Learning in a Pluralistic-platonic sense could be:

You disover and explore (the) different aspects, patterns of Existence and their different combinations. In different intensities of Tension and clarity of contrasting and more diffusion and internal differentiation and similarity-presence with the respective other in a situation or longer-term structural relation.

 

1. Pluriel de être.
   • Les êtres corporels se trouvent tous ensemble dans la matière, mais les anges ne se rencontrent pas avec les êtres corporels dans une matière commune.
     

— Thomas d’Aquin, De la production des anges dans l’ordre de la nature, part. 1, question 61, article 4, dans Somme théologique de S. Thomas d’Aquin, volume 2, traduction F. Lachat, 1855, page 595.

Citation de: https://fr.wiktionary.org/wiki/êtres

 

Things on different levels of Existence (experience and Expression etc.) are differently complicated.
The particularisations of Life and their relations are complicated.

The singularities of Life have more detail, but/and they are less complicated–they are as they are.
The abstract-general aspects and patterns of Existence are not that complicated. They exist, can be perceived and we can have notions of them, and make models and heuristics with the (not quantitatively/amountly overwhelmingly large) plural of them.

The particularisation/s of Life requires energy and is complicated and always in the Tension of the tension fields of all the contexts–from single decisions to large scale or long-term structurations. Compare for example Arnold Gehlen’s concept: The stabilisation effect of the Institutions (in a broader sense), here we can say: Of our ideological and worldview structurations of the world. Which are particularising Structurations of Existence and its contexts (politically among them: society and particular groups, the inside structure of them and their relations with other groups).
With longer-term and in every moment/present acting-as-timeless, stabilisations and depluralisations (as specific decomplexifications by selective-reductively particularising)
of the basically (not basically abolishable/substitutable, not to be made nonexistent) nonparticular and nonhierarchical Plural of Existence. And of all existing compositions and contexts.

And the particular structurations (as groups, and cultures, traditions, ideological structurations, worldviews) are ongoing long-term stabilisations of our basically and inavoidably plural World (and experience of human beings).

They “free“ us from many singular decision-finding processes that we could make instead of having a guiding ideology and structuration that gives us the scheme how to act, react, hierarchise (positions and values etc.) and put situations, things etc, into a structure–with its inavoidably particular and for the ideological and political part inavoidably non-balanced part. Because they are selective-reductive and ignoring–for stability and de-pluralisation, cognitive and ideological clearness, orientation, hierarchy-upholding, teleology etc.–the equally existing other aspects and patterns (needs, drives, necessities of compositions and Existence etc.). And making a hierarchy where objectively, rationally, scientific-technically and ethically there is none.

The societal and political Role of the Pluralists, they are the ones that are not making as-if-ultimate judgments and decisions. They keep it in the objective (nonparticularised and not particular-onesidedly hierarchised) Plural that Existence is objectively made of–at least to all our scientific and philosophical insights and perception-possibilities.

They keep it ultimately-undecided and thus theoretically/as-such: open. And they keep it semi-open/in a plural Tension Field (and in the tension fields of different contexts) against and with the different (and pattern-same) particularisations that are made/set/structured (put into structure and represented/enacted) by the different worldviews, ideologies, groups. With their selective-reductive as-if-whole structurings (orderings&hierarchisations and direction and goal-setting) of things. And their as-if-ultimate judgments, decisions etc. (of the moment, projected as longer-term and then either effectively/really structured longer-term this way or changed in the next situation).
Decisions that in a particularistic way ‚collapse’/’decide‘ the Plural of Aspects and Patterns involved/existing, into a as-if-whole/decided/’solved’/etc. decision and state of things. Which is of course only an as-if, but also secondarily real/effective for the single situation or for the (more or less) longer-term structuration of a context or question. That as-if-whole particularistic decisions&structurations make life’s basic plural (mode and plural of things, compositions, etc.) into more or less stable selective-reductive structurations.

Selective-reductively (one-sidedly, imbalancedly*) orienting and as-if-directing us in the different situations and about longer-term decisions, structurings (with value and position hierarchies, goal-settings and teleologies etc.).

And we can neither live without such structurations (by particularisations) nor without questioning them and keeping the ignored aspects and patterns (needs, the ignored but necessary components of a structure, etc.) also present and this is a unavoidable part of our human Existence (experience) in the Plural of us as persons and groups and our structurations and of Existence as a ‚whole‘ (which is a plural without a basic/unitary direction or hierarchy etc.).

 

We can’t do or go** without, or substitute, the existence of the need for particularisation, nor the existence of the Plural (mode and quantity) and nonunitarisability of those Particularisations.
Nor the Parallel existence of
– the particular structurations (reductive-selective stabilisations), and in political aspect: the more or less intensively one-sided/imbalanced hierarchisations of things.
And that these particularised structurations have to be questioned and cannot be accepted wholly/unitarily (by all humans, by all groups, etc.) as they are (and can not) incorporating all equally existing (existential view) and structurally necessary (structural view) aspects, patterns and structural elements.

 

 

___
* Imbalance can be modeled as the pattern of Life going on. As life in (or as) motion.

** ‚Go‘ in the secondary and human experience of motion created by the different particularisations that let the singular moments/constellations and the abstract-general timeless aspects and patterns of Existence — that are not as such exhibiting motion — be experienced as moving.–As moving towards and away from each other and moving in directions and are interpreted (for wholeness and unity reasons/motives/etc.) as (to me: as-if-whole nonobjective) moving into a unitary direction.–Be it called progress or an ambivalent development or decline. Etc.

There is a real-real World (in my pluralist view: ‚World‘ as abstract term for a nonunitary Plural, that is combining, being and ‚experiencing‘ constellations. And ‚interactions‘ that are secondarily [experienced by particulars as] motion and change).

And there is a real-imaginary (and as the particular imaginations of particular persons and groups: imaginary-real?) World (also plural).
It is a part of the Plural of our Existence (experience). Therefore it’s not unreal, but it’s an imaginary part of Reality.

Both, real-real and imaginary-real, can be analytically separated and explored rationally (without a pregiven hierarchy applied beforehand).
And both interact and have constellations and combinations in different (in always a plural of) forms.

A plural has to represent/express the Plural (of Existence and general and specific contexts).

If (the/a) Nothing does not exist. Is Nothing then nothing? And is nothing here that which is no thing? Or is it then not Nothing but just no thing and that is something (and some thing?) different?

The good news: Language doesn’t determine Existence or human existence. Existence and human Existence (as such an as experienced) is a Plural and in a Plurality Mode (every composition, constellation, interaction/resound between things and structure) has a plural of sides (and effects, etc.).

Language is a structure. Besides a plural of other structures. Neither primary nor otherwise special in a hierarchical or dominating or determinating sense.
It has its particular aspects and features. And its plural of sides and effects etc. Like all other structures have theirs.

So: Language is a structure in the parallel and plurally combining/constellating/interacting Plural of structures, which are one form of expressing the Plural of Existence Aspects and Patterns.

Change the Language and the Plural (of Existence’s Aspects and Patterns) will still express itself in the same way in all other structural forms and nonstructural phenomena of Existence’s Plural.
Reduce the Language’s ability or feature of expressing the Plural <-> and the Plural will find other forms and ‚places‘ to be expressed.

My modell of Pluralism has two heuristic levels for the following two sayings:
1) The situation is hopeless, but not serious.
2) The situation is serious, but not hopeless.

The situation (e.g. Life) estimation/statement and interpretation 1) is situated on the Level c) of the model. That is the Level of the abstract-general and platonic (as such timeless) Aspects and Patterns of Existence.
They don’t change and on this level you see rather a stilllife of a Plural of Aspects&Patterns that are as such not changing, not a thing about or in motion or moving etc.

The description 2) is situated/model-located on the Level b) of the Pluralistic Three-Level-Model.
That’s the Level of Particularisations. Of constructing and structuring and being structured selective-reductively out of the Plural of things. To form and be formed (to be in some way delimited and defined as) a Particular. Such Particularisations are:

– Persons as as-if-units,
– Groups as as-if-units
– Structures as as-if-units with particular orderings and hierarchies of things. In the basically (in this model logically basic, not chronologically processually one before the other) nonparticular Plural of Existence and within that the Plural of human Existence.

In/On the Particularisation Level, we experience motion and change, and as-if-direction/s of developments and history etc. (which are changing with the change of our interpretations).
In a picture:
– The Tension Fields that the plural compositions (Persons, Groups) are/exhibit/experience. And the Tension Fields of the contexts (of the constellations and interactions between things and compositions, for example: The Tension Field Society).
– And the Space of the Plural of Aspects&Patterns of Existence and their manifestations/expressions in a plural of variations, expressions, manifestations.
They wobble (wobble as a metaphor for a pattern of ‚behaviour‘ or of variating forms on the Particularisation Level).
And they are wobbling (pictureable and experiencable by humans as an ongoing motion) into different forms–with the same aspects and patterns in different expression forms and tension states (more or less intensive [up to dualistic] or diffusely differentiated into a low tension low energy state).

And on the Level of Particular(isation)s, it is one of our human roles or tasks to act, to achieve, to fight for or against. There is the Level of ‚Serious but not hopeless‘, for example in the way of:
– ‚It is a difficult task/challenge/problem, but not impossible and we can solve it etc.‘
– And in the imagination of structuring the whole of a context, politically especially: structuring and experiencing groups, and their structure&space, as something particular and as a unit. And trying to structure Society with/like the particular structuration (ideal, imagination).

And what we achieve philosophically is: To keep the Tension Field and to keep the 50-50 of the Plus and the Minus, the YinYang etc.

Our motions and makings are necessary to (and patterns of) achieve the balance of imbalances.

That leads us again to Description 1) where the situation is hopeless but not serious. It is this in regard to the nonchanging, (at least experientially) finite, Plural* of platonic** Existence Aspects and Patterns (the Level c).

They are expressed on the Particularisation Level.
In the plural of the particulars and particularisations (that all partly explore/shine a light on different aspects and patterns of Existence).
And in the constellations and interactions between them (in the conflicts, cooperations, competitions, co-existence, etc.). For example in the fights, competitions and combinations etc. for the ‚right‘ particular as-if-direction (of a political or cultural context or Society), towards the ‚right‘ teleology and for different ideological goals.
And for the (more or less ideologically clear, or arbitrarily diffuse) structuring-goal (for the structuration of a context or Society as a ‚whole‘) set by one particular ideology
versus the particular structure-proposition/-goal set by another ideology.–With their particular selective-reductive combination of some things (while ignoring or one-sidedly depluralising others, that also need and will get plural–and probably always ambivalent–expression).

And on the Level of Singularities (Level a) in my model),
with the singularity of moments, constellations in their embodied manifestation and in/as detail. And our experience of the singularity part/aspect of the moments and constellations.

 

___
* Plural means amongst others: not unifiable/totalisable/wholisable into a one-structure, one-direction, one-teleology, etc.
** platonic here=Timeless as such (as they are distinguishable [as] discrete Aspects&Patterns of Existence). And timelessly and/or recurringly, these Aspects&Patterns are expressed in a more or less large number of Variations/Concretisations. In and between Particularisations, and in Singularities (the singularity part/aspect of Moments and Constellations).

A smaller number of combinatory and constellational detail/s is expressed on the Level of, and by our, Particularisations (a part of their role is the de-pluralisation and de-ambivalentisation).
But as we know (and sometimes ignore for having clear front lines, less contradictions–that are coming from our own and the others‘ and Existence’s Plurality), there are a bunch of different combinations of for example political positions, stances and favouring this or that political decision or more general political structuration or direction.
Single positions and particular combinations which are not in line with the (on the societal level simplified-decomplexifiedly defined) political large groups–as for example Conservatives, Social Democrats, Liberals. Or as this Party line and that Party line.
But at the same time, the different particular combinations can then be summarised as leaning to this or that broader Particularity (particular group and structuration of life, e.g. [meta-]ideology or political party),
and its respective Direction*** . So that the finite effective plural of Particularities is not that large.

Whereas the number (on the Level) of Singularities is either truely infinite. Or practically to us humans, for our experience, infinite–therefore the (singular parts/aspects of) Moments and Constellations are singular.

And a more or less large number of these variations/of variability is experienceable and processable to us as human persons and groups (compatible with our Aspect&Patterns of need for structure and some or another form of orientative clarity).
Variations (and a large number of them) are/can be interesting and probably also are (experienced as) diffusing and de-structurising our need for particularity and orientation.

*** Direction here means: Which parts of the Existence Plural the particular structurations structure and by that explore&express it in some way. And their particular goals and teleology.
The Extensions and Directions of the different Particularisations can be conceptualised as Tensors within/of the Tension Field/s. They stretch out (in their plural) the Tension Fields–of a context (like a political question or a relation between groups) and of Society as an abstract (and nonunitary) whole.

With and on a (kind of, plurally partly-open, partly structured) general level or perspective,

humans cannot ignore all relevant parallel existing aspects and patterns of Existence and of human Existence (Plural, combinations, and experience).

Every partiularisation, every particular and self- and other-particularised person, group and structure (with its chronological and spatial and combinational etc. ordering and hierarchy of things. Via ideology, worldview, life-philosophy, and by customs, traditions, rules, value hierarchies, etc.)
can (and has to, therefore it’s particular) ignore some aspects and patterns (needs or behavioural co-dependencies etc.) and some valid interpretations and effects/sides of those existing aspects.
But the Plural, that we live in, are composed within (within and between us), and need for living, cannot ignore the existing aspects and patterns. They are there, and are expressed, in some way and in others.

 

Der Philosoph kämpft mit der Wahrheit.
Die Wissenschaft mit den jeweiligen Phänomenen und Mustern in bestimmten kleineren und größeren Zusammenhangsmodellen.

Die Menschen und alles was existiert konstituieren das Seinde. Sie bilden und drücken aus, die Dinge, Muster und Phänomene etc. mit denen sich u.a. Philosophen und Wissenschaftler–als Rollen und Perspektiven–auseinandersetzen. Der Plural lässt Diskretion zu–Rollen, Perspektiven, mit denen man diskrete Aspekte, Muster, Phänomene wahrnehmen kann und als Modelle und Heuristiken und wissenschaftliche Theorien rational aufstellen kann. Fehlbar, aber so weit gültig. Und gültig für bestimmte Aspekte und Muster, für bestimmte Dinge, Kompositionen und Wechselwirkungen. Und für andere sind andere Aspekt und Muster-Beschreibungen (und singuläre Fall-Beschreibungen, Konstellations-Beschreibungen etc.) zuständig/zutreffend.

Es ist ein unreduzierbarer, und nicht in eine-Richtung und eine Ein-Struktur bringbarer, Plural. Für den wiederum diskrete Beschreiung/en möglich ist und sind. Und der in seinen abstrakt-generellen Aspekten und Mustern (in meinem Drei-Ebenen-Modell ist das Ebene c) eine überschaubare Anzahl, einen finiten Plural aufweist.
In seinen singulären Konstellationen (Ebene a) und Momenten einen (zumindest praktisch für den finiten Menschen) unendliche bzw. sehr große Kombinations-Möglichkeiten-Anzahl.
Und in seinen Partikularisationen (Ebene b) — das sind hier: reduktiv-selektive Kompositions-Fixierungen wie Selbst- und Fremdbilder von Personen- und Gruppen, Strukturierungen von Kontexten–von kleinen und mittleren Kontexten bis Weltbild und ideologischen Anordnungen und Hierarchisierungen der Welt etc. —
ist es ebenfalls ein finiter Plural von Aspekten und Mustern, die in verschiedener Interpretation und Wertung kombiniert werden. Dabei immer widersprüchlich und mit Mangel. Da die Partikularisationen (kleine, mittlere, große Strukturierungen von Gruppenkontexten, Gemeinschaften, ‚der Gesellschaft‘, ‚der Welt‘ oder ‚des Lebens‘ als Weltbilder, Ideologien, Lebensphilosophien) keine Ganzheit des Plurals beschreiben können–u.a. weil das Ganze unganz ist, also plural und keine Einstruktur Einheit und keine ein-Richtungs Ganzheit etc. Und weil jede Partikularisation eine als-ob-Ganzheit (um eine Ordnung und Sturktur bilden zu können) konstruiert. Und eine als-ob-Richtung und Hierarchie (Werte-Hierarchie und Teleologie, als-ob-Ziel) konstruieren muss, um den beteiligten Menschen eine Ausrichtung und Orientierung und ein geglaubtes Ziel geben zu können.
Der basal existente Plural, wenn man ihn rational betrachtet (rational hier=ohne vorher eine partikulare Hierarchie anzusetzen), weist aber objektiv und rational keine Hierarchie auf. Was existiert existiert. Das gilt für die Philosophie wie für die Wissenschaft (vor der, dann immer partikularen und mit Hierarchie versehenen, Wertung der Ergebnisse der Wissenschaft). Damit müssen sich Philosophie (mit Ontologie und Ethik u.a.) und Wissenschaft (als Betrachtung der Dinge, wie sie sind, und der nach definierten Begriffen nachvollziehbare Modellierung der jeweils in der Wissenschaft betrachteten Einzeldinge und Einzelkontexte und derern Zusammenhangs-Möglichkeiten–Interaktionen, Strukturbildung, etc.) herumschlagen.

Der Mensch lebt unvermeidlich als und im Plural.
Modellhaft: Ebene a: In dem praktisch unendlichen (mehr oder weniger erfahrenen, vermutlich vor allem als Kind zugänglichen) Anzahl an singulären Konstellationen in Momenten und Kombinationsdetails, die die Dinge zusammensetzen.
Ebene b: Die Partikularisationen, das besondersmachen und längerfristig stabilisieren von Personen, Gruppen, Strukturen, Weltbildern, Ideologien, etc. durch reduktive und selektive Strukturierung, was dazugehört und was nicht. Was wann wie weshalb angeordnet und einbezogen und ausgeschlossen wird. Und die Wertung der (existenzial gleichermaßen und eigentlich gleichberechtigt) existierenden Dinge, Kompositionen, Strukturierungen. Und darin ausgedrückt die zeitlosen (platonischen) Existenz-Aspekte und Muster. In singulären Konstellationen und Kombinationsdetails.
Ebene c: Die abstrakt-generellen Existenz-Aspekte und -Muster. — Das sind die hierarchielos existierenden und nicht gegenseitig ersetzbaren oder abschaffbaren, in eine Ein-Struktur oder selektiv ins Nichts auflösbaren
Aspekte und Muster (Eigenschaften, Interessen, Bedürfnisse etc.), die die Existenz (hier in diesem ‚platonischen‘ Modell als zeitlos angenommen, mit theoretischer und empirischer Begründung) aufweist.

Keine der Ebenen — wie allgemein keine der platonischen/zeitlosen Aspekte und Muster der Existenz — ist verzichtbar bzw. kann ersetzt werden oder abgeschafft, aufgelöst, etc.
Sie formen als Plural, als nicht vereinheitlichbarer, nicht eine einheitliche Richtung oder Struktur aufweisenden Plural. Der in seinen Ebenen c und b deutlich finit ist. Und, je nach Blickrichtung:
– Die (theoretisch bzw. wahrheitsgemäß finite oder infinite) große Anzahl an singulären Konstellationen weist (sekundär oder parallel) die abstrakt-allgemeinen Aspekte und Muster auf. Darunter — zumindest für den und die Menschen — das starke Muster des Bedürfnisses und des Erstellens von Partikularisationen (Personen als partikulares Einheitsbild, Gruppen [für gemeinsame Ideologie, Weltbilder, Wertungen], reduktiv-selektive Strukturierungen von Kontexten).
– Und/oder: Die für alle Menschen ohne Hierarchie (plural-rational nachvollziehbaren, für das rationale Hirn im Plural des menschlichen Denkens) zugänglichen/verstehbaren* abstrakt-allgemein Existenz-Aspekte und -Muster,
drücken sich (sekundär oder parallel) im nicht vereinheitlichbaren/nicht totalisierbaren Plural von Partikularisationen/Partikularismen, und in der (un/endlich) sehr großen Anzahl von singulären Konstellationen (als Zusammentreffen/Kombinationen der existenziellen Aspekte und Muster und ihrer Wechselwirkung in Momenten, Situationen und als längerfristige Strukturierungen) aus.

 

___
* Wir Menschen wissen das, wir kennen die grundlegenden bzw. allgemeinen hierarchielosen Aspekte und Muster. Aber, um unser Bedürfnis/Muster nach Partikularisation der Existenz und deren Kontexte zu teil-befriedigen, müssen wir diese allgemeine Gleichheit alles Existierenden und die Nichtganzheit/Pluralität der Existenz teilweise ignorieren. Um partikulare als-ob-Ganzheiten, partikulare Strukturierungen und Richtungen/Ziele zu konstruieren. Orientierung, Zielsetzungen, Teleologien, Stabilitäts-Einheiten im Plural des Seins.