Jan Anders had said:
As long as Mon in Monism stand for One as in Mono vs Stereo sound and Quality is different from SOM then Quality should be a Monism and SOM be regarded as some sort of Dilemma.
If you've read my book you'd know that there is a way to connect a dichotomy like Classic-Romantic, DQ/SQ and the four aspects of Thermodynamics into One dynamic monistic act of balance.
Even One or One-ness, physically or just as concept, as a static pattern or example of balancing act between None, Two or Else, will sooner or later come into question and finally change in some way. Marsha knows that. But until then, it is as it is.
How SoM began, was by encapsulating the Good, and the Good was encapsulated by calling it "one"
giving birth to contrarity one/not one, one/many, one/other, truth /appearence, good/evil ect..
You explain that unity is a dynamic act of balance a kind of harmony between many, the many are united
by a kind of sameness. Saying that from many arise "one". Then certainly the many are prior to "one"
in explanation making it not accurate to call Quality a monism. "E plurabis unum"