Individuality is the hobgoblin of the idealist. Why must that be? Does anyone know?
Should atoms get the credit for our individuality? Has it not rather more to do with memory? Is there anything atomic about memory? IMHO, memory holds the main brief against atoms. OTOH, atoms exist primarily as abstracted in and by our memories.
Atoms are about gases and crystals, not about personalities. It is we, persons, who individuate the flora and fauna, sometimes through our propensity toward horticulture, etc..... setting aside issues of monoculture. Mainly, though, it is our territoriality, in conjunction with our eidetic memories, which demarcate the world, with or without road signs.
This is my brief for OOO*, as against OOO, although it may just be a difference in interpretation or emphasis. How do abstraction and individuation differ and compare? Can we have the one without the other? Can we have the foreground without the background? Can we have mass without Higgs? BTW, I did a quick wiki review of Higgs, the other day, if I didn't already mention it. When we digress into fermions, higgs begins to get messy, and quickly devolves into issues of Supersymmetry (SUSY) and stringy gravity. A very great deal of abstract detritus has been swept under those other rugs, just beyond the popular ken of a well-ordered scientific world.
We have a wonderful propensity to project our innate singularity onto the external world..... whether it likes it or not. Our pets wear this projection with pride. We come from heaven, trailing clouds of glory. Especially do you and I wear, more or less easily, our mutually relected glory, being Indra's monadic pearls, with or without windows.
We are God's spawn/swarm. There is a fungus among us. Yes, we are God's logoi, differentiating like Joyce's ten thunders. No cellular population is more differentiated than our brain cells.
Our atomism is our de-differentiation. In our prime, we are the most social of egoists. After that, we can only head to the mountains, as our body heads to the compost. Such is our at-One-ment. Would we have it any other way?
It is we who breathe fire into the formulas of Creation, Anthropos that we are? Big bang? We gotta love the singular coherence of it. What better way to set the stage..... the starry sky above, and the moral code within? Are there any moral atoms? Is altruism written in our genes?
I don't know how individuality relates to solidity. When a tree falls on a bear in the woods, the bear is going to get crushed. To that extent, the fallen tree is individuated by the unfortunate bear. Also they are known to climb trees. But there is an ontological problem about the tree falling in the woods. To what extent is it a generic tree in a generic woods, for instance?
Objectivity is a curious mixture of individuation and abstraction. What is it's formula?
Solidity is something very relative, and not well understood, or understood only as far as physics can take it, which is not very far, as pointed out, above, wrt the higgs rationale of the masses of the fermions.
We like to suppose that trees were crushing bears, long before sapience made the scene. But how much of this is relying on our rather parochial presuppositions concerning teleology?
Suppose we find a petrified tree astride a fossilized bear...... what would this prove? Would it prove that immaterialism is false?
Is it false to say that materialism belongs to materialists? Or that it exists only so long as there remain substantial doubts about immatialism? What would change, thereby?
Is materialism possible, so long at one objective, individuated atom exists? But objectification is possible only via sapience. How much sapience is needed? And suppose a quasi-sapient materialist exists in an alternate universe or reality.... would this impinge upon the ontology of our world?
It would seem that God went to no small pains to make our world materialist-friendly. Should we begrudge her, this? Should we second-guess her motives?
We come back to the question of the unobservable universe. Or what would constitute a minimally observable universe? Does there not have to be a chain of observation, of evidence..... of being?? How far down, or back, can the chain be severed? Or suppose that you and I are not a part of that chain. Can there be separate realities?
Can there be an isolated intelligence? How isolated? Is pluralism coherent? Is it observable or thinkable? Monism may be inescapable, logically or otherwise. Might there have been nothing? Nothing exists, except in relation to something else? Can two things exist without a third, etc.? Whatever exists must have access to a transcendental eternity, otherwise it descends into oblivion, in the blink of an eye. How can anything emerge from oblivion? Where is the bootstrap or the skyhook?
Relationalism is the logic behind theism. How do intellectuals manage to deny that logic? Only under the aegis of a social reaction. That reaction has about played itself out. We await godot. We have stared into the abyss for as long as rationally possible, and then some......
The darkness drops again but now I know
That twenty centuries of stony sleep
Were vexed to nightmare by a rocking cradle,
And what rough beast, its hour come round at last,
Slouches towards Bethlehem to be born?