I don’t expect anyone to read much of this:

If monism is founded on (in) a monad, what is pluralism founded on? A “plurad”? A plurad is the background of monads; and each monad is self-evidently self-grounded. A monad’s derivation from its plurad is existentially known only through the experience of change across monistic foundings. For a minute, I thought the plurad would be synonymous with the Tao, but the plurad might be just another monad.

A thinker tends to transpose the Transcendent into the terms of his current ontology. The meaning of the Transcendent for me currently is based on a sort of calculus of perspective. I look at the trajectory of the kinds of change I apperceptively observe in my observations as I iteratively blow up and reconstitute my understanding of being, and that trajctory suggests a negatively-defined point of approach. I’m on the lookout for ontological transpositions, and I don’t trust myself one bit to avoid them. There’s no way to positively expect the unexpected, so I try to acknowledge the utter futility of attempting to settle it, and I try to allow my spiritual processes to run their course by their own principles and not impose standards on where they take me. I’m not sure if that’s a sustainable way to live, though. The moral value of this way of living is not clear. The point of it is also not clear. I’ll probably have to stop at some point to avoid implosion or terrible social consequences, or maybe I’ll stop on my own from exhaustion.

(I googled “plurad” to see whether it has been used as a word, and I found this.)