As I thought about the idea more I got more clarity about its specificity. I think a maelstrom in the way I’m conceiving it can only be a philosophical position. It is not just devotion to an ideology like you would find in religion or politics. It must be unfalsifiable, but it also must possess a person’s mind in some way. Not any unfalsifiable belief is a maelstrom, and not any absolutism or fixed belief is a maelstrom. I do agree with your partial description that it is “to be logic-tied to one idea only”.
A philosophical maelstrom begins with mistaking a description for a discovery - it is about making a truth out of a description, and then submitting to that “truth” and even obsessing over it.
Is it in the middle though? Do each of these positions (absolutism, relativism, objectivism, subjectivism, etc.) actually sensibly mark a territory of some sort that truth is inbetween?
Determinism is falsifiable. You only need to show that truly random processes exist. If those random processes take place in the mind, then free will is possible.
Discovery and description are closely related. One could say that a discovery is a special kind of description. No matter what, you have to describe what you discover.
It’s impossible to show if something is truly random.
I mean’t discovery in a certain way - I meant a metaphysical discovery. I can discover a new plant species, but that’s not what we’re discussing here. We’re talking about taking descriptions to be truths.