The way I'd encourage you and other readers to consider it is: reality is nested structured~duality. Then consider the previously stated instances of nested structured~duality. Please pardon me for not writing just that in the earlier post.
In this manner, readers can face the new generalization squarely. It's true, one may then immediately erupt into the insecurity and awkwardness that is hidden in the claim: "But WHAT is nested structured~duality??", but that is the challenge of the initial step in all paradigm transitions -- participants DO face the prospect of learning a new generalization. I would think people on the path to uncovering an improved general theory would likely welcome such a life-long learning prospect.
With "reality is nested structured~duality" as statement #1, then we encounter the statements or expressions that we or others have experienced and learned and shared which are based in, or form parts of other, prior paradigms. That is, then we encounter or bring up things like "both physical and mental aspects", and/or "subjective and objective aspects", and/or "phenomenal and noumenal" which have their origins in prior paradigms -- prior instances of nested structured~duality.
You and other readers may benefit by thinking of the new generalization as a previously hidden or unknown or unspoken category. Given the newly expressed term, the previously unknown cateory comes into being. Then the improved generalization processes can proceed.
