Paul - Glad you liked the essay. I've spent years exploring a neutral metaphysical position and it seems you're heading down the same track.
You raise some interesting issues. I don't know Dewey but I think that to say mind and matter are processes makes a certain sense, since both seem to require the passing of time in order to exist at all. It is relevant here that in Buddhism mental and corporeal phenomena are 'thing-events'. Without understanding exactly what Dewey is getting at I can't comment on his view, but it seems compatible with what I call metaphysical neutralism. I'll check him out.
Anyhoo, given that you leave the definition of "neutral metaphysics" to another essay, I'm having a little trouble wrapping my head around the idea ... is a neutral metaphysics monistic? or is it N-istic with no priority given to one fundamental? or is it truly "zero-istic"? (Heck - am I even using these terms right?!
A neutral metaphysical position is extremely confusing. I've been confused by it for years, although I think I'm beginning to get the hang of it. Is it monistic? In a way it is, since the universe would be a unity. But the universe would not be numerically one and so in a way it is not monistic. A monism that is opposed to dualism would be a positive metaphysical position. Is it zero-sistic? In a way it is, since nothing would really exist, but nihilism is a positive metaphysical position and so in a way it's not. This is not a paradox but a problem with our use of the word 'exist.' For a neutral position we cannot say that the original phenomenon - whatever is prior to mind and matter for a neutral position - either exists or not-exists, for both views are positive and are refuted by Bradley and Nagarjuna. This would be 'something' for which we cannot make this distinction.