What practical difference is there between a belief in the particularity of (all) things and that in the same things as congeries of essences? If the metaphysics is so different can the experiences be the same? In each case it is a matter of the ways in which ordinary experience can be deepened, a matter of the direction you take in attempting to do so. In the first you move towards the being of things and the discovery of yourself as a being among beings, an infinite actuality, an aesthetic of thingness, an incarnate mystery. In the second you unfold the activity of perception in layer after layer, marveling at the cunning imbrications of what are essentially illusions and the way they produce an infinitely articulated effect of reality. Here the invisible seer, the ultimate witness that can't itself be witnessed is the only true reality. And you could also insist that since the difference of the two ways is premised only on an idea, and a superficial one at that, there must be a point in which the divergent directions coincide, even if you are not entitled to go straight to it.