Your six principles deeply resonate with me. I see the duality highlighted in the first principle (conceptual vs experiential) manifested in the other five. For example in #5, social knowledge seems aligned with conceptual knowledge and personal knowledge seems aligned with experiential.
What doesn't seem to be manifested throughout is the emphasis on non-privileging, which is highlighted only in #1: "Neither should be privileged over the other." For example in #3, you seem to explicitly privilege process thinking over entity thinking: "Our understanding should *prioritise* processes rather than fixed entities..." Why not also apply non-privileging to both process-centric and object-centric thinking?
The same can be said of #5: Why privilege the social aspect of knowledge ("all knowledge is inherently social"). Why not emphasize that knowledge is always both social and personal? In other words, the two aspects can never be completely distinguished or separated.
I raise these issues because I too have been grappling with the paradoxical aspects of attempting to avoid privileging. I've been doing so for many decades. One insight that has helped tremendously came from Tiantai Buddhism (as interpreted by Brook Ziporyn, a leading authority on Tiantai): https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/buddhism-tiantai/ .
Tianati turns the problem on its head: instead of trying to avoid privileging anything, it teaches that we should privilege everything! Yes, privileging everything can be understood as privileging nothing, nonetheless the inversion can trigger a profound change in emphasis. Such omni-privileging is built on an even deeper Tiantai inversion: inverting scepticism (everything is false) into trivialism (everything is true).
Which leads me to a final comment on the name of your book, Neither/Nor. I think such a title (and such an emphasis) can be an upaya for those too attached to opposed viewpoints (eg Both/And). But it can also be an upaya to *equally privilege* ALL the alternatives of the tetralemma / catuá¹£koá¹i ( https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/contradiction/#LNCBuddTetr ):
i. S is P
ii. S is not P
iii. S is both P and not-P
iv. S is neither P nor not-P
Each alternative may be emphasized in the appropriate context to aid in enlightenment. Becoming too attached to Neither/Nor as the only privileged perspective can cause its own set of problems.
Your six principles deeply resonate with me. I see the duality highlighted in the first principle (conceptual vs experiential) manifested in the other five. For example in #5, social knowledge seems aligned with conceptual knowledge and personal knowledge seems aligned with experiential.
What doesn't seem to be manifested throughout is the emphasis on non-privileging, which is highlighted only in #1: "Neither should be privileged over the other." For example in #3, you seem to explicitly privilege process thinking over entity thinking: "Our understanding should *prioritise* processes rather than fixed entities..." Why not also apply non-privileging to both process-centric and object-centric thinking?
The same can be said of #5: Why privilege the social aspect of knowledge ("all knowledge is inherently social"). Why not emphasize that knowledge is always both social and personal? In other words, the two aspects can never be completely distinguished or separated.
I raise these issues because I too have been grappling with the paradoxical aspects of attempting to avoid privileging. I've been doing so for many decades. One insight that has helped tremendously came from Tiantai Buddhism (as interpreted by Brook Ziporyn, a leading authority on Tiantai): https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/buddhism-tiantai/ .
Tianati turns the problem on its head: instead of trying to avoid privileging anything, it teaches that we should privilege everything! Yes, privileging everything can be understood as privileging nothing, nonetheless the inversion can trigger a profound change in emphasis. Such omni-privileging is built on an even deeper Tiantai inversion: inverting scepticism (everything is false) into trivialism (everything is true).
Which leads me to a final comment on the name of your book, Neither/Nor. I think such a title (and such an emphasis) can be an upaya for those too attached to opposed viewpoints (eg Both/And). But it can also be an upaya to *equally privilege* ALL the alternatives of the tetralemma / catuá¹£koá¹i ( https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/contradiction/#LNCBuddTetr ):
i. S is P
ii. S is not P
iii. S is both P and not-P
iv. S is neither P nor not-P
Each alternative may be emphasized in the appropriate context to aid in enlightenment. Becoming too attached to Neither/Nor as the only privileged perspective can cause its own set of problems.