Clarify? There are mysteries in the one, such as the fact that if there is something surrounded by nothing (like a black dot on a sheet of paper), that is already a Twoness, not a Oneness.
A panpsychist would say whatever this is, it must contain the most fundamental building blocks from which we derive conscious experience. But you don't have to go that far, you just have to sit still and inquire into that original zero point that allows for your own individual (seemingly dualistic) subject experience.
You could make an analogy (this is borrowed from Advaita): yes there are many waves on an ocean, but the ocean itself is one. Conceptually there are many waves but in reality there isn't anything such as a wave.
Similarly your own bubble of conscious experience is tied to local instrumentation (your eyes, your brain, etc). But like bubbles in a basin of soapy water, it's really not substantially apart.
If you think of matter probabilistically, you realize the best analog is just "information" — every experience of this information arises from something. Of course twoness in this information is a matter of fact, but it's easy enough to say yes, these are abstractions of One. Or these are abstractions of Zero.
It's just a matter of language and what you prescribe to reality or what you prescribe to conceptual illusion.
For another model, I see the way science and spirituality were integrated in the early days of the scientific revolution by folks like Kepler, Mersenne, Kircher, Descartes, Leibniz, Hooke, Newton, etc.
All adopted a spiritual frame of (roughly) "there is a universal harmony" and a scientific frame "I can articulate and understand this harmony through empirical data and mathematical modeling". The spiritual side deeply motivated them as individuals to conduct science. The data inevitably showed that their original ideas of universal harmony weren't quite right -- but that there was ample evidence for the real universal harmony, which were taken as both scientific and spiritual insights.