According to Process thought (particularly through the Pierce-Whitehead-Hartshorne matrix), each and every actual occasion of experience is a perspective which constitutes a genuine subject of satisfaction, a subject born out of a creative synthesis of the many antecedent perspectival conditions of the past with the self-determining creative potential of the present aimed towards some definite future. Hence, according to Process philosophy it is said that all things are in process of becoming, and that “being” (as well its constitutive opposite of “non-being”) is a derivative abstraction from that more primary, concrete process of becoming.
According to Buddhism (particularly in Mahayana), nothing which can be said to have unity, identity or singularity can be said to actually exist with any true reality of its own, because such ostensible entities are merely convenient fictions or useful abstractions derived from, and supported by, social-relational praxis and which are erroneously superimposed upon a phenomenological-perceptual basis which actually lacks such conceptual unity (and also lacks multiplicity since “unity” and “multiplicity” are notionally dependent, correlative concepts that only make sense in reference to one another). Hence, according to Buddhism it is said that all things are empty of inherent nature, gaining only an illusory, virtual semblance of identity afforded by the conditional matrix of dependent origination.
One sees creativity as ultimate. The other sees emptiness as ultimate. If we can only tolerate an account of one final ultimate, this would seem to be a contradiction, because the absolute affirmation or valorization of One would necessarily imply the relative denial or denigration of the Other. On this level, trying to hold them together at the same time would be incoherent, but if this possibility is entertained for even a moment, eventually one would have to affirm the preeminence of One over the Other to the point of excluding or absorbing the Other into the terms of the One. If this were to happen, no reconciliation would have actually happened or been needed, since we result in a Mastery of One over the Other.
But from a more comprehensive, supra-rational perspective, we know that to affirm the Mastery of the One over the exclusion of the Other would be to undermine the condition that makes the One possible in the first place. For neither one can be said to be more adequate to reality than the other, because each is pointing to a necessary but not sufficient aspect or truth of the dipolar nature of reality: being is primordially empty precisely because it is incessantly becoming. The Other is the condition of possibility for the One, and vice versa — each is transcendent from, and immanent to, one another. It is not possible for One to truly Master the Other, because there is no real “Other” separate from the “One” in the first place — each are empty and partial abstractions from the same concrete creative becoming.
From such a comprehensive, supra-rational perspective, we understand that just because nothing without exception can withstand ultimate reductive analysis does not mean that it is not possible to achieve unity of satisfaction within ones own process-relational continuum of becoming. We understand that any such satisfaction will always be fleeting, not quiet fully satisfying, and not quiet completely self or whole. But that is not a sign of something having gone wrong, but a confirmation of what is genuinely finally understood to have been right all along: that my and your being is always empty, because we’re always creatively becoming, and that we’re always creatively becoming, because you and I are always empty. I am because we are, and we are because I am.
It is one thing to entertain this supra-rational perspective in theory, but it is another to embody such a supra-rational perspective in actual living praxis and to realize it as a personal experience for oneself. When realized personally for oneself, it can be theorized, one finally achieves the complete and perfect unity one was always seeking out in a moment of permanent and everlasting satisfaction, without ever failing to be true to one’s own primordially empty essence and incessantly creative nature. How is this possible?! Well, this is a paradox in isolated philosophical thought that can only be resolved in communal eco-bio-socio-politico-cosmological being.
Holopoiesis 