Blurb:

a. The Blind Synthesist
Objections to the very idea of synthesising the different dimensions of absolutization from different disciplines may often come from a bias of over-specialisation. My alternative is not to claim a total view, but to recognise my own partial view whilst synthesising a variety of other views that are each partial – not primarily in terms of their content, but in terms of their framing.
b. Clarifying the Relationships
The dimensions of absolutization are not deductively equivalent a priori, but are closely related elements of the same system that become evident in particular conditions. From the diachronic standpoint needed to relate these different conditions of emergence over time from different standpoints, though, the unity of the dimensions is just as evident as that of most theoretical constructs in science.
c. The Use of Synthesis
Synthesis combines understanding in different schematic and metaphorical frameworks, which is a necessary condition for creative thinking. The justification of a synthetic view, however arrived at, involves a process of combining meaning and dialectically sifting belief. Such justification becomes greater the more it can be used to explain a variety of phenomena. The approach to combining perspectives in this book is concatenative, meaning that the addition of more synthesised perspectives adds to the level of justification.
d. The Practical Arguments
The dimensions of absolutization also need to be understood in relation to each other for practical purposes, meaning to help us progress towards long-term provisional goals that involve reducing absolutization. The need to address neglected dimensions of absolutization will be an aspect of my discussion of the four criteria for the Middle Way in the rest of this book. In particular, the failure to adequately address practical judgement in the world in large sections of academia can be associated with the entrenched influence of representationalism, separated from the other dimensions of absolutization.