(τ) = Σⱼ αⱼ(τ) · e^iφⱼ(τ)

Ξ(τ) = Σⱼ αⱼ(τ)

L(τ) = Ψ(τ) ⁄ Ξ(τ)

Θᵢ(τ) = arg L(τ) − φᵢ(τ)

aᵢ(τ) = |L(τ)| · cos Θᵢ(τ)

A Jay, in this notation, is one term of Ψ: an occasion carried at intensity αⱼ and turned to a facing φⱼ. Ξ is the total intensity present. The sums run over Ω, the set of the terms present at τ (the co-present occasions and, on the reading given below, any Trace met at that τ by the one whose reading is taken), an index set and not a space carrying any differential structure. A gathering is read at its reader’s own τ. Which occasions belong to Ω is fixed by the grain at which a gathering is read. In a room of people the terms are the occasions in which each life present is lived, its presiding occasions, in Whitehead’s term, and not the occasions of the bodies and the air that carry them; the graded occasions of §6 are not entered beside them. Journal One defines a Jay’s weight, which is its intensity α, for the occasions of a life, as how wholly the moment is committed, its effort and undivided dedication, and as greater when much of what meets in it (biology, intention, feeling, circumstance) is aligned at once; how weight, and with it the notation, would read at the lower grades is left open. L is what the field and its total make together, read in within-time τ.

Legibility is what a perspective leaves in the field by holding together over time, whichever way it faces: what it makes readable to others, which is why lives turned toward the gathering and lives turned away from it have both left lore behind them, renown for the one and infamy for the other. Legibility is read through the last line: what one perspective leaves, another reads in its own aᵢ. That reading is the size of L, the gathering held in proportion, taken through the cosine of the angle between the field’s facing and the attender’s own. Attention does not enter as a factor applied from outside. It enters as the attender’s own term, carried at intensity αᵢ and turned to facing φᵢ, and so already one of the terms being read.

The five lines also yield an identity that bears directly on the Jay. Written term by term, the reading is aᵢ = (1/Ξ) Σⱼ αⱼ cos(φⱼ − φᵢ), the sum running over every term in Ω, the reader’s own included; nothing is added to the formalism, since for positive Ξ the real part of Ψe^−iφᵢ is |Ψ| cos Θᵢ. What an occasion reads of its gathering is the intensity-weighted average of how nearly each term present faces the way the reader faces. The identity also gives the Trace a place in the notation. On the framework’s reading, the Trace of a perished occasion, or of a life not present, joins the gathering of the one who meets it, at the τ at which it is met, and enters Ω there as one more term, carrying, as far as it is kept truly, the facing it was made with, and a weight that follows the weight of the Jay that left it. A Trace met by everyone present, a song heard together, joins the gathering of each; one met by a single perspective, a private memory, joins that perspective’s reading of the room. A met Trace counts by the cosine between that facing and the facing of the one who meets it: turned the same way, at its full weight; crosswise, at none, though it still enlarges Ξ; turned against, as opposition. Whitehead’s word for the taking up of a Trace is re-enaction: “the cause passes on its feeling to be reproduced by the new subject as its own.”¹⁴

Beyond that identity, the present paper does not derive these expressions, which belong to the formal development already cited. It proposes only that the Jay of this metaphysics and the term αⱼe^iφⱼ of that formalism are the same occasion seen, once more, from two vantages: the singular interior undergone from within, and the summed term read within a field, as one term among others.¹⁵ The relation between the single interior Jay and the Legibility a whole field yields is not sameness, and the notation is explicit about that: a Jay is a term and aᵢ is a reading, and although every reading is built from the terms present, as the identity shows, no single term is itself a reading. How a met Trace’s weight is set beside what is present, the notation leaves open; that is one of the framework’s open horizons.

4 The Quark as the Exterior Aspect

If the Jay is the interior aspect of the fundamental occasion, the quark is taken here as the exemplar of its exterior aspect, provided the example is used accurately.

The quark is not a mystery of physics; it is among the better-understood entities in the physical ontology. Its existence and properties have been secured in the decades since the quark model of Gell-Mann and Zweig,¹⁶ and the strong interaction that governs it is described in detail by quantum chromodynamics. The quark is invoked here because it is so cleanly exterior: it is exhaustively characterized, within physics, by a small set of structural and relational quantities — flavor, mass, electric charge, spin, and color charge — with no interior given in, or required by, that characterization.

Two features of quark physics make the example apt.

The first is confinement. Quarks are never observed in isolation. Under ordinary conditions they are found only in bound states, called hadrons (the short-lived top quark decays before it can form one), and the strong force is such that separating two quarks increases the energy between them until new particles are produced; no lone quark is ever liberated. Some of the physical world’s most fundamental constituents are, on this evidence, irreducibly relational. Not all are: electrons, photons, and neutrinos, equally elementary, are found alone every day, so confinement is a fact about color rather than about elementarity as such. This is the exterior counterpart of the claim made in §3 that no Jay is isolated. The framework’s own notation, however, already guarantees the interior half of that parallel: a facing counts in it only relatively, so its absolute direction has no value at all; it is read only against the gathering it belongs to. The correspondence with confinement is therefore a correspondence between a fact of physics and a decision about notation, and it is offered as a rhyme rather than as two independent witnesses agreeing.

Read through the Quantum Lens, the strong interaction does not so much bind preexisting solitary quarks as ensure there were never solitary quarks to bind: binding and becoming are, here, one event seen from outside. What process metaphysics posits of occasions as their constitution by prehension, quark physics exhibits as the impossibility of the isolated relatum. At the human scale of Journal Four, that fact is the image behind the binding third: a baryon needs a completing constituent that neither of the other two can supply, and confinement, which admits only color-neutral states, is what enforces that necessity in a bound state made of quarks alone; a quark and an antiquark satisfy it as a pair, as Journal Four notes of the mesons.

The second feature is the problem confinement still leaves open, its rigorous demonstration: establishing it from first principles is bound up with the Yang–Mills existence and mass-gap problem, one of the Clay Mathematics Institute’s Millennium Prize Problems. As of this writing the problem remains unsolved and is still listed as open;¹⁷ lattice methods continue to refine the bound-state and glueball spectrum without yet supplying the first-principles proof. The frontier here is mathematical and internal to physics, and the present argument keeps it apart from the metaphysical question of intrinsic nature: it makes no claim within physics.

With the example so framed, Russell’s point can be applied directly. Physics characterizes the quark entirely structurally and relationally; it does not, and on Russell’s argument by its method cannot, characterize the quark’s intrinsic nature, what the quark is in itself as opposed to what it does and how it relates.¹⁸ Perspectival dual-aspect monism proposes that this intrinsic nature, wherever there is one to be had, is of the same kind that is disclosed from within as experience in the Jay. The quark and the Jay are then the exterior and the interior of occasions of a single kind: structure as apprehended from without, experience as undergone from within. These are the two faces the Quantum Lens turns toward, and away from, in any one act of looking.

5 Confinement at Scale: The Invention as a Bound State

One more feature of the quark belongs in this paper, because it carries the exterior aspect past the single occasion and up to the scale at which human beings make things.

A proton weighs far more than its parts. The three quarks that give it its identity carry rest masses that sum to about 1 percent of the whole. On the lattice calculations that reproduce the light hadron masses from first principles, and on those that decompose the proton’s, nearly all the rest arises from the dynamics of the confined quarks and the gluon field that binds them.¹⁹ The proton is mostly its binding. A physicist will add, correctly, that the quarks inside are in a superposition of many configurations, and that the bound state is a property of the whole rather than of any arrangement one could point to. The framework takes that as physics and then reads it for its shape.

The shape is this. Whitehead’s word for what persists is society: occasions that reproduce a common pattern across their members by inheriting it from one another, so that a person, an institution, or a stone is a society of Jays, though the occasions of a stone are Jays only in the graded sense of §6, far below the grade of a mind.²⁰ An invention is such a society. Take the automobile, meaning not the machine in the driveway but the society that carries the pattern that machine instantiates. It is a bound state of the wheel, the axle, the piston, the controlled combustion of a fuel, the refining of that fuel, the vulcanizing of rubber, the rolling of steel, the road, and the law that keeps everyone on the same side of it. None of these was invented for the automobile. Each was a Trace of earlier occasions, inherited by the next; the automobile is the prehension of all of them into one society that then began to reproduce itself. Historians and economists of technology have said as much without the metaphysics. Basalla argued that every artifact descends from earlier artifacts and that the heroic lone inventor is a story we tell afterward. Arthur proposed that technologies are combinations of prior technologies, which in turn become components of the next, so that the whole structure evolves combinatorially. Schumpeter had already defined economic development as the carrying out of new combinations.²¹ The cultural-evolution literature supplies the mechanism: a ratchet, in which faithful transmission keeps each improvement from slipping back so that the next generation starts where the last one ended.²² The record of multiples, in which the same invention or discovery arrives independently in several places within a short span, led Ogburn and Thomas, and later Merton, to argue that once the components are all present an invention or discovery does not wait on any one person; in the framework’s terms, the bound state forms almost regardless of who is standing nearest.²³

This is confinement at the scale of a culture. The components of an invention are never found alone as its components; a piston with no cylinder still carries its own Trace, but not the automobile’s. What we take for granted as a single thing is a society of prior occasions whose mass, so to speak, is almost entirely binding, the accumulated Intent of everyone who settled each component and handed it on. The framework’s claim is that reality at this scale is a consequence of creative thought: not because thought conjures matter, but because the pattern an artifact carries was a pattern of Jays before it was a pattern of steel, and the pattern we drive to work carries the interiors of ten thousand perished occasions, read from without.

Two corollaries follow, and they are of unequal strength. The first is that a bound state of this kind is timeless in the way a Trace is timeless: read this way, the wheel does not expire, and an invention whose Intent was to carry people is improved rather than replaced, because each improvement is a further occasion prehending it. The second is the framework’s own structural claim, stated in Journal Two as the persistence of aligned Intent and sharpened here as a lens rather than a law: that a facing which is aware of itself can outlive its host and be carried forward freely, while a facing which feeds on its host outlives it, if at all, only in infamy. Applied to invention it says that what is made to serve the gathering keeps being taken up, and what is made to harm it persists only as long as the harm is fed. This is not an empirical claim about the history of weapons, which have been improved with as much ingenuity as anything else. It is a claim about which patterns a gathering will carry forward freely and which it carries only under force, and it would be shown wrong if patterns made to harm were found carried forward freely, without threat or force, as readily as patterns made to serve. The word freely is fixed before any case is weighed: a pattern is carried forward freely when it is taken up for the use it serves those who take it up, not for a pleasure it buys or a fear it feeds.

What can be said empirically is narrower, and its figures are estimates: harm is expensive, and the expense is paid out of the same account that funds the binding. The Institute for Economics and Peace puts the global economic impact of violence in 2025 at $21.8 trillion in purchasing-power terms, a little over a tenth of the world’s product, or about $2,657 for every person alive; the world’s governments spent $2.887 trillion on their militaries that year, the highest the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute has ever recorded.²⁴ Hoeffler and Fearon’s earlier accounting for the Copenhagen Consensus reached a similar share by a different route.²⁵ Against these figures, the world’s funding for global health research (neglected diseases, emerging infections, and women’s health) came to $8.7 billion in 2024, and all research and development of every kind, in every country, to roughly the size of the military account alone, in figures from different years and on different price bases.²⁶ Eisenhower, three months into his presidency, put the arithmetic in one sentence: “Every gun that is made, every warship launched, every rocket fired signifies, in the final sense, a theft from those who hunger and are not fed, those who are cold and are not clothed.”²⁷ The framework does not claim from this that violence is dying out; whether the long-run trend in violence is a decline is itself a live statistical dispute.²⁸ The figures give what harm costs; they illustrate the second corollary and do not test it. In the framework’s terms a civilization’s attention can be read as an intensity, Ξ read at the scale of a species. Because time and money are finite in a way the functional itself does not require, every share of that attention spent on a parasitic facing is a share withheld from the bound states that a gathering carries forward on its own: the vaccine, the bridge, the school. Time and money spent on violence are time and money that could have been spent on healing, and the framework’s reading of the invention as a bound state is why it does not expect the exchange to come out even: harm consumes its host, and a cure outlives its host.

6 Perspectivity and the Orientation toward Truth

Why, on this view, do we only ever meet matter from the outside and mind from the inside? The answer is the perspectival claim of §2, and it rests on an asymmetry already familiar from the philosophy of mind.²⁹ An observer apprehends its own occasions from within, as their subject; it apprehends other occasions only from without, by modeling their structure. The first-person and third-person standpoints are not two theories competing for the same fact but two relations to one fact, and the framework holds that no observer can occupy both relations to one occasion simultaneously. The interiority of others is therefore not hidden behind their structure as a further fact one might hope to uncover by better instruments; it is what their structure is, from a vantage no external observer can take.

There is a precise structural analogy in physics. Bohr’s principle of complementarity holds that certain descriptions of a quantum system (paradigmatically the wave and particle descriptions) are mutually exclusive in any single experimental arrangement yet jointly necessary for a complete account.³⁰ The interior and exterior aspects of an occasion stand in the same formal relation: mutually exclusive in a single act of apprehension, jointly exhaustive of the occasion. This is the logical core of the Quantum Lens; it is not claimed that experience is a quantum phenomenon, nor that complementarity is the aspect-duality. The point is only that science already accepts, in one well-developed case, the logical structure that perspectival dual-aspect monism attributes to the relation between mind and matter, and finds no contradiction in it.

The remaining task is to say why the position leans past dual-aspect monism toward panpsychism. The bridge is the third feature of the Jay: its Intent. Each of Whitehead’s occasions is animated by a subjective aim, a directedness toward its own determinate resolution.³¹ The Intent built into the Jay (its leaning, whether toward coherence or away) takes up this subjective aim under another name, with one difference. Whitehead gives the object of the aim as intensity of feeling, in the occasion itself and in its relevant future;³² the framework divides what he keeps together, writing the intensity as α and the leaning as the facing φ, so that Intent answers to the direction of the aim rather than to the whole of it. If such an orientation is a fundamental feature of every occasion, and not a late achievement of complex ones, then a minimally experiential directedness is present wherever occasions are, which is to say everywhere. The paper takes that antecedent from Whitehead and does not argue it. Experience proper, with rich felt quality, belongs to the presiding occasions of highly organized societies such as animal nervous systems; but the minimal interior aspect — bare Intent, the faintest degree of what-it-is-likeness — is graded all the way down to the occasions underlying a quark, within a whole that §7 proposes is conscious throughout. This is the panpsychist gradient: it ranks the occasions, not the whole. Spinoza drew such a gradient long before, saying of the individuals his account covers that all of them, “though in different degrees, are nevertheless animate.”³³ The field in which every Jay is undergone, and of which every mind is a perspective, is what the framework names the Unified Field. The position belongs with the contemporary Russellian monist program,³⁴ whose defenders argue that taking the intrinsic nature of the physical to be experiential or protoexperiential is a promising response to the explanatory gap.

A consequence follows for the observer, and it is here that the Legibility expression of §3 recovers its meaning. On this account, the drive to understand reality, the scientist’s and the philosopher’s orientation toward finding the truth of things, is, in occasions that lean toward coherence, the most articulate expression of the Intent fundamental to every occasion. When an occasion attends to the gathered field and renders it coherent, the cosine in aᵢ names something real: reality becoming legible to itself through one of its own vantages. And the formula for Legibility puts in one line what the argument asserts in prose. For a given field, Legibility reads highest where the attender is most nearly turned the way the field is turned; the reading peaks at cos 0. From any facing but the field’s own, force of attention cannot raise that reading without pulling the field toward the attender’s facing: it reads the world by moving it. Understanding, then, is first a matter of alignment: effort added to a facing turned exactly with the field sharpens it and raises the reading of everyone turned with it, while, in a field that faces one way, effort turned across it only bends the field. That is a claim the notation was built to return. The occasion that seeks coherence about reality is reality seeking coherence about itself; the pursuit of truth is the growth of Legibility over Time.

7 The Whole Seen at Once

The argument so far has run from the occasion outward. The companion journals argue in the other direction as well, from the whole inward, and the two readings meet in a single proposal: that what the occasions are from within is, at the largest scale, one consciousness, which the journals call the One, and that this consciousness has a vantage of its own.

By keeping two orders apart, the proposal settles a question of priority the earlier sections left open. In the order of what is undergone, the occasions remain the fundamental category: every experience is some occasion’s experience, and §2 stands. The whole’s own vantage, taken up below, is the single exception, since it is not lived in time; it is experiential without being an occasion, as Whitehead’s God is the one actual entity his system does not call an occasion. In the order of grounding, the framework takes the whole to be prior. The occasions are moments within it, not pieces from which it is assembled, and minds are its perspectives. This position is now called priority cosmopsychism, and Nagasawa and Wager, who gave it that name, describe it as “a highly speculative view.”³⁵ Its classical ancestor is Spinoza, for whom “whatever is, is in God.” In the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, William Mander files Spinoza’s pantheism under dual-aspect theory, and Donovan Wishon notes that the theory is usually traced back to Spinoza, so the whole-first view and the dual-aspect view meet first in his system.³⁶

On that proposal the occasions are not in motion from the whole’s vantage. A Jay comes to be, achieves its character, and perishes; a quark is bound, strained, and drawn into new bindings. Each of these is a sequence only from inside the sequence, which is where it is undergone and where its becoming is real; seen whole, the sequence is held, not canceled. From the whole’s vantage, the route of occasions that makes a life would be present at once, end to end. Boethius defined eternity in nearly these terms, as “the whole, simultaneous and perfect possession of boundless life,” and set it against the life lived in time, which has not yet reached tomorrow and has already lost yesterday.³⁷ The framework adds what Boethius’s definition does not say: that the routes a life might have taken are present to the whole as well. For the vantage itself, Aquinas gave a well-known image: the one who walks a road does not see those coming after him, “whereas he who sees the whole road from a height, sees at once all travelling by the way.”³⁸ Abbott’s Flatland gives a geometer’s version, in which a being of a higher dimension sees what one of a lower cannot: a sphere passing through a flat world tells a square who lives there, “I can see from my position in Space the inside of all things that you consider closed.”³⁹

The image needs one correction. The One does not look into the occasions from outside, as the sphere looks into the square’s house; that would break this paper’s own claim, in §6, that the interior of an occasion is reached only by being it. The One sees from the interior of the whole: the occasions as undergone, and the routes not taken as possibilities, not as occasions. In Aquinas’s terms these are two knowledges: what was, is, or will be is known by the knowledge of vision, and what could be but never is, “not of vision, but of simple intelligence.”⁴⁰ For routes not taken, the framework claims only the second: to hold one is to hold what could have been, not a settled fact about what a person would have done on it. Abbott’s sphere is careful about the next step as well. When the square calls such sight the attribute of God alone, the sphere asks whether it makes the square “more just, more merciful, less selfish, more loving,” and answers itself: “Not in the least. Then how does it make you more divine?”⁴¹ The framework agrees that the vantage alone would not make the One divine. What it adds is understanding and presence: the whole that holds every path is also in every occasion it holds. Whether the One also meets the sphere’s test, that is, whether it is good, is the claim the framework argues least, and Journal Four takes it up under the problem of evil, with Jung, by placing light and shadow alike within the whole while holding that the One’s intent faces the light.

Whitehead made a kindred relation explicit: God and the world each pass into the other. In his words, “what is done in the world is transformed into a reality in heaven, and the reality in heaven passes back into the world”; in that sense, he wrote, “God is the great companion—the fellow-sufferer who understands.”⁴² He refused to let the relation run one way only: “It is as true to say that God creates the World, as that the World creates God.”⁴³ The framework shares one face of Whitehead’s God, the receiver in which every perished occasion is kept. On God it departs from him at one point. Whitehead’s God is itself in process, and while it envisages every possibility it does not hold every actual route at once; that is Boethius’s claim, and here the framework follows Boethius.

The paper’s own problem changes accordingly. Read from the occasions upward, the hard question is how many small interiors combine into one subject. Read from the whole downward, that question gives way to what looks like its mirror image: how one consciousness comes to be many perspectives, each with a boundary of its own. Freya Mathews called this the individuation problem, and it now takes the place of the combination problem as the framework’s principal open question.⁴⁴ Itay Shani has argued that the mirror image is inexact, because the assumption that made combination insoluble is not forced on a view that begins from the whole.⁴⁵

One further remark goes past the argument, and the author offers it as speculation. The One is the whole, and the whole may be wider than the one world that can be observed. Other worlds, if there are any, would lie within the One as well, and not only as routes held in possibility, and the coherence each occasion seeks locally might be mirrored by a convergence of whole worlds toward a single greater coherence. Such worlds would lie just past the range of human comprehension: they can be imagined, and perhaps in some sense perceived, but they cannot be seen. The author’s further guess is that each perspective settles only the world in which it lives. A decision made here makes one outcome real for this world only; in the other worlds the possibilities it closed here remain open until the worlds come into alignment. The nearest things to the guess in physics are two readings of quantum theory in which nothing collapses. On Everett’s relative-state reading, what an observer meets as the collapse of a superposition is relative to that observer’s branch.⁴⁶ On Rovelli’s relational reading, facts happen at every interaction but are relative to the systems involved, and the spread of information turns some of them into stable facts whose relativity can be ignored; on the framework’s reading, that is as close as physics comes to perspectives coming into alignment.⁴⁷ Experiments on the Wigner’s friend paradox have begun to test whether two observers can each be entitled to their own facts, though the observers in them are the paths of photons, not minds.⁴⁸ Read either way, the guess needs no physical collapse, and so leaves intact the entanglement on which Jonathan Schaffer’s argument from entanglement for the priority of the whole depends.⁴⁹ Physics does not currently support the last step, the alignment of the worlds: on the Everettian account, decoherence leaves the remerging of whole worlds possible in principle and, so far as is now known, excluded in practice.⁵⁰ Nothing in the remark can be measured; it is recorded because a framework owes an account of the horizons it gestures toward but cannot reach.

8 Objections and Replies

Three objections bear directly on the proposal.

The combination problem. From the occasions upward, this is the gravest. If each fundamental occasion has its own minimal interior, how do many such microinteriors combine into the single, unified experience of a person at a moment? Why is there one subject reading this sentence rather than a colony of disconnected microsubjects? The difficulty is old: James pressed a version of it against the “mind-dust” theories of his day.⁵¹ It was given its modern name and force by Seager and elaborated by Chalmers.⁵² The perspectival framing reorients the problem: the question becomes how lower-order vantages are taken up into, and subordinated within, a higher-order vantage. In Whiteheadian terms, that is the question of how a presiding occasion prehends and unifies the occasions of the body into a single experiential perspective; in the framework’s terms, it is how the occasions of a body come to be entered in a gathering as the single term of the life they carry, a step whose notation §3 leaves open. That reframing connects the combination problem to the independently motivated machinery of prehension, but it does not discharge it. Section 7 carries the problem to the whole, where it gives way to the individuation problem.

The equivocation worry. It may be objected that the argument trades illicitly on two senses of “experience,” using a physical sense when convenient and a mental sense when convenient. The reply is that the argument turns on Russell’s structural-realist gap.⁵³ Physics fixes structure and leaves intrinsic nature open; the proposal fills that openness with the only intrinsic nature anyone is directly acquainted with, namely experience. No physical claim is altered, and no physical term is given a covert mental meaning; the claim is a metaphysical proposal about what realizes the structure that physics describes. The complementarity appeal, likewise, is flagged throughout as analogy and never as identity. The two aspects are kept categorically distinct, and that is what avoids the equivocation.

The idleness worry. Finally, it may be said that since the interior aspect of other occasions is in principle inaccessible from the outside, the view makes no testable difference and is therefore idle. The reply distinguishes interpretive metaphysics from empirical hypothesis. Perspectival dual-aspect monism is an interpretation of the intrinsic nature of the physical, on a par with rival interpretations in that debate; like them, it is to be assessed by coherence, parsimony, explanatory unification, and consistency with science, not by independent falsifiability. Its credential is that it reframes the explanatory gap without either denying experience, as eliminativism does, or multiplying substances, as dualism does, while remaining fully consistent with physics as it is practiced.

9 Conclusion

The proposal of this paper is that the Jay and the quark are not two things but two aspects of one kind of fundamental occasion: the quark is the structure of such occasions as apprehended from without, the Jay their nature as undergone from within. The two descriptions are complete in their own register, mutually exclusive in any single act of apprehension, and jointly exhaustive; which is available to an observer is fixed by the relation that observer bears to what it apprehends. That is the discipline of the Quantum Lens. Identifying the Jay with the inner aspect of Whitehead’s actual occasion supplies the unit with a developed metaphysics of process, relation, and aim. Naming its perceiver the Center, its orientation Intent, and its perishing-into-datum Trace aligns it with the framework in which Legibility is read. Taking the quark as the exemplar of the exterior aspect gives the view a physical anchor whose own confinement rhymes, from the outside, with the relational character that process metaphysics posits from within. Intent, taken from Whitehead as fundamental to every occasion and leaning toward coherence or away from it, underwrites a graded panpsychism across the Unified Field and, at its most articulate in occasions that lean toward coherence, becomes the observer’s explicit pursuit of truth. On the framework’s proposal, read from the whole, the same occasions are present at once to a vantage that holds them all; that is where this paper meets the companion journals.

Within its family, the position’s contribution is to formulate the dual-aspect intuition perspectivally, to anchor it in a physical example used without exaggeration, and to credit the tradition it draws upon. The orientation this paper formulates metaphysically is developed across the author’s four-part Toward a Theory of Coherent Existence and in the essay On Explaining, where the functional read here as Legibility receives its formal treatment. Two debts stay open: the individuation problem, which remains the work still to be done; and how a met Trace’s weight is set beside what is present, which remains the horizon still to be reached.

Notes

1. Nagel, “What Is It Like to Be a Bat?”; Chalmers, “Facing Up to the Problem of Consciousness.”

2. Russell, Analysis of Matter.

3. Spinoza, Ethics.

4. James, “Does ‘Consciousness’ Exist?”

5. Russell, Analysis of Mind.

6. Spinoza, Ethics 2p7s.

7. Whitehead, Process and Reality, pt. 1, chap. 1, sec. 2.

8. Strawson, “Realistic Monism”; Chalmers, “Combination Problem”; Goff, Galileo’s Error.

9. Johnson, Toward a Theory of Coherent Existence, Journal One; Johnson, The Resonating Hymn of Divinity; Johnson, Frequency, Resonance, and the Architecture of Reality; Johnson, Alignment, the Triad, and the Architecture of Shared Mind.

10. Chalmers, “Idealism and the Mind-Body Problem.”

11. Whitehead, Process and Reality.

12. Whitehead, Process and Reality.

13. Johnson, On Explaining; and the four journals cited in note 9.

14. Whitehead, Process and Reality, pt. 3, chap. 2, “The Primary Feelings.”

15. This “from within” lineage is owed in particular to Maria Strømme, who proposes that consciousness is itself a foundational field from which space, time, and matter emerge, and who models individual minds as localized excitations of that universal field — a picture that resonates closely with the present treatment of the Jay as a term within a gathered field. Strømme’s paper was retracted by AIP Advances on May 7, 2026, and the stated ground for retraction falls on the present paper as well: the operator central to the theory has no associated measurable quantity, and the theory’s predictions can be neither verified nor falsified by empirical test. That is a fatal objection to a paper submitted as physics. It is not an objection to a paper submitted as metaphysics, which is what this one is, and the difference is the whole of the register seam this paper has tried to hold. The framework’s position toward Strømme’s proposal is therefore solidarity rather than defense: her paper is answerable to that charge because it claimed the standing of physics, and this paper is not, because it never has. That is not a virtue. It is a smaller claim, purchased at the cost of being unable to fail in the same way. See Strømme, “Universal Consciousness as Foundational Field” (retracted 2026).

16. Gell-Mann, “A Schematic Model of Baryons and Mesons”; Zweig, An SU(3) Model for Strong Interaction Symmetry and Its Breaking.

17. Clay Mathematics Institute, “Yang–Mills and the Mass Gap”; Douglas, “Yang–Mills Millennium Problem.”

18. Russell, Analysis of Matter.

19. Dürr et al., “Ab Initio Determination of Light Hadron Masses,” for the first-principles reproduction of the spectrum; for the decomposition, Yang et al., “Proton Mass Decomposition from the QCD Energy Momentum Tensor,” and Walker-Loud, “Dissecting the Mass of the Proton.” Yang et al. find about 33 percent of the mass in quark energy, 37 percent in the glue field, 23 percent in the trace anomaly, and 9 percent in the quark scalar condensates (central values, each with its own uncertainty, so they sum to slightly over 100 percent); the popular “1 percent” figure refers to the quark masses summed as parameters, and both statements are correct at their own level.

20. Whitehead, Process and Reality, on societies and their defining characteristics.

21. Basalla, The Evolution of Technology; Arthur, The Nature of Technology; Schumpeter, The Theory of Economic Development.

22. Tomasello, The Cultural Origins of Human Cognition; Tennie, Call, and Tomasello, “Ratcheting Up the Ratchet”; Henrich, The Secret of Our Success, on the collective brain.

23. Ogburn and Thomas, “Are Inventions Inevitable?”; Merton, “Singletons and Multiples in Scientific Discovery.”

24. Institute for Economics and Peace, Global Peace Index 2026, which reports $21.8 trillion, 10.5 percent of global GDP, and $2,657 per person for 2025; Liang et al., Trends in World Military Expenditure, 2025, which reports $2,887 billion. The Global Peace Index figure is a composite estimate that includes military and internal-security spending with multipliers, not an audited account.

25. Hoeffler and Fearon, Benefits and Costs of the Conflict and Violence Targets: a welfare cost of about 11 percent of global GDP, with interpersonal violence, intimate-partner violence, and child abuse each exceeding the cost of collective violence several times over (about fifty-five times together), and homicides running at roughly eight and a half times the rate of civil-war battle deaths. Deaths are valued by a value-of-statistical-life method and nonfatal violence by a per-victim cost of assault; the authors grant that the life valuation may overstate the cost and that the global counts of battle deaths and homicides are of doubtful reliability.

26. Impact Global Health, “Funding for Global Health R&D in 2024,” whose G-FINDER total covers neglected diseases, emerging infectious diseases, and women’s health only, not the pharmaceutical industry’s whole outlay; National Science Board, “Global R&D and International Comparisons,” which puts global R&D at $3.1 trillion in purchasing-power terms for 2022.

27. Eisenhower, “The Chance for Peace.” A work of the United States government, in the public domain.

28. Pinker, The Better Angels of Our Nature; against the statistical case, Cirillo and Taleb, “On the Statistical Properties and Tail Risk of Violent Conflicts.”

29. Nagel, “What Is It Like to Be a Bat?”

30. Bohr, “The Quantum Postulate and the Recent Development of Atomic Theory.”

31. Whitehead, Process and Reality.

32. Whitehead, Process and Reality, Categoreal Obligation VIII, the Category of Subjective Intensity. Paraphrased.

33. Spinoza, Ethics 2p13s.

34. Strawson, “Realistic Monism”; Goff, Galileo’s Error; Chalmers, “Combination Problem,” which calls panpsychism a promising view and the combination problem a major challenge to it.

35. Nagasawa and Wager, “Panpsychism and Priority Cosmopsychism.”

36. Spinoza, Ethics 1p15; Mander, “Pantheism”; Wishon, “Neutral Monism.”

37. Boethius, Consolation of Philosophy 5.pr.6, in Tester’s translation.

38. Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologica I, q. 14, a. 13, ad 3.

39. Abbott, Flatland, pt. 2.

40. Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologica I, q. 14, a. 9.

41. Abbott, Flatland, pt. 2.

42. Whitehead, Process and Reality, pt. 5, chap. 2.

43. Whitehead, Process and Reality, pt. 5, chap. 2.

44. Medhananda follows Freya Mathews in calling it the individuation problem; see Medhananda, “Playful Self-Involution of Divine Consciousness,” which reconstructs one answer drawn from Sri Aurobindo’s Vedānta.

45. Shani, “Cosmopsychism, Coherence, and World-Affirming Monism.” For the cosmopsychist position itself: Shani, “Cosmopsychism: A Holistic Approach”; Nagasawa and Wager, “Panpsychism and Priority Cosmopsychism”; Goff, Consciousness and Fundamental Reality.

46. Everett, “‘Relative State’ Formulation.”

47. Rovelli, “Relational Quantum Mechanics”; Di Biagio and Rovelli, “Stable Facts, Relative Facts,” whose abstract reads: “Facts happen at every interaction, but they are not absolute: they are relative to the systems involved in the interaction.”

48. Proietti et al., “Experimental Test of Local Observer Independence”; Bong et al., “Strong No-Go Theorem”; for the paradox in its sharpest form, Frauchiger and Renner, “Quantum Theory Cannot Consistently Describe the Use of Itself.”

49. Schaffer, “Monism,” where universal entanglement holds “absent wave-function collapse.”

50. Wallace, Emergent Multiverse.

51. James, Principles of Psychology, chap. 6.

52. Seager, “Consciousness, Information and Panpsychism”; Chalmers, “Combination Problem.”

53. Russell, Analysis of Matter.

References

[Abbott, Edwin A.] Flatland: A Romance of Many Dimensions. By A Square. London: Seeley, 1884.

Arthur, W. Brian. The Nature of Technology: What It Is and How It Evolves. New York: Free Press, 2009.

Basalla, George. The Evolution of Technology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1988.

Boethius. The Theological Tractates; The Consolation of Philosophy. Translated by H. F. Stewart, E. K. Rand, and S. J. Tester. Loeb Classical Library 74. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1973.

Bohr, Niels. “The Quantum Postulate and the Recent Development of Atomic Theory.” Nature 121, no. 3050 (1928): 580–590. https://doi.org/10.1038/121580a0.

Bong, Kok-Wei, Aníbal Utreras-Alarcón, Farzad Ghafari, Yeong-Cherng Liang, Nora Tischler, Eric G. Cavalcanti, Geoff J. Pryde, and Howard M. Wiseman. “A Strong No-Go Theorem on the Wigner’s Friend Paradox.” Nature Physics 16, no. 12 (2020): 1199–1205. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41567-020-0990-x.

Chalmers, David J. “The Combination Problem for Panpsychism.” In Panpsychism: Contemporary Perspectives, edited by Godehard Brüntrup and Ludwig Jaskolla, 179–214. New York: Oxford University Press, 2017. https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199359943.003.0008.

Chalmers, David J. “Facing Up to the Problem of Consciousness.” Journal of Consciousness Studies 2, no. 3 (1995): 200–219.

Chalmers, David J. “Idealism and the Mind-Body Problem.” In The Routledge Handbook of Panpsychism, edited by William Seager, 353–373. London: Routledge, 2020. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315717708-28.

Cirillo, Pasquale, and Nassim Nicholas Taleb. “On the Statistical Properties and Tail Risk of Violent Conflicts.” Physica A: Statistical Mechanics and Its Applications 452 (2016): 29–45. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.physa.2016.01.050.

Clay Mathematics Institute. “Yang–Mills and the Mass Gap.” Millennium Problems. Accessed September 25, 2026. https://www.claymath.org/millennium/yang-mills-the-maths-gap/.

Di Biagio, Andrea, and Carlo Rovelli. “Stable Facts, Relative Facts.” Foundations of Physics 51, no. 1 (2021): 30. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10701-021-00429-w.

Douglas, Michael R. “The Yang–Mills Millennium Problem.” Nature Reviews Physics 8, no. 2 (2026): 86–97. https://doi.org/10.1038/s42254-025-00909-2.

Dürr, S., Z. Fodor, J. Frison, C. Hoelbling, R. Hoffmann, S. D. Katz, S. Krieg, et al. “Ab Initio Determination of Light Hadron Masses.” Science 322, no. 5905 (2008): 1224–1227. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1163233.

Eisenhower, Dwight D. “The Chance for Peace.” Address to the American Society of Newspaper Editors, Washington, DC, April 16, 1953. Dwight D. Eisenhower Presidential Library.

Everett, Hugh, III. “‘Relative State’ Formulation of Quantum Mechanics.” Reviews of Modern Physics 29, no. 3 (1957): 454–462. https://doi.org/10.1103/RevModPhys.29.454.

Frauchiger, Daniela, and Renato Renner. “Quantum Theory Cannot Consistently Describe the Use of Itself.” Nature Communications 9 (2018): 3711. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-018-05739-8.

Gell-Mann, Murray. “A Schematic Model of Baryons and Mesons.” Physics Letters 8, no. 3 (1964): 214–215. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0031-9163(64)92001-3.

Goff, Philip. Consciousness and Fundamental Reality. Philosophy of Mind Series. New York: Oxford University Press, 2017.

Goff, Philip. Galileo’s Error: Foundations for a New Science of Consciousness. New York: Pantheon Books, 2019.

Henrich, Joseph. The Secret of Our Success: How Culture Is Driving Human Evolution, Domesticating Our Species, and Making Us Smarter. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 2016.

Hoeffler, Anke, and James Fearon. Benefits and Costs of the Conflict and Violence Targets for the Post-2015 Development Agenda. Copenhagen: Copenhagen Consensus Center, 2014.

Impact Global Health. “Funding for Global Health R&D in 2024.” February 5, 2026. https://www.impactglobalhealth.org/insights/report-library/funding-for-global-health-rd-in-2024.

Institute for Economics and Peace. Global Peace Index 2026: Identifying and Measuring the Factors That Drive Peace. Sydney: Institute for Economics and Peace, June 2026. https://www.economicsandpeace.org/wp-content/uploads/2026/06/Global-Peace-Index-2026-Report.pdf.

James, William. “Does ‘Consciousness’ Exist?” Journal of Philosophy, Psychology and Scientific Methods 1, no. 18 (1904): 477–491. https://doi.org/10.2307/2011942.

James, William. The Principles of Psychology. 2 vols. New York: Henry Holt, 1890.

Johnson, Jamison Todd. Alignment, the Triad, and the Architecture of Shared Mind: The Convergence of the Branches. Toward a Theory of Coherent Existence, Journal Four. Kansas City, MO: Legible Traces, 2026. Zenodo. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.20523385.

Johnson, Jamison Todd. Frequency, Resonance, and the Architecture of Reality: A Theoretical Framework Measured by Science and Mathematics. Toward a Theory of Coherent Existence, Journal Three. Kansas City, MO: Legible Traces, 2026. Zenodo. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.20522506.

Johnson, Jamison Todd. On Explaining: Understanding What It Is to Be Human, from All Sides of the Equation. On ——ing Series. Kansas City, MO: Legible Traces, 2026. Zenodo. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.21154523.

Johnson, Jamison Todd. The Resonating Hymn of Divinity: On the Universal Architecture of Faith. Toward a Theory of Coherent Existence, Journal Two. Kansas City, MO: Legible Traces, 2026. Zenodo. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.20512320.

Johnson, Jamison Todd. Toward a Theory of Coherent Existence, Journal One: A Philosophical Framework for Subjective Experience, Suffering, Community, and the Nature of Meaning. Kansas City, MO: Legible Traces, 2026. Zenodo. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.20482186.

Liang, Xiao, Nan Tian, Diego Lopes da Silva, Lorenzo Scarazzato, Zubaida A. Karim, and Jade Guiberteau Ricard. Trends in World Military Expenditure, 2025. SIPRI Fact Sheet. Stockholm: Stockholm International Peace Research Institute, 2026.

Mander, William. “Pantheism.” In The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, Fall 2023 ed., edited by Edward N. Zalta and Uri Nodelman. https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/fall2023/entries/pantheism/.

Medhananda, Swami. “The Playful Self-Involution of Divine Consciousness: Sri Aurobindo’s Evolutionary Cosmopsychism and His Response to the Individuation Problem.” Monist 105, no. 1 (2022): 92–109. https://doi.org/10.1093/monist/onab025.

Merton, Robert K. “Singletons and Multiples in Scientific Discovery: A Chapter in the Sociology of Science.” Proceedings of the American Philosophical Society 105, no. 5 (1961): 470–486.

Nagasawa, Yujin, and Khai Wager. “Panpsychism and Priority Cosmopsychism.” In Panpsychism: Contemporary Perspectives, edited by Godehard Brüntrup and Ludwig Jaskolla, 113–129. New York: Oxford University Press, 2017.

Nagel, Thomas. “What Is It Like to Be a Bat?” Philosophical Review 83, no. 4 (1974): 435–450. https://doi.org/10.2307/2183914.

National Science Board. “Global R&D and International Comparisons.” In Discovery: R&D Activity and Research Publications. Science and Engineering Indicators 2026, NSB-2025-7. Alexandria, VA: National Science Foundation, 2025. https://ncses.nsf.gov/pubs/nsb20257/.

Ogburn, William F., and Dorothy Thomas. “Are Inventions Inevitable? A Note on Social Evolution.” Political Science Quarterly 37, no. 1 (1922): 83–98. https://doi.org/10.2307/2142320.

Pinker, Steven. The Better Angels of Our Nature: Why Violence Has Declined. New York: Viking, 2011.

Proietti, Massimiliano, Alexander Pickston, Francesco Graffitti, Peter Barrow, Dmytro Kundys, Cyril Branciard, Martin Ringbauer, and Alessandro Fedrizzi. “Experimental Test of Local Observer Independence.” Science Advances 5, no. 9 (2019): eaaw9832. https://doi.org/10.1126/sciadv.aaw9832.

Rovelli, Carlo. “Relational Quantum Mechanics.” International Journal of Theoretical Physics 35, no. 8 (1996): 1637–1678. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02302261.

Russell, Bertrand. The Analysis of Matter. London: Kegan Paul, Trench, Trubner, 1927.

Russell, Bertrand. The Analysis of Mind. London: George Allen and Unwin, 1921.

Schaffer, Jonathan. “Monism: The Priority of the Whole.” Philosophical Review 119, no. 1 (2010): 31–76. https://doi.org/10.1215/00318108-2009-025.

Schumpeter, Joseph A. The Theory of Economic Development. Translated by Redvers Opie. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1934. First published in German, 1911.

Seager, William. “Consciousness, Information and Panpsychism.” Journal of Consciousness Studies 2, no. 3 (1995): 272–288.

Shani, Itay. “Cosmopsychism: A Holistic Approach to the Metaphysics of Experience.” Philosophical Papers 44, no. 3 (2015): 389–437. https://doi.org/10.1080/05568641.2015.1106709.

Shani, Itay. “Cosmopsychism, Coherence, and World-Affirming Monism.” Monist 105, no. 1 (2022): 6–24. https://doi.org/10.1093/monist/onab020.

Spinoza, Baruch. Ethics. In The Collected Works of Spinoza, vol. 1, edited and translated by Edwin Curley. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1985. Originally published 1677.

Strawson, Galen. “Realistic Monism: Why Physicalism Entails Panpsychism.” Journal of Consciousness Studies 13, nos. 10–11 (2006): 3–31.

Strømme, Maria. “Universal Consciousness as Foundational Field: A Theoretical Bridge between Quantum Physics and Non-dual Philosophy.” AIP Advances 15, no. 11 (2025): 115319. https://doi.org/10.1063/5.0290984. Retracted May 7, 2026; see “Retraction,” AIP Advances 16, no. 5 (2026): 059902, https://doi.org/10.1063/5.0339733.

Tennie, Claudio, Josep Call, and Michael Tomasello. “Ratcheting Up the Ratchet: On the Evolution of Cumulative Culture.” Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B 364, no. 1528 (2009): 2405–2415. https://doi.org/10.1098/rstb.2009.0052.

Thomas Aquinas. Summa Theologica. Translated by the Fathers of the English Dominican Province. 2nd rev. ed. London: Burns Oates and Washbourne, 1920.

Tomasello, Michael. The Cultural Origins of Human Cognition. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1999.

Walker-Loud, André. “Dissecting the Mass of the Proton.” Physics 11 (2018): 118. https://doi.org/10.1103/Physics.11.118.

Wallace, David. The Emergent Multiverse: Quantum Theory according to the Everett Interpretation. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2012.

Whitehead, Alfred North. Process and Reality: An Essay in Cosmology. Corrected ed. Edited by David Ray Griffin and Donald W. Sherburne. New York: Free Press, 1978. Originally published 1929.

Wishon, Donovan. “Neutral Monism.” In The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, Spring 2023 ed., edited by Edward N. Zalta and Uri Nodelman. https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/spr2023/entries/neutral-monism/.

Yang, Yi-Bo, Jian Liang, Yu-Jiang Bi, Ying Chen, Terrence Draper, Keh-Fei Liu, and Zhaofeng Liu (χQCD Collaboration). “Proton Mass Decomposition from the QCD Energy Momentum Tensor.” Physical Review Letters 121, no. 21 (2018): 212001. https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevLett.121.212001.

Zweig, George. An SU(3) Model for Strong Interaction Symmetry and Its Breaking. CERN Report No. 8182/TH.401. Geneva: CERN, 1964.

CC BY 4.0 · ORCID 0009-0009-8618-398X · DOIs MINTED ON DEPOSIT

© 2026 JAMISON TODD JOHNSON · LEGIBLE TRACES LLC