“The seventeenth century French philosopher, René Descartes, insisted that what we first know is expressed as “Cogito, ergo sum” ~ “I think, therefore, I am.” In so doing, he recognized that, in the act of knowing, there is reflexive consciousness of the self as an existing knower. But what Descartes missed is that in every perceptive act of knowing – the kind first experienced in sensation – what is immediately known is given as an extramental object.
The equally French contemporary Thomistic philosopher, Jacques Maritain, corrects Descartes’ omission by restating the initial proposition as “Scio aliquid esse” ~ “I know something to be.” In so saying, he affirms what is first and primarily known is something presented to the knower as an extramental sense object. It is solely in knowing such an object that I become conscious of my own act of knowing – and thereby, reflexively, of myself as the knower. In fact, direct experience tells us that both intramental and extramental objects are known clearly and distinctly, while they are also known as radically distinct from each other.”End quote ((…from https://strangenotions.com/why-reason-demands-absolute-certitudes/...))
As contingent beings with contingent minds constituted of abstractions indebted to things that are wholly “Other” we are forever converging with the retention of Logical Lucidity, the rejection of the Reductio Ad Absurdum, and the affirmation of Reciprocity||Self-Giving ((…on that last item think of our brutally repeatable moral experience and so on…)). Therein Identity and Unity find that Reality has “One” Meta-Narrative, and therein Convergence, and, so, any sub-narrative which runs against the grain of that Singularity / Meta-Narrative eventually gives way to that Singularity – else the pains of Circularity & Reductio.
Many believe that such sub-narratives are in fact the One Meta-Narrative and thereby fashion this or that “Paradigm”. That error emerges as they fail to critically question what their own brutally repeatable experience with the Meta-Narrative of Logic's Lucidity, Reason, & Reciprocity inevitably unmasks as several core illusions vis-à-vis the various melodies of their own Self-Invented-Paradigm’s fateful Reductio Ad Absurdum.
It comes in many forms and, as a basic example we observe that just as Quantum Indeterminacy is not [Identical To] Intentionality ((…yes it has to be said…because the massive equivocation there *is* attempted more often than one might suppose…)) so too is it the case that that [Layers Of Quantum Indeterminism] ((…or anything else btw…)) are not [Identical To] our own Intentionality vis-à-vis the First Person Experience/Perception vis-à-vis the Intentional. From there the Non-Theist’s attempted foist of “Close Enough” actually concedes the Illusion because it rests atop the bizarre claim of “Almost Being” — but that is nothing different than Non-Being. That is to say that "Non-A" is not "Identical-To" that which is "A-Full-Stop" ((Etc.)).
In Non-Theism we find that our own epistemic experience // first-person experience vis-à-vis the perceived/experienced irreducibility of and actuality of “i-am” vis-à-vis “i-reason” vis-à-vis “i-exist” must be [Equated To Something] –— again we mean if one is over inside of Non-Theism —– and in Non-Theism there is only one final reply to that when it comes to the Fundamental Nature of X – of ANY X – and that reply is Metaphysical Naturalism’s necessary conservation of [No-Mind] vis-à-vis [No-I-AM] there at the Rock Bottom of ANY “nature” and ANY “vector” – and this Necessary Conservation holds whether we move from Top-Down or from Bottom-Up.
Think it through: To claim that “Non-Reductive-Physicalism” ((…one can name ANY Non-Theistic substratum etc…)) somehow “holds” way up inside of layers near the top of the “bubbling quantum foam” ((…or whatever…)) but then “necessarily-collapses” way down at reality’s Rock Bottom ((…or Top if one prefers the Bottom-Up instead of Top-Down etc…)) is a claim that “just is” one massive Circular-Question-Begging-Equivocation. ((…wait...for...it…)).
Avoiding Equivocation and Conflation when it comes to Identity and Unity is looked at in the following excerpt from David Bentley Hart’s “Emergence & Formation” with respect to Reductive and Non-Reductive vectors.
Our Non-Theist friends ask for sound evidence for “God” but, upon being introduced to the premises surrounding Absolute Consciousness, they sort of “react” with something like, “But Mind & Consciousness & Eliminativism have nothing to do with God!” It’s difficult to be sympathetic to such a claim as it leaves them with a God made up of trees or superheroes or celestial tea pots and worst of all a “God” void of Consciousness/Knowledge/Etc. Getting them to take ownership for those sorts of cartoons void of Absolute Mind is tedious.
Related context: https://metachristianity.com/beings-superseding-ontic-over-both-material-and-non-being/