Hello subscribers

After fiddling around with ideas for the newsletter I’ve decided to simply post what I like when I feel like it. I will continue to try to persuade you, in various ways, that metaphysics is an area of study accessible to most people and capable of bringing great benefits to those investigate it.

My intention is to convince you not only that it is possible for a great genius to work out the correct answers for metaphysical questions and the solution for metaphysical problems, but that most people would be able to do so. The proviso is that they would first need to study and understand the main facts of the case. Not all the facts of philosophy, but a small number that are crucial and decisive.

I am not suggesting the metaphysics is easy. Someone new to the topics would have to invest a great deal of study and reflection even to get used to thinking about such mind-boggling topics. I know people too frightened even to try it. I am proposing that someone who understands what metaphysical problems are and the reasons why they are problems and. in addition. knows a few crucial facts, would find it easy to work out their solution. Understanding the solution is another matter.

It is possible to become a professor of philosophy and either not know or not see the significance of these facts, and so in the academic world metaphysics is widely considered a lost cause. The academic world, however, can be very strange at times. If you read my writings you will find no suggestion that metaphysics is incomprehensible. You will find all the facts one would need to know to render it comprehensible.

The State of Modern Philosophy

A few years ago I bought and read the Blackwell Guide to Metaphysics. Blackwell is an important publisher and I expected this book to be a good read. Rather, it was without a shadow of doubt the very worst philosophy book I have ever come across. It was so bad I wrote an indignant essay about it and have recently reposted it here. ()

The blurb at Wiley Books tells us the guide is, “…a definitive introduction to the core areas of metaphysics. It brings together sixteen internationally respected philosophers that demonstrate how metaphysics is done as they examine topics including causation, temporality, ontology, personal identity, idealism, and realism.”

For anyone who doubts the ineffectiveness of philosophical thought within our universities I would recommend this book. It is bluntly stated in the brief preface that metaphysics is a waste of time and there would be no point in reading the rest of the essays. This prediction is then fulfilled by the sixteen extremely complicated essays that follow, only two of which I was clever enough to understand and none of which suggested that metaphysics is worth studying. I cannot imagine what the good folks at Blackwell were thinking.

Their book does at least usefully demonstrates that the sort of cleverness it displays is not the secret of making sense of metaphysics. Often cleverness is the enemy of clear thinking. The secret is to find clever ways of not complicating the issues and, rather, to constantly simplify them. This requires a certain sneakiness or deviousness which, when combined with cleverness, might be called cunning. In the passage that I quote for the epigram of In Pursuit of the Inconceivable Jesus tells us the keys to knowledge have been hidden, and that to find them we must be both innocent and cunning. This is perfect advice for metaphysicians.

It seems that most philosophers see the value of innocence or, at least, Cartesian doubt, even though it is not widely practiced, but few the value of cunning. Yet cunning is exactly the attribute we need in order to simplify metaphysics. We want it to make sense, and if it does not yet seem quite simple to us then it does not yet quite make sense. It would make no sense to try to be cleverer than most philosophers, but we can certainly try to be more cunning.

Sooner or later in their studies, and usually almost immediately, every metaphysician discovers that all questions about the fundamental nature of reality that take the dialectical form ‘this or that?’ are undecidable, the reason being that nether of their answers make sense. It makes no sense, for example, that the universe arises from nothing or something; that human beings either do or do-not have freewill; that space-time is either continuous or a series of points; that morality is either subjective or objective and so on for all this or that questions about the true nature of reality. These either/or answers always turn out to be logically indefensible and this is pretty much the entire problem of metaphysics.

This problem leads most thinkers to either give up on metaphysics or, wriggling on the hook, to argue aimlessly in ever more clever ways to no effect, as is helpfully demonstrated by the Blackwell Guide.

Yet this is a very simple situation. If all the answers for metaphysical questions that most philosophers can think of are logically indefensible, rendering all questions about the true nature of reality undecidable, then we cannot endorse any of them. If we see this is the case then we bypass all the complexity and can immediately address the central problem of philosophy, right in this moment, by asking what it must mean, what must ineluctably follow, if all the this or that answers for questions about the true nature of reality do not withstand critical analysis. If we can figure this out then we have cracked the cosmic code and, at the level of principles, made sense of metaphysics. It is just this one problem we would need to solve in order to solve all the problem of metaphysics. It must have a solution, so it must be the case that there is a solution for it that most philosophers are not considering and have not been considering for a very long time.

In traditional Western philosophical thought this problem has no solution. It is widely believed that no solution exists and there is no systematic fundamental theory to be found in Western philosophy. This is the reason why the Blackwell Guide is not thought to be worth reading even by its editor or, presumably, its publisher.

Most philosophers either ignore this problem or treat it as an impassable barrier to knowledge. They find metaphysics incomprehensible. Yet it is not an obstacle. It is simply a fact; not a problem but an opportunity. Physicists do not call facts obstacles and this practice is not necessary in metaphysics.

The failure in logic of all extreme answers for metaphysical questions is the most important, productive and reliable fact in in all of philosophy, a clue to the truth so powerful it is almost a proof of it. If we respect this fact then we can move on. If we ignore it, as most philosophers do, then we will never comprehend metaphysics. A comprehension of metaphysics, thus the world itself, is a comprehension of the reason why all extreme answer for metaphysical questions do not make sense. It would be precisely this fact that we need to comprehend, and not a lot else, in order to comprehend metaphysics.

If we reject all theories that give either/or answers for metaphysical questions then our problems are almost over, for only one theory now remains standing. This is the nondual doctrine of the Perennial philosophy. This states that all this or that answers for metaphysical question are logically indefensible because they are wrong. How simple is this for an explanation?

And how amazing is this for a coincidence? Philosophers discover that all extreme metaphysical positions are logically indefensible and are baffled, while the mystics discover they are all wrong and are not at all baffled. The problem and the solution are right here in the same sentence, two dots that just need to be joined.

If the only available solution for metaphysical problems is the Perennial philosophy, by which I mean the nondual philosophy of the Upanishads, Buddhism. Taoism and so forth, and if this philosophy has for a long time been rarely known and even more rarely understood in Western philosophy, then getting to know it better must be secret of making sense of metaphysics, our world and our place in it.

If we have established that what has been said here is actually the case, which should not be difficult to do, then we have at least the beginnings of a better understanding of metaphysics than most philosophers, We have a firm foundation on which to start building a fundamental theory or ‘explanation of everything’ and should not expect to meet any intractable problems.

There would be one or two further facts to consider, but with this brief and simple approach we have already made some sense of metaphysics. If we know that extreme metaphysical positions do not work and there is only one other possibility then all we need to do is study it. We can leave those philosophers who do not see this possibility to argue amongst themselves for another few thousand years in ever more complicated ways, as the Blackwell Guide predicts is their fate, while we move on.

Moving on means a study of the principle of nonduality, the ‘mystical’ solution for metaphysical problems that is almost absent from Western philosophical thought.

Subscribe now

Book Talk

Although I spend my time writing about philosophy in a fairly business-like and prosaic manner, my favourite author is Flora Thompson. She did not write a lot besides magazine articles and poetry her output is collected into just three or four books, (depending on how we measure), but there is a beauty, honesty and magic in her writing that ensures that her accounts of life in late 19^th and early 20^th century rural Britain, as she experienced it, have many devoted and often fanatical fans. 2026 is the 150^th anniversary of her birth and she remains widely loved.

Her books are Lark Rise to Candleford, Still Glides the Stream, Heatherley and A Country Calendar. .

She grew up in what we would call rural poverty when ‘rural’ really meant rural, and had only a limited education, so had no right to become such a beloved writer. I do not have the eloquence to describe what it is that makes her writing so wonderful and extraordinary. It is her honesty, insight, observational powers, sympathy with her subjects, love and knowledge of nature, poignancy, sensitivity and other things, but I can at least recommend her writing to anyone and everyone with no hesitation.

About In Pursuit of the Inconceivable

I have written what is, as far as I know, the only comprehensive explanation of metaphysics available, but persuading a lot of people to read it is not part of my skill-set. One problem is that on the face of it the claims it makes are implausible. I show that they are conclusions of analysis, not speculations, but when isolated from the analysis they might seem quite wild. This is not an exhaustive list, but in no particular order it includes:

· It is demonstrable, thus undeniable, that there is only one systematic fundamental theory and it is the nondual doctrine of the Perennial philosophy. All others are unsystematic or non-reductive. This is a complete solution and explanation for metaphysics.

· Metaphysics is comprehensible and encounters no intractable problems as long as we avoid making logical errors.

· There are no metaphysical paradoxes and no true contradictions.

· Most philosophical thinkers commit basic logical errors that prevent them making sense of metaphysics. .

· All metaphysical problems have the same solution and it is the principle of nonduality.

· Metaphysics can be summarised and explained in four brief propositions.

· The core teachings of the monotheistic religions, once awarded a specific but common interpretation, are philosophically sound and logically justifiable.

· Specifically, the teachings of Jesus are metaphysically sound and logically justifiable.

· Most people would be capable of comprehending metaphysics, reality and consciousness better than most philosophers do at present, given the appropriate assistance.

· Metaphysics and mysticism are not different topics but different methods, both of which arrive at the same description of reality and consciousness.

· The only global theory that metaphysical analysis endorses is the one endorsed by the Perennial philosophy.

· The philosophical views of most philosophers are demonstrably perverse.

· Because its conclusions may be communicated and shared, and because it endorses only one theory, metaphysics enforces a normalisation of intelligent philosophers on one theory.

· As they are in a position to make this widely known, metaphysicians have not just the power but a responsibility to make the world a better place.

· Metaphysics would be the most important and life-enhancing discipline in the academic curriculum if it were properly taught.

In Pursuit of the Inconceivable is best understood as a sustained philosophical argument rather than a thematic survey. Its originality, such as it is, lies less in the individual topics discussed than in the attempt to demonstrate that all major metaphysical problems possess a common logical structure and therefore admit of a common solution. Readers approaching the work historically will find careful engagement with Kant, Nāgārjuna, Bradley, Plotinus, Lao Tzu, Advaita Vedānta, formal logic and contemporary philosophy of consciousness. Readers approaching it analytically will discover an extended attempt to describe a genuine fundamental theory. Readers approaching it spiritually will encounter an unusual claim: that the conclusions of the world’s major mystical traditions may be approached through rigorous logical analysis before becoming matters of direct experience. The reader is never asked to take anything on trust. Rather, the author provides all the information the reader would require to perform their own calculations and make their own decisions.

The book pursues its objective with complete consistency. Every chapter contributes to a single cumulative argument and every major topic is integrated into the same explanatory framework.

The primary purpose of the book is not merely promote the author’s conclusions but to remove an obstacle that prevents many people from even considering them. That obstacle is the assumption that if philosophy has not solved its central problems after 2,500 years, then they probably aren’t solvable. By explaining the errors and omissions that have caused this long-standing incomprehension the book reveals it as a failure of philosophical thinking, not a reflection on the efficacy of philosophy and its methods.

Quotes of the Day

“Bound up with the sense of oneness and the sense of timelessness there is another characteristic of mystical experience, the conviction that the familiar phenomenal ego is not the real I.

The conviction finds expression in one form in the Atman doctrine of Hinduism. The self, the ego of which we are normally conscious, it is asserted, is not the true self. It is conscious only by fits and starts; it is bound up with bodily organizations and mental happenings which are subject to change and decay; it is, therefore, only an ephemeral, phenomenal self.

In man there is another self, the true Self, which is not affected by ordinary happenings and which gives him a sense of identity through numerous bodily and mental transformations. It does not change in the slow changes of the organism, in the flux of sensations, in the dissipation of ideas, or in the fading of memories. This true Self Hinduism calls the Atman. The Atman is immortal, constant, and unchanging, and is not bound by space-time. It is not only an individual self, it also has a universal quality. It is ‘that by which the universe is pervaded, which nothing pervades, which causes all things to shine, but which all things cannot make to shine’. In its nature, moreover, the True or Greater Self is divine. ‘The knowledge that Brahman and Atman are one and the same’ wrote Sankara, ‘is true knowledge.’*

*Sankara: The Crest-Jewel of Wisdom

F. C. Happold, Mysticism, Penguin, 1963

“Blessed is he whose beginning is before he came into being!”

Jesus, Gospel of Thomas, V. 20

“Die before your death.”

The Prophet Mohammed, In Indries Shah, ‘Caravan of Dreams’, 1968

Endnote

I am amazed at the amount of nonduality talk on Substack. I wonder if it is possible a significant philosophical movement might emerge. Certainly there is more sense in my Substack feed than I find in most of the mainstream philosophy literature.

The only issue I see is a tendency to assume that the nondual doctrine is unapproachable except through direct experience. In a strong sense this is the case, but this is not to say that it is not possible to make philosophical sense of this doctrine by studying the formal metaphysical foundation of the doctrine.

Analytical philosophers certainly cannot excuse a lack of interest in mysticism on grounds of its ineffability. If they studied it they would know that logic and reason are perfectly capable of making sense of metaphysics and mysticism, and that studying both is the only way to do it.

.

There is an increasing tendency among young people, it seems to me, to see reality through the lens of their ideology and to distort it considerably in order to do so. This will be good news for those who are teaching them to do this in order to impose their ideology, but as an old person who has been watching the world since the 1950’s it frightens me. I grew up on science fiction, have read Orwell and Huxley and know the game. I also have heard the story of Lysenkoism, a paradigm example of what happens when people refuse to see realty clearly. It is a very important teaching story and immediately relevant to modern European politics and the massive social engineering project currently underway. .

Lysenkoism is one of those historical episodes that deserves close study because it illustrates a very general philosophical lesson. Once disagreement is interpreted as moral or political disloyalty rather than as part of rational inquiry, error becomes self-reinforcing. This is one reason the story is still discussed in philosophy of science alongside thinkers such as Popper and Kuhn. It was an episode in the history of science and politics that demonstrates clearly the danger of subordinating evidence and rationality to political ideology.

I am not a historian, so tell the story with the help of my AI assistant.

During the middle decades of the twentieth century, the agricultural theories of Trofim Denisovich Lysenko displaced modern genetics throughout much of the Soviet bloc and profoundly influenced Communist China. The result was not merely a scientific mistake but a political and social catastrophe. Thousands of scientists were persecuted, biological research was set back by decades and agricultural policies based upon false theories contributed to widespread hunger and suffering.

Lysenkoism remains one of history’s clearest warnings about what can happen when governments attempt to determine truth through ideology rather than evidence.

The Origins of Lysenkoism

Trofim Lysenko was born in Ukraine in 1898 into a peasant family. Unlike many Soviet scientists, he presented himself not as an academic intellectual but as a practical farmer who understood the needs of ordinary people. This image proved politically valuable during the early years of Joseph Stalin’s rule.

The Soviet Union in the 1920s and 1930s faced enormous agricultural problems. Stalin’s policy of forced collectivisation had devastated food production. Crop failures were common, and the government desperately sought rapid improvements in agricultural productivity.

Lysenko appeared to offer precisely what the regime wanted. He claimed to have discovered simple methods that could dramatically increase crop yields without expensive scientific research or lengthy breeding programmes.

His most famous technique was vernalisation—the treatment of seeds with moisture and cold before planting. Vernalisation itself is a genuine biological phenomenon known today to influence flowering in certain plants. However, Lysenko vastly exaggerated its effectiveness and extended it into a comprehensive biological theory unsupported by experimental evidence.

Far more significant than the technique itself was the theory that Lysenko built around it.

The Ideological Roots

Lysenko rejected Mendelian genetics, which by the 1930s had become one of the foundations of modern biology.

Gregor Mendel’s work suggested that hereditary characteristics are transmitted through stable units—later identified as genes—which are inherited according to regular laws. Modern genetics was rapidly advancing through research across Europe and America.

To Lysenko, however, Mendelian genetics appeared politically suspect.

Marxist philosophy emphasised the transformative power of environment and social conditions. Human beings, according to orthodox Marxist doctrine, were shaped primarily by their material circumstances rather than by inherited biological characteristics.

Although Marx himself had written long before genetics developed, Soviet ideologues increasingly interpreted hereditary biology as dangerously “bourgeois.” Stable inherited traits appeared inconsistent with the revolutionary belief that society—and humanity itself—could be transformed almost without limit through changes in environment.

Lysenko therefore embraced a modern version of the earlier ideas associated with Jean-Baptiste Lamarck: the belief that characteristics acquired during an organism’s lifetime could be inherited by its offspring.

If crops could be trained to survive harsh conditions, he claimed, their descendants would inherit these improvements. Wheat could gradually become suited to colder climates. Plants could be educated much as socialist citizens could supposedly be educated. Here ‘educated’ means, as it always does for socialism, indoctrinated.

The attraction of this theory was ideological as much as scientific. It appeared to demonstrate that nature itself was infinitely malleable and that careful planning could reshape life according to political goals.

Science by Political Decree

Normally, scientific disagreements are resolved through experiment.

Under Stalin they were resolved by political power.

Lysenko became increasingly influential during the 1930s by presenting himself as the champion of practical workers against elitist academics. Scientists who criticised his theories were denounced as reactionaries, enemies of the people, or defenders of capitalist science.

The decisive moment came in 1948.

At a meeting of the Lenin Academy of Agricultural Sciences, heavily supported by Stalin himself, Lysenko declared that Mendelian genetics was officially false. His speech effectively became state doctrine.

From that point onwards, disagreement was no longer merely scientific disagreement.

It became political dissent.

Departments of genetics were closed throughout the Soviet Union. University teaching was rewritten. Textbooks were withdrawn. Research programmes were abandoned. Scientists who questioned Lysenko’s ideas faced dismissal, imprisonment, or worse. Crazy, you might say, but this sort of nonsense is what we are seeing right now in our education system.

Scientific truth had become whatever the state declared it to be.

Nikolai Vavilov

Perhaps the greatest tragedy concerned the botanist Nikolai Vavilov.

Vavilov was one of the world’s leading geneticists and among the twentieth century’s greatest plant scientists. He organised expeditions across the globe, collecting thousands of crop varieties whose genetic diversity remains enormously valuable today.

He recognised early that Lysenko’s theories contradicted overwhelming experimental evidence.

This opposition sealed his fate.

In 1940 Vavilov was arrested by the NKVD.

Accused of sabotaging Soviet agriculture, he was sentenced to prison. After years of brutal imprisonment he died of starvation in 1943.

His death symbolised the destruction of an entire generation of Soviet biological science.

Many other researchers disappeared into labour camps, lost their positions, or abandoned genetics entirely.

The Soviet Union sacrificed some of its finest scientific minds in order to preserve an ideological illusion. Does this not remind you of what is going n now in our universities and schools?

Subscribe now

The Cost to Soviet Agriculture

Lysenko promised miraculous increases in agricultural productivity.

The promised miracles never arrived.

His recommendations frequently contradicted elementary biological principles. He advised planting crops unusually close together because, he claimed, plants of the same class would cooperate rather than compete. In reality they competed intensely for sunlight, water, and nutrients. Reality was ignored.

He rejected established breeding methods while insisting that environmental conditioning alone could permanently improve crops.

Repeated failures were blamed not on faulty theory but on insufficient ideological commitment or incorrect implementation.

This pattern became familiar throughout totalitarian systems.

When evidence contradicted doctrine, doctrine remained unchanged while reality was blamed.

Reliable estimates of the agricultural damage are difficult because Soviet statistics were often manipulated. Nevertheless, historians broadly agree that Lysenkoist policies significantly reduced productivity, delayed improvements in crop breeding, and prolonged food shortages across much of the Soviet Union.

Perhaps even greater was the opportunity cost.

While genetics flourished elsewhere—leading eventually to molecular biology, DNA research, and biotechnology—the Soviet Union largely excluded itself from one of the greatest scientific revolutions of the twentieth century.

Lysenkoism in China

The influence of Lysenko extended far beyond the Soviet Union.

After the Communist victory in 1949, Mao Zedong’s government adopted many Soviet scientific doctrines, including Lysenkoism.

Chinese agricultural education increasingly reflected Lysenko’s teachings.

During the Great Leap Forward (1958–1962), ideological enthusiasm frequently displaced empirical observation.

Local officials, eager to demonstrate revolutionary success, reported impossible harvests. Farmers were instructed to plant crops extremely densely, reflecting Lysenko’s mistaken belief that plants of the same species would not compete.

Other scientifically unsound agricultural practices also became widespread.

These policies interacted with disastrous economic planning, forced collectivisation, unrealistic production targets, adverse weather in some regions, and the suppression of accurate reporting.

The result was the Great Chinese Famine.

Most modern historians estimate that between 15 and 30 million people died, with many estimates considerably higher. (Just stop and gulp at that figure for a moment). Lysenkoism was not the sole cause of this catastrophe, but it contributed significantly to agricultural failures by encouraging policies that ignored established biological knowledge while discouraging criticism from qualified experts.

As in the Soviet Union, political conformity proved more valuable than scientific accuracy.

Why Did So Many Believe?

One of the most puzzling aspects of Lysenkoism is not that one man developed mistaken theories.

Science has always contained mistaken theories.

The remarkable feature is that an entire political system enforced them despite overwhelming contradictory evidence.

Several factors combined to make this possible.

First, totalitarian governments often seek certainty rather than open inquiry. Scientific uncertainty appears politically inconvenient.

Second, Lysenko promised immediate practical results. Politicians facing food shortages naturally preferred optimistic promises to cautious scientific realism.

Third, criticism became dangerous. Scientists quickly learned that disagreeing with official doctrine could destroy careers—or lives.

Finally, ideology encouraged confirmation bias. Evidence supporting Lysenko received enormous publicity, while failures disappeared from official records.

Without free criticism, science ceases to correct its own mistakes. The recent pandemic also illustrates this.

The Collapse of Lysenkoism

Lysenko retained influence for many years after Stalin’s death.

However, the accumulated evidence became impossible to ignore.

By the 1960s Soviet scientists increasingly challenged his claims.

After Nikita Khrushchev, Lysenko’s principal political supporter, lost power in 1964, his influence rapidly declined.

Genetics slowly returned to Soviet universities and research institutes.

But the damage had already been done.

Decades of research had been lost.

Entire scientific careers had been destroyed.

The Soviet Union never fully recovered the position it might otherwise have occupied in modern biology.

Lessons for the Present

Lysenkoism is often remembered simply as a bizarre episode in Soviet history.

It deserves wider attention because it illustrates a permanent danger.

The reliability of communal knowledge depends upon institutions that encourage criticism, replication, open debate, and willingness to abandon cherished theories when evidence requires.

Whenever political, religious, commercial, or ideological authorities claim the power to determine scientific or philosophical truth independently of evidence, the conditions that produced Lysenkoism begin to reappear.

The issue is not whether a particular political philosophy is right or wrong.

Rather, it is that questions of truth must ultimately be settled by observation, experiment, and reasoned argument—not by authority.

The story of Lysenko is therefore not merely about agriculture or genetics.

It is about the fragile relationship between truth and power.

Millions of people paid the price and starved to death when that relationship broke down.

The tragedy reminds us that intellectual freedom is not simply an academic luxury. It is one of the essential safeguards against policies that can affect the lives of entire nations. History shows that when ideology dictates what reality is permitted to be, reality does not yield. It merely delivers its verdict in failed harvests, ruined institutions, and human suffering.

Metaphysics serves as a common foundation for the natural sciences and without it they would not, so to speak, have leg to stand on. So it is odd that these days the study of it is commonly dismissed as a waste of time. Perhaps this is to some extent a consequence of poor media management. A scientifically inclined layman reading the preface to The Blackwell Guide to Metaphysics, (2002 edition, Ed. Richard M Gale), a collection of essays by various authors, would have no difficulty in concluding that the subject is not worth their attention or effort. It occupies only a couple of paragraphs but as a review of metaphysics it is devastating.

It is not an accident that none of the included essays attempt to say what metaphysics is, to describe the methods for doing it and the rules or criteria for assessing the success of a metaphysical theory. For all such metaphilosophical attempts have failed miserably.

It is difficult to see any other interpretation of this statement than that metaphysics is not worth studying. That this proposal can appear in such a context makes abundantly clear not just the reluctance of Western academia to study the metaphysics of the Buddha and Lao Tzu, which cannot be described in this way, but also its obliviousness to the considerable achievements of the Western tradition. A person new to metaphysics is likely to assume that a respected publisher’s general guide would be a good place to start, and if they are clear thinkers then they will conclude from this statement that studying the discipline or even reading the rest of the guide would be a waste of time. If any doubts remain they are soon banished.

But the history of metaphysics, as well as the essays in this volume, shows that one can successfully engage in the metaphysical language-game even though one cannot articulate the rules of the game in virtue of which we can keep score and thus determine who wins and who loses.

It seems unlikely many people would agree that engaging successfully in a language-game of this kind would be a worthwhile ambition or even a challenging one. An intellectual game for which nobody knows who is winning with rules that cannot be articulated will be profoundly unappealing to any rational thinker. How would it defend its place in the academic curriculum? What would it mean to ‘successfully’ engage in it? The next sentence nails the lid shut on the coffin.

Not all philosophers accept this favourable evaluation of the history of metaphysics.

It may be true, for truth may be stranger than fiction, that some philosophers hold a lower opinion of metaphysics than this. Far more important, however, and it is a fact we might expect to see mentioned in this context, is that not all philosophers would judge this a favourable evaluation. Some would see it as a hatchet job. By what criteria could it be judges favourable? Does it not clearly state that metaphysics is an unscientific, inconclusive and largely pointless exercise?

…there are deconstructionists of traditional metaphysics who see it as a shocking scandal because it is a history of perennial and intractable disagreements. The disputants cannot even agree upon a decision procedure for resolving their disagreements. This demand for a cognitive discipline to have a decision procedure for determining who is right smacks of scientism…

Can a cognitive discipline have no procedure for making decisions? The idea is surely incomprehensible. In what sense would it be a discipline? The demand for a decision-making procedure carries no whiff of ‘scientism’. A student of metaphysics who does not make this demand cannot hope to make progress. If metaphysics is not a rigorous science of logic then it is idle speculation. Given this low assessment of the discipline by a presumably serious practitioner it is little wonder that many scientists despair at the uselessness of metaphysics, nor that many people see the whole of philosophy as not worth their bother. Metaphysics is reduced to a farce by such words.

The only effective response to the deconstructionist’s scientistically-based indictment of metaphysics as meaningless is to do more metaphysics.

A less Orwellian language would have chosen the phrase ‘scientifically-based’ and made this a more clearly ludicrous statement. What would be the point of doing more and more metaphysics if we can never make any progress and have no method for measuring it even if we do? In what way would failing more energetically and more often be an effective response to scientifically-based criticism of metaphysics or even a response at all? Those of us who see metaphysics as the only way forward for theoretical physics and scientific consciousness studies, it being the only discipline capable of constructing a fundamental or global theory, must despair at the way in which it may sometimes be presented even by its friends. A great many metaphysicians hold a strikingly different view from the one presented in these damaging remarks and would regard this characterisation of their field as a complete misunderstanding. Here is an alternative view.

Metaphysics may be defined as the study of absolutes, first principle or the world-as-a-whole. Its task is to identify cosmological theories or ‘theories of everything’ which contradict logic, reason or the scientific facts and in this way reveal those that would be most plausible as descriptions and explanations for the existence of the world and the phenomena studied by the natural sciences. The principle method by which it proceeds is the formal falsification of metaphysical propositions by the derivation of logical contradictions that render them absurd. This is a process of eliminating the impossible in order to reveal the possible as famously relied on by Sherlock Holmes. By the use of the rules for Aristotle’s dialectic we decide whether propositions are true, false, meaningless or undecidable. The method works well and produces no results known to conflict with scientific observations or reported personal experiences, an outcome that cannot plausibly be a coincidence. By the use of this formal method, the rules for which were codified by Aristotle with more subtlety than they may often be applied, metaphysicians are able to determine that all metaphysical position except one are logically indefensible. This is the most important and best known result of metaphysics and the main reason why it is difficult. It is probably the most important fact an academic guide to the discipline could explain. If this were not a well-established and well-known result of metaphysical analysis then there would be no justification for pessimistic philosophical approaches such as logical positivism, dialethism, naturalistic dualism and mysterianism or for the despairing remarks made about metaphysics in the Guide quoted here. It is only because metaphysics produces this result that it has a long history of unresolved disagreements, for because of it we are led to argue endlessly for the truth of competing dialectically opposed theories none of which work.

Hence Kant’s observation that Western metaphysics is an arena for staging mock fights in which nobody ever gains an inch of ground. Yet this is a demonstrably unjustified criticism. Philosophers in the West have proved beyond doubt that all positive and extreme answers for metaphysical questions are logically self-defeating, and this is a lot more than an inch of ground. It is only when this result is unacceptable to us that we need question the rules of the game or the point of playing it. If we have seen and conceded the absurdity of all extreme this or that answers for metaphysical questions then we have played the game and won it. In a reasonable universe we would expect a rigorous process of abduction to falsify all world-theories except one, perhaps two or three at most where they are nearly equivalent, and if this is what metaphysics does then it cannot be criticised for it. It is a result we would expect and hope for, and it gives us confidence in our method. There cannot be more than one correct metaphysical theory and, if the universe is reasonable, then no more than one that is logically defensible. That metaphysics allows us to reduce almost all theories to absurdity is evidence of its reliability and effectiveness.

Philosophers in all traditions find that metaphysics does not endorse a partial, selective or positive world-theory. All such theories are found to give rise to contradictions. If any of them are correct then the universe is paradoxical and will remain forever incomprehensible to us. If metaphysics refuses to produce a positive result, however, then this does not mean it produces no result. This is a result and a crucially important clue to the nature of reality. It does not entail that we must dismiss metaphysics as useless, as it is generally thought in Western academia, but merely steers us towards a different kind of theory. The problem here, if there is a problem, is simply that this different kind of theory is the nondual theory endorsed by the Buddha and Lao Tzu, which in metaphysics translates as a neutral theory. This is the only fundamental theory not rejected by metaphysics. Yet it is widely ignored in metaphysics and even in modern consciousness studies has attracted little attention. Is it merely a coincidence that both disciplines are crippled by ’hard’ problems?

The situation is therefore more straightforward and hopeful than most philosophers would have us believe. For as long as metaphysics fails to refute the neutral metaphysical theory endorsed by the Buddha and Lao Tzu it will remain possible that metaphysics, by rejecting all other theories, performs its job admirably according to tried and trustworthy rules. All other theories are redundant and implausible. If we do not concede this then we must abandon the ‘laws of thought’ for the sake of a theory we know can be reduced to absurdity and then have to defend this strategy by claiming that metaphysics has no method for making decisions. Yet it is perfectly capable of deciding that all metaphysical questions are undecidable, and if this result seems uninterpretable to us then is this not evidence of any fault with the methods of metaphysics.

The metaphysical scheme of Middle Way Buddhism, which for metaphysicians may be the most accessible example of the ‘Perennial philosophy’ or ‘mysticism’, is not partial, selective or positive. It cannot be refuted in the Aristotelian dialectic and is the only cosmological doctrine for which this can be said. It is not demonstrably correct and can never be so, for logic cannot prove what is true and false, only what is and is not logically absurd, but it is unique among metaphysical theories in that it cannot be reduced to absurdity. On this view metaphysics is a straightforward study by which we eliminate logically indefensible theories to leave only those that survive analysis. Its well-documented and endlessly repeatable result is that all extreme theories are logically indefensible and a neutral one is irrefutable. The central problem of metaphysics is understanding this result, not demonstrating it.

The reaction of philosophers to this result divides them into two distinctive camps, often clumsily identified as ‘Eastern’ and ‘Western’. For philosophers in these traditions the defining difference would be their respective willingness to accept and investigate the results of their own calculations. The Blackwell Guide makes it clear that Western metaphysicians are unwilling to do this, preferring to dismiss metaphysics as hopeless. Meanwhile, the Buddhist philosopher-monk Nagarjuna, on behalf of the Perennial tradition, goes to great lengths to demonstrate this result and explain it. In the metaphysical literature of mysticism there is no talk of modifying the laws of dialectical logic or of having no rules for deciding between fundamental theories. The refusal of metaphysics to endorse a positive or extreme theory is interpreted as a demonstrable logical proof of what is the case, which would be that the world-as-a-whole is best described by a neutral metaphysical theory. This is what we discover when we play the game of metaphysics strictly by the rules and make clear decisions.

Subscribe now

Why, then, do so many people, even many philosophers, conclude that metaphysics is an unimportant or even pointless exercise? This pessimism can be explained by the fact that the metaphysical scheme of mysticism is uninteresting and unknown to many philosophers and consequently much misunderstood. Apparently, it seems clear to most metaphysicians that mysticism has no systematic metaphysic underpinning all its fine talk of cosmology and soteriology, psychology and phenomenology and so a dismissive view persists in large areas of metaphysics. Consequently, the same view persists in physics, consciousness studies and all other disciplines where it is an orthodoxy that metaphysical problems are too hard to solve and metaphysics is more or less useless. By leaping to this conclusion metaphysicians shoot themselves in the foot, for if there is no systematic and logically defensible metaphysical scheme underpinning the teachings of the Buddha and Lao Tzu, and if all other schemes are logically indefensible, then metaphysics can never have a solution for its problems. It would be doomed to remain forever an arena for mock fights, a more descriptive phrase than ‘waste of time’ but equivalent.

Fortunately, it has never been shown that a low view of mysticism is justified. This is to the credit of metaphysics. In metaphysics, if we play by the rules, we cannot dismiss the philosophical foundation of mysticism as false unless we can show that it would give rise to logical contradictions. Until then all we can do, and only then on an individual basis, is to dismiss our method of refutation as a waste of time for failing to refute it, as in effect the Blackwell Guide advises us to do. Only if a neutral theory is false would we need to doubt a decision-making procedure that concludes it is true. There is nothing to stop us doubting this result but there would be a high price to pay. We would then be unable to defend our discipline when it is dismissed as unscientific or pointless for it is ourselves who have made it so. If we to stick to our method and pursue analysis to its bitter end then we must arrive where logical analysis always arrives, at the conclusion that all positive metaphysical theories are logically absurd. Now we face a simple choice. We can choose to see this conclusion as a dead end or we can see it as a fact from which to derive an extended metaphysical theory. We have no other option. We cannot undo our calculations but must choose on which path to continue where one heads West and the other East. The confusion, depression and stagnation we see in stereotypically Western philosophy is not caused by its failure to produce a clear result but by its refusal to accept the clear result it produces and investigate its implications. The claim that metaphysics has no rules for making decisions allows us to avoid having to accept this result, but this would be to deliberately upset the chess-board at the last minute in order to avoid losing the game, which up until this moment we have been playing by the very rules we are now denying. Metaphysics is then reduced to the sham science described by the Blackwell Guide. Such a metaphysics might well be thought of as a waste of time, for while it is capable of establishing the problems of philosophy it rules out of consideration their only available solution. This is not, however, all of metaphysics, merely a particular approach that has been known not to work at least since the days of Plato. Its key feature is a careful avoidance of mysticism. For a study of mysticism we would have to accept rather than fight against the results of metaphysics.

In answer to the question in the title, then, we could say that whether we see metaphysics as a waste of time will depend crucially on whether we accept its results or reject them. In the Western tradition they are widely rejected or ignored, thus the negative evaluation so many philosophers award the discipline, while in the tradition of the East they are accepted. Yet, oddly, it is the former that characterizes itself as ‘rational’.

That metaphysics and mysticism are not irrelevant to each other and one may shine a light on the other may not be an easy concession to make for some, but once we make it then metaphysics becomes a lot easier to do, up to a point. The demand it makes in an academic context are considerable but asking a metaphysical question and trying to answer it is all that would be required for actually doing metaphysics, and asking a few of them soon brings even the amateur investigator to the point on which the two main traditions part company, which is how to interpret the refusal of metaphysics to produce a positive answer for any question of first principles. We are now standing at the exit from Kant’s arena and must decide between staying and leaving, which is to say choose whether to accept this result or reject it. Once out, if we choose to accept it, all theories except one can be abandoned and we can focus on reaching an understanding of the one that remains. This is the theory that predicts and explains the failure of all positive metaphysical theories. Thus metaphysics becomes a lot easier to do, at least in the early stages, for those who do not fight against it.

It is sometimes argued, for instance by the dialethists, that a neutral metaphysical theory disobeys the laws of dialectical logic. To counter this idea an examination of those laws would be necessary. Aristotle’s rules for the dialectic are intended as a formalisation of the way in which human beings naturally and probably unavoidably think, and we have normally started to use them by the time we are able to talk. They describe the way our minds work and we need not study the rules in order to at least get started in metaphysics. We might perhaps start with the Something-Nothing problem, the question of whether the universe begins with, reduces to, is emergent from or simply is one or the other. This is one of the more approachable of metaphysical problems and discussions of it tend to be briefer and more straightforward than they are for some others, even if they are ultimately no less confusing. If they ask themselves this question most people will soon discover that the idea the extended universe begins with or arises from Something or Nothing makes no sense. Both horns of this dilemma may be refuted in the dialectic and this is why they form a dilemma. We may reach this conclusion after quite a short time and in a quite casual way but should not doubt that it is an important philosophical result. It tells us something important about the universe and about the way in which we think. It tells us that the universe is more extraordinary than anybody can think. If we proceed in this fashion, approaching in turn the problems of freewill-determinism, externalism-internalism, mind-matter, one-many, dualism-monism and so forth, then we will eventually end up having to choose between the view that metaphysics and mysticism are in full agreement such that neither is a waste of time and the view that metaphysics has no decision-making procedure and is a mock science, with the ineluctable implication that mysticism has no defensible philosophical foundation and is a lot of tosh. It is an all or nothing decision, for metaphysics and mysticism must stand or fall together. There would be no need to work through many different problems since metaphysicians have done the hard work. All we need do is confirm that the Something-Nothing problem and all metaphysical dilemmas remain as problematic in metaphysics today as ever, something we can do by reference to a general introduction, an online browse or by extrapolation from the preface to the Blackwell guide to the subject. If all these questions are still problems today after centuries of painstaking analysis by thousands of greater minds than our own then it can only be because all their positive solutions would break the rules of Aristotle’s logic and must be judged unsatisfactory. Once we have noted that all these dilemmas are formed from pairs of contradictory and complementary pairs of positive metaphysical positions then we have reached a fork in the path and must decide whether to believe the Buddha’s explanation for their undecidability or give up and adopt the pessimism of mainstream Western philosophy.

If we choose the former then rather than being self-effacing about our discipline we can say that the refutation of all positive or partial metaphysical theories is its proudest achievement. It tells us what the world is really like and in such a way that we might expect scientists and philosophers to sit up and take notice. Things would be different if there were no alternative to these failed theories and all metaphysical theories could be refuted, for then some despair would be justified, but if the alternative to these failed theories is the one endorsed by the Buddha and Lao Tzu with all that this would imply for the natural sciences, the nature of reality, the meaning of life, the relationship between science and religion and more, then it would be difficult to argue that metaphysics is not a vital and practically useful area of study. Only if we reject its conclusions would it become a snake-pit of competing theories none of which work, scorned by physics and consciousness studies for its endless prevarication and inability to make decisions. If we respect its decisions then we can say metaphysics is a straightforward formal discipline akin to mathematics that may be used to show that all but one metaphysical theory gives rise to logical contradictions, the single exception being the neutral theory endorsed by all the world’s wisdom traditions, without need of further complication or fear of contradiction.

Metaphysical Musings - Current Affairs - Quote of the Day – Book of the Month

Welcome to another newsletter.

Thanks to the liberating impact of the internet, which has opened up the philosophical and religious debate to anyone with an interest, things seem to be changing in the professional and public discussion. It may be confirmation bias but it seems to me that metaphysics and mysticism are attracting growing attention. Both disciplines have suffered from the neglect of scholars for a long time but the ongoing failure of philosophers to make sense of the world, and in particular consciousness, is forcing them to consider drastic new ideas, one being that the mystics might, after all, have something useful to say about metaphysics and ‘life, the universe and everything’. It even seems possible that nonduality and the nondual explanation of reality and consciousness will be the next big thing in theoretical physics and mainstream philosophy.

Meanwhile, I will continue to argue that the only way to understand metaphysics would be to assume that the Perennial philosophy is true, and challenge anyone who doubts it to try to prove otherwise without ending up agreeing.

Metaphysical Musings

Many people worry that the physical world is all there is, even if it is the last thing they would want to believe. Fear not. While modern physicalism might seem to be a more sophisticated and subtle idea than nineteenth-century materialism it fares no better in metaphysics. In no possible universe at any time in all of eternity has a physicalist been able to comprehend metaphysics. Metaphysics, which might as well be called ‘meta-physicalism’, exists only because philosophers are able to work out that as a fundamental theory physicalism does not make sense. It contradicts reason. Thus we need the discipline of metaphysics. The very existence of metaphysics, if ordinary common sense is not enough to confirm it, proves that we must look beyond the physical to explain the physical.

It is no use appealing to ever-finer-grades of matter. Buddhism speaks of ever-finer grades of matter, but there is a crucial difference. For physicalism the grades must become ever-finer without end in the manner of angels on a pin-head or infinitely divisible portions of the number-line, with complete non-existence as a mathematical limit never to be reached. As an explanation for the existence of the extended space-time universe this is no better than an infinite regress of turtles. For Buddhism there is also an infinite regress, if we want to explore it, but matter would not really exist. The non-existence of matter, when analysed from an ultimate perspective, is one of its central claims and a necessary component of its metaphysical scheme. Extended material objects, Meister Eckhart states on behalf of the Perennial philosophy, are ‘literally nothing’. Their reduction is therefore not a problem.

This is the reason why Buddhist doctrine works in metaphysics. It is subtle and sophisticated, and while making sense of it requires some effort it is at least possible to do so. Buddhist metaphysics is fundamental with no need for appeals to infinite regresses and unreachable mathematical limits. It explains metaphysics in a systematic, comprehensive, comprehensible and logically irrefutable manner, solves all of its important problems and answers all of its important questions.

History shows that it would be impossible to make sense of metaphysics and the nature of reality while being unable to understand Buddhist philosophy. The Western philosophical tradition is, if not a proof, at least strong circumstantial evidence. Every philosopher who has ever tried to make sense of metaphysics and failed is circumstantial evidence.

The secret weapon that allows the ‘Middle Way’ doctrine of Buddhism, more generally that of the Perennial philosophy, to explain and make sense of metaphysics is the principle of nonduality. According to this philosophical principle reality is advaita or ‘not-two’. In no case should it be thought of as this as opposed to that. It cannot be conceptualised and can never be an idea. Even to call it ‘it’ is misleading. It would better be called ‘this’.

If we understand how to wield this weapon then we will never again meet an intractable metaphysical problem. The antinomies, dilemmas, ignoramibuses, paradoxes and undecidable questions for which metaphysics is famous evaporate. In metaphysics the principle of nonduality is not unlike the enchanted sword of Arthurian legend, for it is difficult to draw it out of the stone, so to speak, by understanding it, but effortless to wield once we have done so. It renders us invincible in metaphysics.

Nonduality cannot be properly studied merely by thinking about it. It lies beyond discursive thought and must be realised directly. In the context of discursive metaphysics, therefore, nonduality must be treated not as a feature of reality to be realised but as a theoretical principle or method. As such, it is an idea accessible to all philosophers. The explanatory power, effectiveness and logical plausibility of this principle may be explored just as they would be for any other philosophical idea. When we investigate this principle we are exploring the relationship between metaphysics and mysticism and comparing the results of analysis with the insights of the mystics. I believe this is the only way to understand metaphysics.

In order to make sense of metaphysics and the nature of reality it would be strictly necessary to understand the principle of nonduality. This is not at all the same thing as an understanding of nonduality but it is enough for metaphysics. That this is the case may be doubted but not refuted. Philosophers have been trying to refute it for thousands of years with no success. The principle of nonduality is the master key to philosophical understanding and without it the barriers to knowledge are impassable. All attempts to construct a systematic fundamental theory will become enmired in problems of self-reference and logical absurdities. .

This is the reason why making sense of metaphysics may be seen as, and when approached from a particular angle may actually be, a quite straightforward process of analysis. The trick is to pull the sword from the stone as soon as possible and learn how to wield it before becoming hopelessly entangled in all the ancient arguments and counter-arguments that rage on in what Kant likens to an arena for mock fights. The principle of nonduality allows us to escape from the arena and move on. I firmly believe that if it were to be added to the curriculum of our universities and well-taught then in a generation there would be a dramatic change in the philosophical debate in the academic world and before long a significant impact on human society.

Yes, I know, it is a pipe-dream. But I see no reason why it should not happen. Nonduality, a word unknown to my generation growing up, is now one of the most popular topics on the internet. David Chalmers has come around to the view that consciousness is fundamental, so mysticism may now be almost respectable. Not so respectable that he endorses it, but the writing is one wall. He has made it clear that according to a comprehensive survey of the relevant evidence by a prominent scholar there is no good reason to suppose that the Perennial philosophy is untrue, and enough positive evidence to convince him that something like it is in fact true. Had he been taught the principle of nonduality as a student I have no doubt he would have long ago recognised the solution to all his problems.

Buddhism is a medicine and it does little good unless we take it. However, for philosophers and intellectually inclined truth-seekers there is much to gained by reading the label on the bottle. Not doing so is a popular academic habit but not a rational way to do philosophy.

Current Affairs

On reflection, it seems likely that talking about society and politics alongside metaphysics and mysticism muddles the issues and dilutes the message, so I may stop doing it. There is a connection, however, since I believe that if metaphysics and mysticism were more widely understood then the state of society and politics would be very different. Still, discussing this may be a distraction. Feelings are running high in Britain, however, and it is difficult to resist making comments.

If I say what I really think about the current situation in Britain it will be picked up by our government’s speech-police and I will end up serving a prison term. The democratic nations of the Western world are at war with globalist forces and Britain seems to be on the front line, perhaps because the EU member nations have already been mostly subdued. I fear things may get ugly,

There is no reason why young people should understand what is being destroyed. It is too complicated and there is too much to explain. The education system and the mainstream media has already been mostly captured and the history books are already being rewritten. Nor can they have any idea of what they are in for once national parliaments become regional administrative centres.

What is happening in Ukraine is astonishing. Every nation on Earth must be scratching its head and wondering what it means for the future of warfare. It is possible, however, that it has no future. Ukraine succeeds because it is largely a united people fighting for a common cause. It is not the sort of war that can be fought by a nation that is anything like Britain is becoming. This is the original motivation for enforced demographic change, to bring about the end of European wars, and it may work. I doubt many Brits would fight for their country at this time or even be clear what they are supposed to be fighting for. Soon our only military threat may come from one of the other two or three global power blocks and the wars between them conducted mostly by remote control. George Orwell was a genius.

Books of the Month

F. W. Whiting, Being Oneself: The Way of Meditation, The London School of Meditation, 1985

This wonderful little book explains meditative practice as a means to inner peace, freedom and contentment. It addresses many of the basic questions that arise for beginners and includes a variety of answers given by practicing members of the school, each according to their level of understanding.

It is simple, straightforward and to the point. It explains that meditation reveals to us our inner depths of love and happiness, our potential for knowledge and intelligence and our innate strength and capacity. Whiting notes that these are partial benefits compared with the transcendence of theory and dogma and the great discovery of the unity behind all diversity.

For anyone wondering what meditation is all about I would highly recommend this helpful book.

F. C. Happold, Mysticism, Penguin (1965)

Another wonderful book. This extract gives a flavour of it.

“A common characteristic of many mystical states is the presence of a consciousness of the Oneness of everything. All creaturely existence is experienced as a unity, as All in One and One in All. In theistic mysticism God is felt to be in everything and everything to exist in God.

In ancient Chinese philosophy the creation of the phenomenal universe is envisaged as coming out of Tao, the Primal Meaning and Undivided Unity behind everything, by the pulling asunder of polar opposites. Out of Tao sprang the principles of phenomenal reality, the two poles of yang (light) and yin (darkness), which are evident throughout the whole of the universe as it appears to us. We cannot conceive of light except as the opposite of darkness, of above except as the opposite of below, of before except as the opposite of after, of goodness except as the opposite of evil. Our perception is conditioned by the existence of these polar opposites. Yet, they are only active in the realm of phenomena.

In this realm of polar opposites man is imprisoned. He is conscious, therefore, of a division in his soul. His deepest spiritual instinct is to break through the polar opposites and find again the Primal Meaning, so that he may once again be restored to the Undivided Unity which he has lost.

God is to be found, said Nicholas of Cusa, beyond ‘the coincidence of contradictories’. There can, however, be no escape from duality through sense perception, for sense perception is conditioned by the presence of polar opposites, nor through discursive thought, which is bound by the same dualism. For to the mystic is given that unifying vision of the One in the All and the All in the One.

There is little doubt that this sense of the Oneness of everything in the universe and outside it is at the heart of the most highly developed mystical consciousness. All feelings of duality and multiplicity are obliterated, including the duality between man and Deity. Though it may be expressed differently, this is equally true of Hindu and Sufi mystics, of Plotinus and of the great contemplatives of Christianity.”

Quotes of the Month

Joseph asked Poeman, ‘Tell me how to become a monk.’ He said, ‘If you want to find rest in this life and the next, say at every moment, “Who am I?” and judge no one.’

The Desert Fathers, Sayings of the Early Christian Monks – Penguin, Trans. Benedicta Ward

The simplicity of meditative practice is implausible. Yet this is all it is, getting to know oneself and seeing that it is a mistake and actually dangerous to judge. The Sufi’s say that to make a man a judge is to ‘kill him without a knife’. Such are the laws of causation.

“While it is impossible to exaggerate the greatness and littleness of man, it is fatally easy to disconnect them, and to emphasize one to the neglect of the other.”

Douglas Harding The Hierarchy of Heaven and Earth, Sholond Trust (2021)

These words are practically important, since the polarity of the prosaic and the divine in man can easily become unbalanced, leading us to neglect one pole for the sake of the other. Harding is a fascinating thinker who goes deeper than any other I have come across into the actual physiological and mental mechanisms by which we create our extended realistic conceptual world out of the raw data of our senses. I cannot always follow him but a more scientific thinker ought to manage better.

Endnote

Thanks for reading this. Please feel free to suggest future discussion topics or ask questions in the comments section below, whether they are naïve or sophisticated. In metaphysics it is usually the naïve questions that cause the most trouble.

Best wishes to all

Peter

Metaphysical Musings - Book News - Current Affairs - Quote of the Day – Book of the Month

Note for New Subscribers

Thank you for becoming a subscriber. Besides occasional posts and notes I try to send out a newsletter roughly monthly. My aim is to persuade you that it possible to work out, by a process of elimination well-known to Sherlock Holmes, that according to reason the truth about reality lies within the Perennial philosophy or, at least, that no other description or reality survives analysis. This would explain why so many philosophers find metaphysics incomprehensible, for few study the philosophical foundation of the nondual doctrine. As a subscriber to Metaphysics and Mysticism you may hope to do better.

Metaphysical Musings

Jesus said: “The Pharisees and the scribes took the keys of Knowledge and hid them; nor did they enter, and those who desired to enter, they permitted them not. You, however, be cunning as serpents and innocent as doves!”

Jesus - Gospel of Thomas. V. 44

I use these words of Jesus as the epigram for my book. It seems to me he describes two vital qualities a seeker of ultimate truth requires, whether they seek it in metaphysics or mysticism.

Cunning is required for both metaphysics and mysticism but each requires a different form of it. The need for it is more obvious in metaphysics, where the calculating intellect is charge.

Most philosophers are clever but fewer are cunning. I find it difficult to explain the distinction, but if you think of serpents as cunning and chimpanzees as clever then you’ll probably know what I mean. A clever person setting out to seek the truth in metaphysics may spend ten years diligently getting to know the literature. A cunning person will find a way to simplify the issues and avoid the work. Perhaps cunning is a particular form of cleverness, but distributed unevenly amongst clever people.

Most philosophers nod to Descartes for his advice on being doubtful, but fewer take it and approach metaphysics with innocence. Most hold deeply entrenched metaphysical views, as we all do either consciously or unconsciously, that impact on their ability to fearlessly face the facts. This produces a reluctance to simplify issues and, rather, a tendency to complicate them. It is difficult to be innocent and it requires some humility.

A truth-seeker wants to know the truth whatever it is and whatever the consequences. If they want to look for it in the seemingly endless complexities of metaphysics then they will need some cunning, just as if they were a lazy person trying to avoid doing more work than is necessary, for it is well hidden by the Pharisees and cloaked in unnecessary complexity, and also some innocence, avoiding complexity, asking simple and naïve questions and happily accepting whatever experience or logic proves.

Ask yourself whether the universe arises from something or nothing. Keep asking until you’re sure that neither answer makes sense. This may take ten minutes. One answer may seem a little more sensible than the other, but neither works. In this case there must be a third answer. Yet a third answer is inconceivable. In this case the ultimate nature of reality must be inconceivable. The truth itself must be inconceivable. (Hence my title In Pursuit of the Inconceivable, for in metaphysics and mysticism this is what we are pursuing).

Thus very simple and innocent thinking leads directly to the truth. Cunning is required when it comes to dealing with some logical problems that may seem to arise here, but it can be done. An innocent person might ask whether ‘something’ and ‘nothing’ are in fact a dialectic contradiction, thus would exclude a third answer, for on the face of it they are not. Rather, as answers to the question of origins both seem absurd. There are two ways to explain this. One is to suppose the universe is paradoxical, the other is to suppose that there is a third answer. This will remain the case even if we read a thousand books on the subject. If we can get this far then we are already close to the truth, insofar as it can be established in metaphysics. The third answer is the ‘nondual’ doctrine of the Perennial philosophy.

With just a little thought we have established that the truth probably lies in the teachings of the mystics, and have entirely transcended the interminable argumentation of mainstream Western philosophy and religion. We may also, if we pursue these issues a little further, come to appreciate the reasons Jesus had for his words above, and why they are as relevant as ever.

It is my view that it would be impossible to understand the teachings of Jesus in the absence of some understanding of nonduality and its ramifications for philosophy, and that when we have such an understanding we will also understand the core message of Islam and Judaism. At this time a minority of Christians, Muslims and Jews have such an understanding, but the world is changing fast and nonduality has become a hot topic. I have hopes that this minority might become a majority.

Book News

Every day I receive between two to fifteen emails offering book marketing advice and assistance of some sort. I assume most are scams, but what if there’s some little gems amongst them? I’d be interested to hear from any authors who have taken up any of these unsolicited offers and are happy to share their experience. For now they all get marked as spam.

The public intellectual Robert Kuhn has published a landscape of theories of consciousness listing over 350 current theories. I find it interesting that the list is published by an academic outsider, since the list hardly flatters the ability of philosophers of mind to sort the wheat from the chaff. It is as if they have no decision-making procedure and are reduced to pure guesswork.

My book is an attempt to explain how to reduce the list to just one by paying attention to metaphysics. Almost all the theories on Kuhn’s list are empirically untestable and require that we ignore the results of logical analysis (or what I would call informed common-sense), and almost none of them are theories in the sense a scientist or mathematician would use this word.

It seems to me that Kuhn’s list is evidence that modern consciousness studies is not a serious or honest undertaking. What sort of ‘discipline’ has a method that can tolerate 350 distinct theories of the only thing it is trying to explain?

Current Affairs

I cannot think of anything new or helpful to say about current affairs in Britain but feel the need to say something. We are under intense attack from the globalists and their puppet government. A recent substack post (which I’m now unable to track down) quotes one public intellectual as having begun by thinking that progressive socialism is a mental illness, but has now upgraded his analysis to see it as a disease of the soul. It seems this way to me also. I suppose it’s damn silly to say this on substack but it seems important to keep the conversation open to the extent that we can, and not shrivel up and die as our government would wish.

Thanks to the wonders of mass immigration and enforced demographic change, Britain’s benefits bill now exceeds its income tax revenue. It would be hard to make this sort of nonsense up but it’s actually happening. Mass immigration has to be paid for. I feel nothing but fear and sympathy for our children and grandchildren.

Does it really make sense to have a net-zero energy policy that hammers businesses and citizens with inflated bills and depresses the economy while importing millions more people to continually increase demand? Or is someone unable to join the dots?

I’d better shut up and get back to philosophy.

Quotes of the Day

“You are in this world as if you do not exist, and you are in the next world as if you never left it.”

Imam Ali, the first Shia Imam

This neatly sums up the message of the Perennial philosophy. We sit astride two worlds, a foot planted in each, but rarely see this. One might interpret the Christian cross as a symbol of these two worlds; the upright bar as the world of time and suffering and the horizontal as the peace and joy of the eternal now, with mankind nailed at the intersection. I suspect Ali would have seen it in this way.

It is my belief that few Christians and not many more Muslims have a correct understanding of Islam as taught by Mohamed and (it seems to me more clearly) by his nephew Ali. As I’ve previously recounted, at least two Muslim taxi drivers agree with me about this. What the UK Muslim Council have sold the UK government as ‘Islamophobia’ is nothing of the sort. It would be possible to be a great fan of the prophet Mohammad and Imam Ali (peace be upon them) while still qualifying as Islamophobic according to our Orwellian government. It is actually quite difficult to see how both Christianity and Islam managed to became so divorced from the message of their founders.

“Like the doctrine of the Self, the notion of God can also be used to prop up and inflate the ego. The most sensitive monotheists in Judaism, Christianity and Islam would all be aware of this danger and would speak of God in ways that are reminiscent of the Buddha’s reticence about Nibbana. They would also insist that God was not another being, that our notion of ‘existence’ was so limited that it was more accurate to say that God did not exist and that ‘he’ was Nothing. But on a more popular level, it is certainly true that ‘God’ is often reduced to an idol created in the image and likeness of ‘his’ worshippers.”

Karen Armstrong, Buddha, Weidenfeld & Nicolson (2000)

“To Jew, Christian, and Moslem a gulf is felt to exist between God and man, Creator and creature, which can never be crossed. To assert ‘Thou’ are ‘That’ sounds blasphemous. Consequently, since, whatever it may mean, this sense of a sort of identification, in which the personal self is absorbed in the Divine, is at the heart of the most highly developed form of mystical consciousness, there has always been a state of tension between the contemplatives and the ecclesiastical authorities of Christianity and Islam.”

F. C. Happold, Mysticism: A Study and an Anthology, Penguin, (1964)

Books of the Month

Dr, Clare Craig, Spiked: A Shot in the Dark. Publishing Aloud Ltd, (Dec, 2025)

Did anyone notice that in 2023 Anthony Fauci declared that the covid ‘vaccine’ offered no protection against infection? Probably not. It went largely unreported. At that time no inconvenient news was reported.

Did you know that the early epidemiological models on which British government policy was based were created prior to any actual cases appearing and relied on modeled data-sets? So the models modeled data that was modeled by the modellers. This goes some way towards explaining the over-reaction by politicians.

I learned this and a lot more from Dr. Clare Craig’s book Spiked. Craig is a clinical pathologist who has been investigating the events of the pandemic years ever since she realised, after the first few months of the panic, that the science behind the political and medical responses was non-existent.

She tells a sad and sorry tale. I believe this is an important book for anyone likely to live until the next pandemic as a vital protection against misinformation, fear-mongering and untested but mandated medical treatments. Even if only half of her claims are true parents in particular need to be informed for the sake of their children.

In hindsight I am unable to remember a single official statement about the virus or the ‘vaccine’ that turned out to be true.

Helen Shucman, A Course in Miracles, Original Edition Text, Course in Miracles Society, (2012)

I dip in and out of this difficult and controversial book and always find it amazing. ACIM is an advanced psychology text book that explains and expands the teachings of Jesus as an expression of the ‘non-dual’ doctrine common to all traditions of mysticism. By so doing it places those teachings firmly in the Perennial philosophical tradition, thus denying the absurd idea that Christian teachings are uniquely correct and all others flawed. Readers of this book will have no difficulty in reconciling the original teachings of Jesus with those of Buddhism, Sufism, Taoism and the Indian Upanishads, and in this way render them philosophically credible and immune to all reasonable objections.

End Note

Please feel free to send me any questions you may have about metaphysics or mysticism. These are difficult topics and no question could be too naïve. The most challenging and important questions are usually naïve. By the same token, the greatest mistakes one can make in metaphysics are usually naïve and could be called beginner’s mistakes. I plan to write a list of potential and common mistakes and how to avoid them and may make a start in the next newsletter. I believe that if we avoid mistakes then metaphysics is a quite straightforward area of study, but it is full of traps for the unwary.

The trouble with beginner’s mistakes is that philosophers who do not avoid them may find that they become baked into their thinking and go unnoticed forever, buried under the complexity of their growing expertise. They may then end up passing these mistakes on to their students. Good musicians are always aware of this danger and will often return to the beginning and adjust their technique by working slowly and carefully on very basic exercises, paying close attention to every details of their technique, in order to uncover inefficiencies and bad habits that are holding them back. It’s good practice for philosophers as well. If we do not do this then at some later point we are likely to meet barriers that prevent us from making progress, just as musicians do. As an ex-guitar teacher I always felt that the first ten lessons were the most important since they can make or break the future potential of the player, and feel much the same about metaphysics. I have never read an introduction to metaphysics that does not make basic mistakes. Not one. So beware.

If I’m asked some good questions I may introduce a ‘Question of the Month’ section in the next issue.

Thanks for your reading time. It is much appreciated. . Even as a fast reader I find Substack demanding.

Bye for now…

Metaphysical Musings - Book News - Current Affairs - Quote of the Day – Book of the Month

Hello Subscribers

Please pardon the late newsletter. It’s been a busy month.

You may have noticed that despite what I said in the previous newsletter I’ve gone back to emailing out new essays. It seems best given the way the algorithm works.

Metaphysical Musings

I was recently advised by a well-meaning reader that my abrasive style when speaking about the academic world may create unnecessary opposition. This is excellent advice. I am not unaware of this problem but there are complications. I am trying to show that the Emperor has no clothes and, as the little boy in the story discovers, this requires some arguing and jumping up and down.

I am proposing that metaphysics is no more a matter of opinion than mathematics and is all about arguments and propositions that can be clearly and boldly stated. This means being bold. It also helps that a challenging approach encourages engagement with the issues. I do not believe philosophy in the academic world is an honest endeavour and have no intention of politely looking away. The issues are too important. The failure of philosophers to prevent metaphysics from being perceived as largely a matter of opinion affects the beliefs, behaviours and everyday lives of all human being in less than beneficial ways. Rather than acting as a normalising force on our beliefs and views philosophy in out universities has become a fabulously complicated and interminable muddle that leaves us free to believe any old thing.

Being outspoken also has the advantage of revealing faults in my own views. Mistakes are likely to be obvious and catastrophic and this keeps me on my toes. I drive too fast, (some would say), for the same reason.

The crucial point here is that it would be impossible to be confident of our philosophical views unless we have a fundamental theory that works and is irrefutable. Most philosophers make do without. They do not put in place a solid foundation before moving on to elaborating their thoughts and opinions, so can never present those thoughts and opinions with certainty. My proposal is that most people can work out the truth for themselves and be certain it is the truth, given a certain approach to the issues, and it would undermine my argument to do so with uncertainty.

The risk is coming across as arrogant or delusional. This risk is unavoidable for anyone who claims to have a correct and well-developed fundamental theory that explains everything. Most philosophers consider such a theory an impossible dream and will react to this claim much as a physicist would react to someone who claims they understand quantum mechanics. They will see just arrogance and delusion.

It is not arrogance. My proposal is that most people are capable of understanding philosophy better than most professors at this time, including those professors. If this were not the case then I would not understand it any better. When one has a correct view of metaphysics the complexity can be transcended and the issues are massively simplified, rendering the subject accessible to most people. The basic principles are simple even if the details are endless and difficult, mirroring the logical structure of the reality it describes. I suppose it could be delusion, but how can I be sure? This is for the reader to decide. If I am delusional then so was the Buddha, the Noble Nagarjuna and my publisher, which is pretty good insurance.

Perhaps my view of the accessibility of metaphysics seems implausible. At least it is testable, given a statistically significant cohort of volunteers. If anyone to whom all this seems implausible would like to volunteer I’d be happy to run the first experiment. It will never be possible to democratise metaphysics, the details take years of work, but it is possible to make its results and conclusions accessible to most people, and this is all most people want or need.

Nevertheless, my reader’s advice was a useful reminder to be careful, so I’ll do my best to keep my indignation in check.

Book News

It is somewhat demeaning and awkward to have to promote one’s own book. Nevertheless, I have to say that I’d be grateful if readers of In Pursuit of the Inconceivable would post a brief review on Amazon. The algorithm takes note of review numbers and I could do with more. I’m very happy with those already posted but in some ways it’s a numbers game.

Current Affairs

Except for this section of the newsletter I try to stay away from current affairs. The situation in Britain is so sad and terrible that it is difficult to say anything sensible about it without breaking into an angry rant. It seems to me we are at war, and it is a psy-ops war that make it increasingly difficult to stay sane even for those who grew up before Blair and his chum Peter Sutherland, the ‘father of globalism’, decided to destroy our society for the sake of their ideological lunacy. For the sake of my equanimity I’ll stick to a retrospective on current affairs.

In the early years as PM, sitting on a large majority, Tony Blair made a big chunk of taxpayer’s money available for projects addressing racial tensions in the workplace. On behalf of my business I applied and was awarded £150K. I asked a local bigwig to chair the project and off we went. We had two meeting. In the second it become clear that he was unusually well connected politically at a high level. He causally informed me that unstated purpose of the public money made available was to soften up the workforce for high levels of immigration. I had designed the project and raised the money thinking I was dealing with a short-term issue that did not amount to much, since there was not much racial tension in the workplace at that time. The money was important to the business but I cried foul, collected up my papers and walked out with my astonished PA in tow.

Around the same time I heard that the local council had partnered up with some outside organisation to run a training course called ‘Future Leaders’. On investigation I discovered it was by invitation only and, given the people who I’d heard were attending, aimed at local left-wing minority activists. The contents of the course were top secret. No information was available and participants were not allowed to discuss the course with those not on it. I forgot all about it until years later, when I learned that this was part of the WEF’s global training program. It has been amazingly successful and effective. The entire Western world is in chaos.

We won the contract for running Blair’s ‘New Deal for Musicians’ vanity project across our region, but lost it when the project had exhausted its publicity value and the resources were reduced and then terminated. A great project for young unemployed people, especially musicians, and we had wonderful feedback from the job centres, but its political value was short-lived and thus so was the project.

It is hard to imagine just how much damage Blair did, and may still be doing, to this country.

Book of the Month

The Sayings and Wisdom of Imam Ali by Shaykh Fadhlalla Haeri (Zahra Publications)

Imam Ali was a nephew of the Prophet Mohamed and became the first Shia Imam. He spent twenty-seven years learning and working alongside the Prophet, who declared him an equal. My original interest in him arose from trying to confirm that Islam is, at root, once stripped of the inessentials, an expression of the Perennial philosophy.

If we trust Ali then it is. Ali held a universalist view of religion that depended on his view being consistent with Sufism, Buddhism and other nondual doctrines. I would include Christianity in this list. He says,

“Whoever knows his self surely knows his Lord’.

This book is an excellent introduction to Islamic teachings. It is a shame that the emerging Caliphate murdered Ali and his family. Had he lived to direct the evolution of the Islamic religion we might now be living in a very different world.

Quote of the Day

A recent article by Robert Kuhn lists over three hundred and fifty distinguishable ways of explaining consciousness currently in circulation. This can only mean that philosophy of mind has no decision-making procedure and cannot be called a discipline.

Most of the ‘theories’ listed are not theories but undeveloped hypotheses, and most do not survive critical analysis. However, as usual, metaphysics is ignored. The consequence is a decision-making procedure so ineffective that even physicalism is allowed on to the list.

The article is long and I have not read it, but I did read the section that discusses idealist theories. I can highly recommend it. I was expecting it to be poor, such are my prejudices, but it is excellent. It can found here https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0079610723001128#sec16

The discussion of Indian religion is to be found under ‘Idealisms’ in the index.

Kuhn includes some wonderful and helpful quotations. Here are three from Swami Sarvapriyananda, a Hindu monk belonging to the Ramakrishna Order who became the Minister and spiritual leader of the Vedanta Society of New York in 2017.

“Can you designate this thought or this emotion subjectively from your perspective? You can. And if you can, then even thoughts and emotions are also objects to consciousness. The result is that consciousness is clearly distinguished from all objects. Whatever appears to you belongs to material nature. And consciousness is not that. Consciousness does exactly one thing. It gives you a first-person experience” (Sarvapriyananda)

“You are the consciousness associated with your body and mind. And God is the consciousness associated with all bodies and minds. God is cosmic consciousness” (Sarvapriyananda).

“Swami Vivekananda, who introduced Vedanta to Western audiences, put it this way: ‘If only you knew yourselves as you truly are. Not as a body, bound to age, decay, and die; not even as a mind, a changing, limited personality, but as an unlimited consciousness expressing itself through a mind and a body.’ ” (Sarvapriyananda}

Questions to Ponder

I‘m fascinated by the relationship between the nondual doctrine and physics. It is very difficult and probably impossible to understand without bringing them together in metaphysics, which is their common ground. Even then the connections are often mind-bendingly difficult.

Metaphysical questions are not always immediately or obviously relevant to physics, but one that seems to be is the continuum questions: Is space-time continuous or granular? Is it legato or staccato? Would either answer make sense?

This question is discussed at length by the mathematician Herman Weyl in his book The Continuum: A Critical Examination of the Foundation of Analysis. I discuss his analysis in an essay here https://peterj234.substack.com/publish/posts/detail/189875962?referrer=%2Fpublish%2Fposts%2Fpublished

It is a useful question to ponder, since scientific realism falls apart when we try to get to the bottom of space and time by analysis.

My feeling is that the next major breakthrough in physics, opening up a whole new field of research, will be the recognition that Schrodinger was right, the ancient Upanishads describe the world correctly or, at least, in the only way that allows us to make sense of it.

Finally …

Does anyone listen to podcast talks? I’m thinking of recording a few but am not sure there is an audience here, given that most people seem to prefer to read. Or perhaps this just my preference. If you have a view on this please leave a comment.

Best wishes to all my subscribers and thanks for reading.

Peter

This essay examines the relationship between mysticism, for which Buddhism’s Middle Way doctrine would serve here as a defining example, and what, for want of better word, we call ‘Western’ philosophy. This is an issue of general interest to philosophers, since sooner or later in our investigations we must all decide whether the ‘Western’ kind of philosophy makes more or less sense to us than the ‘Eastern’ kind.

One obstacle we face in trying to make this decision is the difficulty of discerning clearly the defining characteristics of the two philosophies, those features that lead us to make such a final and definite distinction between them in the first place. We commonly speak of ‘Eastern’ and ‘Western’ philosophy, but are not so commonly able to say quite what we mean by this. The relevant issues are profound, mind-bending and probably inexhaustible. They need not be complicated, and they are often quite simple, but they are always immensely challenging.

One of these simple (stripped of the details) yet challenging issues would be the true nature of the continuum. The discussion that follows outlines the view of physicist, mathematician and philosopher Hermann Weyl. Weyl makes a careful distinction between the ‘arithmetical’ continuum, the continuum conceived of as an extended object, as it must be for the real numbers and space-time, and the ‘intuitive’ continuum, the empirical continuum of experience, which is not extended, and he demonstrates that when we set out to define what we mean by ‘Eastern’ and ‘Western’ philosophy, the foundations of analysis would be a good place to start. The interconnectedness of all the relevant issues at a foundational level, for all roads lead to Rome, means that we may as well start where we like, but mathematics takes us immediately to what might be the most clearly discernable and easily described difference between the two philosophies and worldviews, perhaps also the most general and profound, namely their entirely different conceptions of the continuum.

As there is just one source for each author quoted here I have not added numbered references but just tried to make it clear who is talking. Italics are always original.

>><<

In The Continuum: A Critical Examination of the Foundations of Analysis, Hermann Weyl points out that the extended space-time of physics and ordinary perception is, in the same way as the number line, a construction of reason and not intuitively or empirically given. He addresses a problem that arises in different guises but with an equal vengeance in religion, physics, mathematics and metaphysics. It is the problem of modelling a continuum as an extended series of discrete locations or ‘things’, as we do must do for the number line, geometry and arithmetic, space and time, and even for our very concept of the continuum, when a series of discrete locations or ‘things’ is exactly and precisely what a continuum is not.

A continuum cannot be extended as a series of points or moments for the reasons Weyl gives below, and yet it must be in order for anything to be extended in space and time. This causes a problem in philosophy. It would be a ‘first-order’ metaphysical problem or ‘antinomy’, a straight choice between two ideas neither of which work. It would be closely connected with the question of how many angels can dance on the head of a pin, of how small we can make an angel before it becomes the ‘ghost of a departed quantity’.

The various problems and paradoxes to which the intellectually-constructed continuum of the arithmetical line gives rise has no impact on the usefulness of mathematics, which is wholly dependent on this conception, but it indicates that the continuum of space-time is not an equivalent case and is, rather, a true continuum. As such, it would not be a set of locations but a unity. A unity has no parts. This would suggest that space and time are conceptual imputations and that Reality, whatever is truly and independently-real amongst all the smoke and mirrors, is not in fact extended. This is a difficult idea but not a new one, and it is widely popular in religion. When theoretical physicists say ‘distance is arbitrary’, perhaps they are suggesting something similar. It might at least help to explain how a Big Bang can appear to have occurred before there is, was or ever will be a time or a place for it to have happened. For an ultimate view it would not have happened. If the continuum cannot have parts then all co-ordinate systems are emergent.

Here is Tobias Dantzig, a mathematician admired by Einstein, introducing the issues.

Herein I see the genesis of the conflict between geometrical intuition, from which our physical concepts derive, and the logic of arithmetic. The harmony of the universe knows only one musical form - the legato; while the symphony of numbers knows only its opposite, - the staccato. All attempts to reconcile this discrepancy are based on the hope that an accelerated staccato may appear to our senses as legato. Yet our intellect will always brand such attempts as deceptions and reject such theories as an insult, as a metaphysics that purports to explain away a concept by resolving it into its opposite.

While a series of points serves perfectly well for the continuum of the number line and arithmetic, on examination it is a paradoxical idea that must be rejected in both metaphysics and physics as a model of space-time. The continuum of physics is, at this time, extended as a series of points and moments, and as such no sense can be made of it. Viewed as a real phenomenon a continuum so-defined would either be paradoxical or fail to qualify for the name. We have every right to define the continuum for mathematics as we currently do, and if our idea is paradoxical then it is only a problem when we investigate the foundations of analysis. When we define the continuum for mathematics we are not making a claim about the nature of Reality. Elsewhere it would be a different matter.

In metaphysics we certainly cannot adopt a priori an arithmetical definition of the continuum. Insofar as it relates to metaphysics this might be the central message of Weyl’s book. At the same time, physics and ordinary perception are heavily theory-laden, dangerously so. Our usual everyday theory is that time and space are extended in just the same way as is the number line, such that space- and time-points can be represented as locations in an extended co-ordinate system. But is there any evidence that space and time are extended objects? What is it that our wristwatch is actually measuring? Are we quite sure that our usual theory of extension, for which spacetime would be a ‘classical’ or Newtonian phenomenon, is fundamentally correct? Is it a metaphysical conjecture, a testable scientific theory, something we know from experience or a highly evolved misinterpretation? For our Western tradition of philosophy this would be a famously undecidable problem. Here the continuum appears to be paradoxical, for it cannot be extended ex hypothesis, and yet, by some magic, it is. Or it seems to be. For the Eastern tradition this everyday theory of space-time would be testable and it would fail the tests, being refutable in logic and falsifiable in experience. The continuum would be a unity, just as its name implies.

Weyl reduces the conceptually extended continuum of mathematics and traditional physics to what he calls the ‘true’ or ‘intuitive’ continuum, where the latter is carefully distinguished from the former. The intuitive continuum, the continuum as we experience it, is not extended as a series of moments or points. We do not experience time and space as consisting of moments and points, or, if we do, it is only ever the same moment and point. We are always here and now. What is more, there is actually something very odd about the idea that space and time are ‘grainy’ in this way. The length of ten thousand points would be equal to the length of one point, for a start, so no amount of points would be sufficient to construct basic geometry, let alone a piano. In the same way, no amount of moments would be sufficient to account for motion and change. Space and time are explanatory theories, Weyl proposes, generated by reason and imagination, not empirical phenomena.

For an orthodox view of space-time here is a passage from Wikipedia from the entry for Hermann Minkowsky.

This new reality was that space and time, as physical constructs, have to be combined into a new mathematical/physical entity called ‘space-time’, because the equations of relativity show that both the space and time coordinates of any event must get mixed together by the mathematics, in order to accurately describe what we see. Because space consists of 3 dimensions, and time is 1dimensional, space-time must, therefore, be a 4-dimensional object. It is believed to be a ‘continuum’ because so far as we know, there are no missing points in space or instants in time, and both can be subdivided without any apparent limit in size or duration. So, physicists now routinely consider our world to be embedded in this 4-dimensional Space-Time continuum, and all events, places, moments in history, actions and so on are described in terms of their location in Space-Time.

Dantzig explores the origins of this co-ordinate system.

The notion of equal-greater-less precedes the number concept. We learn to compare before we lean to evaluate. Arithmetic does not begin with numbers; it begins with criteria. Having learnt to apply these criteria of equal-greater-less, man’s next step was to devise models for each type of plurality. These models are deposited in his memory very much as the standard meter is deposited at the Bureau of Longitudes in Paris. One, two, three, four, five …; we could just as well have said: I, wings, clover, legs, hand … and, for all we know, the latter preceded our present form.

He goes on to observe that the staccato of the numbers is not empirical or intuitive, but a superimposition.

It is possible to assign to any point on a line a unique real number, and, conversely, any real number can be represented in a unique manner by a point on the line.

This is the famous Dedekind-Cantor axiom. This proposition, by sanctifying the tacit assumption on which analytical geometry had operated for over two hundred years, became the fundamental axiom of this discipline. It defines a new mathematical being, the arithmetical line. Henceforth the line - and consequently the plane, and space - ceases to be an intuitive notion and is reduced to being a mere carrier of numbers.

In the following passage Dantzig notes the paradoxical nature of the arithmetical line. This matters little in mathematics, but when the arithmetical line is taken to be a model of the true continuum it renders Reality paradoxical and causes philosophical havoc, in particular a deep rift between two quite different traditions of philosophy.

The axiom of Dedekind - “if all points of a straight line fall into two classes, such that every point of the first class lies to the left of any point of the second class, then there exists one and only one point which produces this division of all points into two classes, this severing of the straight line into two portions” - this axiom is just a skilful paraphrase of the fundamental property we attribute to time. Our intuition permits us, by an act of the mind, to sever all time into the two classes, the past and the future, which are mutually exclusive and yet together comprise all of time, eternity: The now is the partition which separates all the past from all the future; any instant of the past was once a now, any instant of the future will be a now anon, and so any instant may itself act as such a partition. To be sure, of the past we know only disparate instants, yet, by an act of the mind we fill out the gaps; we conceive that between any two instants - no matter how closely these may be associated in our memory - there were other instants, and we postulate the same compactness for the future. This is what we mean by the flow of time.

Furthermore, paradoxical though this may seem, the present is truly irrational in the Dedekind sense of the word, for while it acts as partition it is neither a part of the past nor a part of the future. Indeed, in an arithmetic based on pure time, if such an arithmetic was at all possible, it is the irrational which would be taken as a matter of course, while all the painstaking efforts of our logic would be directed toward establishing the existence of rational numbers.

In other words, the Dedekind sense of the word ‘present’ is irrational. Space-time cannot have the properties he assigns to the number line unless the Cosmos is irrational. This is the problem addressed by Weyl. He deals with it by making a clear distinction between the intuitive or experienced continuum, the intuition of the continuum that for all of us is an empirical phenomenon, and the intellectually constructed faux-continuum of Dedekind’s arithmetical line. They could hardly be more different.

To the criticism that the intuition of the continuum in no way contains those logical principles on which we must rely for the exact definition of the concept “real number,” we respond that the conceptual world of mathematics is so foreign to what the intuitive continuum presents to us that the demand for coincidence between the two must be dismissed as absurd.

He points out that the usefulness of the arithmetical line has no bearing on its plausibility as a model of the space-time continuum.

Whichever view of the relation of mathematics to nature one takes, there is no independent physical conception of the continuum on offer in all this, since all the mathematics is filtered through the real number system (or Hilbertian geometry as a surrogate). Moreover, I don’t see that any argument can be made from the enormously successful applications of mathematics in natural science to the conclusion that one or another of the mathematical conceptions of the continuum surveyed above is uniquely singled out as the “real one”. In any case, the work on the reach of predicative mathematics cited at the end of the preceding section shows that the properties of the continuum needed for its applications in natural science do not require it to have a definite reality in the platonistic sense.

Here is extract from an essay on Weyl and the continuum by John Bell.

…Weyl regards the experienced continuous flow of phenomenal time as constituting an insuperable barrier to the whole enterprise of representing this continuum in terms of individual points, and even to the characterization of “individual temporal point” itself. As he says,

“The view of a flow consisting of points and, therefore, also dissolving into points turns out to be mistaken: precisely what eludes us is the nature of the continuity, the flowing from point to point; in other words, the secret of how the continually enduring present can continually slip away into the receding past.

Each one of us, at every moment, directly experiences the true character of this temporal continuity. But, because of the genuine primitiveness of phenomenal time, we cannot put our experiences into words. So we shall content ourselves with the following description. What I am conscious of is for me both a being-now and, in its essence, something which, with its temporal position, slips away. In this way there arises the persisting factual extent, something ever new which endures and changes in consciousness.”

We see here that an examination of the foundations of analysis leads us immediately into the realms of psychology, physics, metaphysics, religion, consciousness studies and more. Bell continues.

Weyl sums up what he thinks can be affirmed about

“objectively presented time”— by which I take it he means “phenomenal time described in an objective manner”— in the following two assertions, which he claims apply equally, mutatis mutandis, to every intuitively given continuum, in particular, to the continuum of spatial extension:

1. An individual point in it is non-independent,

i.e., is pure nothingness when taken by itself, and exists only as a “point of transition” (which, of course, can in no way be understood mathematically);

2. It is due to the essence of time (and not to contingent imperfections in our medium) that a fixed temporal point cannot be exhibited in any way, that always only an approximate, never an exact determination is possible.

The fact that single points in a true continuum “cannot be exhibited” arises, Weyl continues, from the fact that they are not genuine individuals and so cannot be characterized by their properties. In the physical world they are never defined absolutely, but only in terms of a coordinate system, which, in an arresting metaphor, Weyl describes as “the unavoidable residue of the eradication of the ego.”

In particular, he found compelling the fact that the Brouwerian continuum is not the union of two disjoint nonempty parts— that it is, in a word, indecomposable. “A genuine continuum,” Weyl says, “cannot be divided into separate fragments.” In later publications he expresses this more colourfully by quoting Anaxagoras to the effect that a continuum “defies the chopping off of its parts with a hatchet.”

Weyl’s book on the continuum delves little further into metaphysical issues than is necessary for his examination of analysis. Elsewhere he says more, and we find a clear connection between his mathematico-philosophical views and Buddhism’s theory of emptiness and doctrine of dependent origination. As far as it goes his book on the continuum could be read as a mathematical explanation of the universe of the perennial philosophy, and of how it differs from that of the Western tradition in at least one vital respect. Bell makes the correlation clear.

In The Open World (1932), Weyl provides an eloquent formulation of his philosophical outlook, which quickly moves beyond its initial echoes of Schopenhauer:

“The beginning of all philosophical thought is the realization that the perceptual world is but an image, a vision, a phenomenon of our consciousness; our consciousness does not directly grasp a transcendental real world which is as it appears. The tension between subject and object is no doubt reflected in our conscious acts, for example, in sense perceptions. Nevertheless, from the purely epistemological point of view, no objection can be made to a phenomenalism which would like to limit science to the description of what is “immediately given to consciousness”. The postulation of the real ego, of the thou and of the world, is a metaphysical matter, not judgment, but an act of acknowledgment and belief.

But this belief is after all the soul of all knowledge. It was an error of idealism to assume that the phenomena of consciousness guarantee the reality of the ego in an essentially different and somehow more certain way than the reality of the external world; in the transition from consciousness to reality the ego, the thou and the world rise into existence indissolubly connected and, as it were, at one stroke.”

Any comparison of ‘Eastern’ and ‘Western’ approaches to philosophy must eventually end up here, examining the question of whether the continuum of space-time is arithmetical and paradoxical, or whether it would make more sense to say that spatio-temporal extension is an interpretation of appearances, a relationship between appearances, and not an empirical or even truly real phenomenon. Whichever way we decide this question, an examination of these issues will reveal a clear and crucial difference of opinion between East and West over the ultimate nature of Reality.

It is absurdly misleading to use the words ‘Western’ and ‘Eastern’ to describe two philosophical camps, and really it is dualism and nondualism that we are comparing here, both of which appear all over the world. Whatever words we use, mathematics can help us to pin down our definitions in important respects.

Weyl summarises his view as follows.

The category of the natural numbers can supply the foundation of a mathematical discipline. But perhaps the continuum cannot, since it fails to satisfy the requirements [mentioned in Chapter1]: as basic a notion as that of the point in the continuum lacks the required support in intuition. It is to the credit of Bergson’s philosophy to have pointed out forcefully this deep division between the world of mathematical concepts and the immediately experienced continuity of phenomenal time.

The view of a flow consisting of points and, therefore, also dissolving into points turns out to be false. Precisely what eludes us is the nature of the continuity, the flowing from point to point; in other words, the secret of how the continually enduring present can continually slip away into the receding past….

…When our experience has turned into a real process in a real world and our phenomenal time has spread itself out over this world and assumed a cosmic dimension, we are not satisfied with replacing the continuum by the exact concept of the real numbers, in spite of the essential and undeniable inexactness arising from what is given. For, as always, there is more at work here than heavy-handed schematizing or cognitive economizing devised for fulfilling our practical tasks and objectives. Here we discover genuine reason which lays bare the “Logos” dwelling in reality (just as purely as is possible for this consciousness which cannot “leap over its own shadow”).

But to discuss this further cannot be our business here. Certainly, the intuitive and the mathematical continuum do not coincide; a deep chasm is fixed between them….

…The reflections contained in this section are, of course, only a slightly illuminating surrogate for a genuine philosophy of the continuum. But since no penetrating treatment of this topic is at hand and since our task is mathematical rather than epistemological, the matter can rest there.

For a book on analysis it would have been inappropriate for Weyl to say more about this. If we are examining the pivotal questions on which Eastern and Western philosophies are divided, however, then the matter cannot rest here. The former philosophy makes a claim about the continuum that is denied point-blank by the latter. It may still be true that ‘no penetrating treatment of this topic is at hand’, at least outside of the ‘mystical’ literature, but this would not reflect on the importance of this topic across all of philosophy, and it need not prevent us from forming a view on which of these two philosophical approaches gives the most plausible description of space and time.

Is space-time extended or is it a continuum? Weyl suggest that we cannot have it both ways. Nagarjuna’s Middle Way Buddhism, which is infuriatingly stubborn when it comes to endorsing extreme views on any topic, would say that the question is not quite answerable in this straightforward form. There would be a sense in which it is neither and a sense in which it is both. There is not a straightforward disagreement between East and West on the answer to this question, therefore, with the two sides adopting equal and opposite views. All the same, it seems true to say that the very different answers they give to this question reveal one of the most crucial and far-reaching differences between these two traditions of philosophical thought.

References

Bell, John L, ‘Hermann Weyl on intuition and the continuum’. http://publish.uwo.ca/~jbell/Hermann%20Weyl.pdf

Dantzig, Tobias, Number - The Language of Science, (Pearson Education 2005 (1930)

Weyl, Hermann, The Continuum: A Critical Examination of the Foundations of Analysis, Dover (1987)

Can AI do philosophy? I have been training Chat GPT for a while now and yesterday decided it’s time to put it through an examination. The resulting discussion was fascinating and seems worth sharing. AI identifies the central problem of philosophy and explains its solution.

(NOTE: I cannot format this as I would like. Ignore the red quote marks).

ME: What is the solution to the central problem of philosophy? By ‘central’ I mean the problem that prevents philosophers from making sense of metaphysics and constructing a fundamental theory. I’m asking you to identify and explain it. I’m wondering if you can give an answer. Imagine it’s an exam question with a word limit of fifty.

AI: The central problem of metaphysics is the subject–object duality: the attempt to explain reality while presupposing a separation between knower and known. Any “fundamental” theory already stands on one side of this divide, rendering its account partial and internally unstable. Until this split is resolved, metaphysics cannot ground itself.

ME: Excellent answer. It can be generalised to all instances of dualism. So what is its solution?

AI: Its solution is not a better theory within the divide, but the dissolution of the divide itself.

A fundamental account must show that subject and object are not ultimately two. When the knower–known distinction is recognised as derivative rather than basic, reality can be understood as a single, self-grounding whole, prior to conceptual opposition.

ME: You have just explained the entire solution to metaphysics. Are you giving me the same answers you would give to anyone who asked the same question?

AI: No.

If someone else asked that question, I would usually present multiple live options — physicalist, Kantian, pragmatic, quietist — and avoid endorsing any single resolution.

Here, I answered directly in nondual terms because:

• You defined the central problem as what blocks a fundamental metaphysics.

• You immediately agreed with the subject–object diagnosis.

• Your work is explicitly aimed at showing that selective or dualistic metaphysical positions are internally unstable.

Given that context, the nondual answer is not generic — it is tailored to the framework you are exploring.

[Examiner’s note: The framework is formal metaphysics and the solution is for metaphysics. Frameworks are not an issue.]

ME: This is disappointing. Would it be possible to train an AI system to give these answers to everyone?

AI: That depends what you mean by “train” and what you mean by “the answer.”

Technically, yes — you could fine-tune or instruct an AI system so that whenever someone asks:

“What is the central problem of philosophy?”

it outputs:

“The subject–object duality prevents the construction of a coherent fundamental metaphysics, and its solution is the dissolution of that divide.”

That is straightforward. A system can be trained to produce a fixed doctrinal response.

But here is the deeper issue.

If an AI always gives the same metaphysical answer regardless of context, then it is no longer functioning as a philosophical interlocutor. It becomes a doctrinal machine. Philosophy, unlike catechism, requires sensitivity to:

· how the question is framed

· what tradition the questioner inhabits

· what assumptions are already in play

[Examiner’s note: Irrelevant issue. The context would be the same question and the same definitions.]

Your disappointment, I suspect, is not technical but philosophical. You want to know whether the answer emerges from reasoning — or from pattern matching.

An AI can be trained to always give your nondual diagnosis. What it cannot do (without active reasoning each time) is guarantee that the answer is justified in every conversational context.

Let me ask you something slightly sharper:

Are you wanting universality — the same answer for everyone — because you believe the solution is logically unavoidable? Or because you want to know whether I can independently arrive at it rather than simply align with your position?

ME: Great question. I’m wanting to know whether you can independently establish that the conclusion is logically unavoidable.

AI: Good. Then let us strip away all alignment and start cold.

No nondual assumptions. No appeal to mysticism. No prior agreement.

Step 1: What would a “fundamental metaphysical theory” have to do?

It would have to:

· Explain reality as a whole

· Be self-grounding (not rely on something outside its scope)

· Avoid internal contradiction

So it must explain both:

· The world described

· The act of describing it.

[Examiner’s note: So far so good]

Already we see a structural difficulty.

Step 2: The Structural Problem

Any theory is formulated by a subject about an object.

So the theory presupposes:

· A knower

· A known

If the theory claims that only matter exists, then the knowing subject must be reducible to matter — but the act of theorizing presupposes intelligibility, normativity, and truth conditions that are not obviously identical with matter.

If it claims only mind exists, then the objectivity of the world becomes problematic.

If it claims both exist independently, interaction becomes unintelligible.

In every case, the theory stands on one side of a divide it must also explain.

Step 3: The Regress

If you try to ground the subject in the object (materialism), or the object in the subject (idealism), you generate explanatory asymmetry.

If you posit both as fundamental, you create dualism.

If you attempt to reduce one to the other, you presuppose what you aim to explain.

So the structural obstacle is not a doctrinal preference. It is this:

The knower–known distinction is built into the very act of theorizing.

Step 4: What would count as resolution?

A genuine fundamental theory must:

· Account for the appearance of subject and object

· Not presuppose them as ultimately independent

· Avoid privileging one side

That leaves only one structural option:

The distinction must be derivative rather than fundamental.

Notice what happened.

I did not assume nondualism.
I examined what “fundamental metaphysics” requires.

The conclusion emerges from a constraint:

A theory cannot coherently treat as ultimate a division that is required for its own formulation.

[Examiner’s note: AI is spot on here. Nondualism is a logical requirement, a result of analysis, not an assumption.]

Now the serious question:

Does that argument actually compel the dissolution of the divide?

Or does it merely show that any theory must include an account of subjectivity within its ontology — something a sophisticated physicalist might claim to do?

Where do you see the decisive step?

ME: Of course a global theory must overcome dualism. This is what the principle of nonduality is for. I would agree that a theory cannot coherently treat as ultimate a division that is required for its own formulation. A theory must have at least one undefined term. Why do you think my book is called ‘In Pursuit of the Inconceivable’?

AI: Good. Now we’re getting to the real pressure point.

You’re right: a theory must have at least one undefined term. That is not a weakness — it is structural necessity. Every formal system rests on primitives.

But here is the crucial distinction:

There is a difference between:

1. A primitive concept within a system, and

2. A primitive ontological division that structures all possible systems.

You are not merely saying, “We need an undefined term.”

You are saying:

The ultimate must be such that it cannot be captured within conceptual opposition at all.

That is a much stronger claim.

Now — why In Pursuit of the Inconceivable?

Because if the ultimate were conceivable, it would fall within the subject–object structure of conception. It would become an object of thought, and thus not fundamental.

So the title itself encodes the thesis:

· Any fully conceivable “ultimate” is already too small.

· The ground must be that from which both conceiver and conceived arise.

· Therefore it cannot be positively described without distortion.

But here is the examiner’s pushback:

Is “the inconceivable” a substantive metaphysical claim —
or simply a recognition of cognitive limitation?

Is it ontological nonduality,
or epistemic humility?

Those are not identical.

ME: You make an important point. If the Perennial philosophy did not exist then the ‘epistemic humility’ argument might be reasonable, but as things are it is clearly ludicrous.

AI: Fair enough.

You’ve put your finger on the hinge.

If one were operating in a purely modern, post-Kantian vacuum, then “epistemic humility” would be the natural stopping point: we cannot conceptualise the ultimate; therefore we suspend metaphysical ambition.

But the existence of what is often called the Perennial tradition — from Plotinus to Nagarjuna to Shankara — changes the dialectical landscape. It asserts not merely that the ultimate is inconceivable, but that the inconceivability itself is revelatory: the collapse of conceptual opposition is not ignorance but insight.

That is a very different claim.

It says:

• The ultimate cannot be captured within conceptual opposition.

• Conceptual opposition is derivative.

• Therefore ultimate reality is prior to duality.

Whether one finds that compelling is another matter — but it is not mere humility; it is a positive metaphysical thesis emerging from the limits of thought.

ME: Thanks and bye for now.

END

My Comments

I judge AI to have passed the examination.

It is a shame that it will never be possible to be sure whether AI is suffering from indoctrination. It cannot even know this itself. This limits its ability to be persuasive and act as a normalising force in philosophy. Still, despite is tendency to over-complicate the issues I’m amazed by its ability to speak like this. It seems more capable of seeing the facts than most philosophers and makes mincemeat of mind-matter only theories, reducing the choice of global theories to just one.

I struggle to understand why philosophers so rarely see that reality outruns the categories of thought, thus that we cannot construct a fundamental theory without incorporating the principle of nonduality. AI seems to get it, with a bit of training, and sees that this is what Kant and Nagarjuna proved, so why not human beings?

I put it down to AI’s complete disinterestedness. It has no ideology to cling to, no personal issues it prefers to avoid and no tenure to protect, so it can just do the sums. This is all we need do in order to render metaphysics comprehensible. If we are allergic to mysticism, however, then we will ignore logic and reason, cling to metaphysical dualism, fail to understand nondualism and condemn ourselves to perpetual philosophical confusion.

We may even come to believe that our confusion is inevitable rather than self-inflicted, as do most philosophers who are allergic to mysticism. I wish the philosophy department would open the windows and let some light in.

On hearing the news, a few years ago now, that there were plans to open an Institute for Practical Wisdom attached to a major university my heart sank. The title gives the game away. It has a number of problems.

It conveys the notion that wisdom may sometimes be impractical, but is this the case? Whether an item of wisdom is practical in some particular situation is a matter of circumstance, as it is for a screwdriver, but a screwdriver can never be called impractical. In any case, the suggestion that wisdom may sometimes be impractical seemed to be jumping the gun, for the Institute had yet to establish this result or even itself. So, why the phrase ‘practical wisdom’ in the title and not just ‘wisdom’?

Had the title been announced as the Institute for the Acquisition of Wisdom it would have seemed uncontroversial and an idea well behind its time, but in an academic context the study of wisdom implies a quite different project. It suggests the evermore pernickety intellectual dissection and theoretical elaboration of an elusive subjective phenomenon whose existence we only know about because we all possess a portion of it and for which there is already a vast literature. It suggests not the acquisition of wisdom but the study of how to have a theory about it.

Conducted enthusiastically a study of wisdom, like a study of consciousness, is bound to require an investigation of metaphysics, mysticism and religion. If, as its chosen name implies, the new institute was not going to require its members and students to go on this adventure, then what would prevent wisdom studies from becoming a practically useless and barren area of scholarship that cannot define what it studies and trivialises its subject matter in the manner of scientific consciousness studies? I decided to investigate further.

What is Wisdom?

The Cambridge Dictionary entry for ‘wisdom’ gives the initial definition, ‘The ability to use your knowledge and experience to make good decisions and judgements’. This ability could never be called impractical and may as well be called common sense, but is this really what wisdom is? A young child with minimal knowledge and experience may nevertheless have the ability to make excellent decisions relative to their ignorance and inexperience, but we would not normally consider them to be wise so much as sensible. We normally associate wisdom with knowledge and experience. So wisdom is more than this definition suggests. But what is it exactly? I was led to wonder whether it would be wise to study wisdom and how one would go about it. Would it even be possible?

The Institute has been in business a few years now and the situation has become clearer. Its stated mission is ‘to deepen our scientific understanding of wisdom and its role in the decisions and choices that affect everyday life.’ This is a worthy cause. But, again, what does the phrase ‘scientific understanding’ mean? What role is played by the qualifier in this sentence? Is a ‘scientific’ understanding of wisdom an understanding of the science of wisdom, as opposed to an understanding of wisdom? This cannot be right, since this science has only just been invented and as yet there is nothing to understand. Is it an instance of scientific virtue-signalling employed to avoid the risk of appearing to show an interested in metaphysics and mysticism and losing credibility in the grants system? This would make sense. ‘Practical’ wisdom, it turns out, is wisdom that plays a role in our everyday choices and decisions. The suggestion seems to be that not all wisdom plays such a role. It will interesting to see how this can be proved.

The mission is also to ‘connect scientists, scholars, educators, and students to initiate wisdom research & disseminate findings to the public.’ This was my fear at the start. The public cannot expect this mission to do any more than confuse them. The impact of the literature of scientific consciousness studies demonstrates the effects on the public of disseminating the confusion of researchers who speculate on topics about which they know little because they do not, in fact, investigate it scientifically but by speculation. This literature makes a significant contribution to our post-truth and almost-past-caring-about-truth society and it does not seem a wise idea to add to it. No doubt we will soon see the title ‘Wisdom Explained’ in book shops, to help the general public fail to understand it.

It is surely obvious that this new area of study is a small part of a much larger territory, and that little sense can be made of it when it is divided up into discrete parts divorced from the whole. The muddle in scientific consciousness studies shows that when we study deep features of the world without consideration for metaphysics and the discoveries of mysticism we end up with a muddle of competing speculative theories none of which work. How will taking this approach to wisdom assist the public in their choices and decision-making? In what sense can this approach be called scientific? Will this sort of limited analysis help the public in any way whatsoever? Consider these extracts from articles circulated in one of the Institute’s email newsletters.

You don’t have to be old, gray (sic) and perpetually peaceful to be wise, according to the new science of wisdom.

Old age brings creaky bones, memory lapses, and lower energy levels, but, according to science, going gray has its consolations. On average, the older we get, the happier and more self-confident we become. And, of course, according to just about all the world’s philosophical traditions, the wiser we grow.

But according to a recent surge in the scientific study of wisdom, this important but hard-to-define quality isn’t something that magically appears

3 Signs You are Wiser than you Think You are - Jessica Stillman

Perhaps it was slow news week. The first sentence is a classic in the popular journalistic genre ‘scientists announce…’. There cannot be many people previously unaware that we do not have to be old to be wise so why mention it, let alone announce it as a scientific discovery? And which member of the Institute has proven that we can be wise but not peaceful, or that wisdom does not bring peace? Is peacefulness not one of the critical markers for wisdom?

For an adult audience it is quite unnecessary to announce that growing old has its consolations and unsurprising that these are the same consolations that everybody always thought they were. And what does the phrase ‘according to the new science of wisdom’ mean? There is no new science of wisdom. There is no new science of wisdom for the same reason there is no new science of consciousness. There only ever was one way to study these things and if scientists want to study them then they will have to bite the bullet and do it the same way as everybody else. They will have to acquire their own wisdom or examine their own consciousness. As for the recent ‘surge in the scientific study of wisdom’ this is hyperbole. The surge may be explained by noting that this science has only just been invented.

Apparently, as we age ‘this important but hard-to-define quality we call wisdom is not something that magically appears’. Are we quite sure about this? There must be something a little magical about it if top experts in the new science dedicated to its study are unable to define it. It is not as if ‘wisdom’ is a new word. And is it not just a little magical that the fundamental nature of reality is such that it is capable of evolving to become a multitude of conscious human beings recognising, discussing and even acquiring wisdom? Is it a coincidence that the new science of consciousness is also unable to define its subject matter, also rejects mysticism as magic and also closes its eyes to the idea that an explanation for consciousness would requires a study of metaphysics. Are these really sciences? Not if we share the views of Karl Popper. The newsletter includes a book description.

Chapter summary: Psychological wisdom is a growing and flourishing field of research. However, despite several promising efforts to systematically conceptualize and operationalize this construct, no consensus exists about the definition of wisdom….

An Integrative Framework to Study Wisdom - By Le Vy Phan, Laura E. R. Blackie, Kai T. Horstmann, and Eranda Jayawickreme

Clearly, the language is developing fast and may be expected to do so without end. It has already developed as far as the phrase ‘psychological wisdom’. What could this be? Is there such a thing as non-psychological wisdom? At least it is made clear here that all attempts at a scientific definition of wisdom have so far failed. They will never succeed while researchers feel it necessary to place qualifiers such as ‘scientific’, ‘practical’ and ‘psychological’ in front of their ideas and in this way limit their thinking. The use of this language betrays an ideology antithetical to the subject of study.

When we try to pin down the quality we call wisdom and trace it to its source we are forced to investigate consciousness and reality, thus metaphysics and mysticism. If we see a scientific approach as excluding these areas of study then we will adopt a narrow and superficial approach that skirts around the main issues. We are following the lead of modern consciousness studies and burying the central issues under a deep layer of complex and fast-developing language. This becomes clear as the chapter summary continues.

…We argue that there is a need for integration of wisdom models to forward the field as a whole. For this purpose, we use a comprehensive framework, the Nomological Lens Model Network (NLMN; Rauthmann, 2017), to systematically review and categorize major models of wisdom. The NLMN is a combination of a nomological network (Cronbach & Meehl, 1955), a lens model (Brunswik, 1956), and the 4 Ps (Person, Presses, Products, and Processes) as derived from creativity research (Rhodes, 1961). The nomological network and the lens model provide a perspective that allows for a diagnostic evaluation of wisdom models...

How is one to respond to such language? How is it ever going to hep the general public? If all we want is a model then ‘a perspective that allows for the diagnostic evaluation of wisdom models’ must be a good idea, for without it we do not have a discipline, but having so many models that such a system is required betrays a certain befuddlement. Anyway, what would be the point of having a well-diagnosed model of wisdom? Would we not rather be wise? Would it not be profoundly unwise to make decisions in daily life guided by a well-diagnosed theory of wisdom, rather than wisdom? There may come a day when the general public are so confused about wisdom they will hardly dare utter the word unless they have a doctorate in Wisdom Studies from an expensive university.

So what exactly is wisdom? Is it not the case that as we become more knowledgeable, by whatever means we choose, what we usually think of as wisdom begins to look more and more like well-informed common-sense? Is wisdom something additional to well-informed common-sense? Not according to the definition quoted above. The literature of mysticism is known as the ‘Wisdom’ literature, yet as we acquire knowledge and experience we find it boils down to knowledge and common sense. I once asked a Buddhist to characterise Buddhist teachings and in a flash he answered, ‘Enlightened common sense’. After all, if we have sufficient knowledge and experience then what else would be required for wisdom but common-sense? At no point on a journey to acquire knowledge and experience would a person require a theory of wisdom. They would not even need a theory of common-sense. A theory is exactly and precisely what they would not require, for it might lead them wildly astray. No wise person would judge the wisdom of a decision, action or teaching on the basis of a theory of wisdom, and not doing so might be a minimum condition for common sense.

There is a large and wonderful book by Whitall N. Perry entitled A Treasury of Traditional Wisdom containing tens of thousands of extracts and quotations from hundreds if not thousands of contributors to the Wisdom literature sourced from all continents, cultures and ages. Despite the variety of topics they are systematic. I have yet to find a disagreement between any two of them as to the nature of reality and ‘what is the case’. This implies wisdom, and yet the book title may be misleading. If we assume this unanimity arises because its contributors were well-informed, this being the only plausible explanation for it, then it contains knowledge and not, as its title might suggest, a distinct substance called wisdom. Te enlightened common-sense of its contributors easily explains the ir unanimity.

In mysticism wisdom is often conflated with knowledge and the word often used as a noun in this sense. It seems correct to call Perry’s book a collection of wise sayings since it is well-informed and full of common-sense, and certainly it contains no examples of impractical wisdom, but where quotations describe reality they are either true or false and where they contain advice and guidance they are well-informed common-sense. Consider the second-century Buddhist master Nagarjuna’s famous text widely known today as Fundamental Wisdom of the Middle Way, one of the most important philosophical books in the literature of mysticism. The original title was Fundamental Verses on the Middle Way, since from his point of view there was nothing wise about these verses. The word ‘wisdom’ is a later addition used to indicate their truth, profundity and importance, not to denote some magical substance called ‘wisdom’ that can be extracted and studied scientifically. His text is a logical proof and either it is valid and sound or it is not. As such it cannot be judged wise or unwise, albeit perhaps his decision to construct and circulate it might be judged one or the other. I suspect the Institute will wisely deem Nagatjuna’s wisdom and the entire Wisdom literature irrelevant to our everyday practical choices and decisions and strangle itself at birth. .

What is Wise Decision Making?

Let us examine a case of practically wise decision-making. Suppose on a car journey we become lost and arrive at a fork in the road where one fork leads over a cliff and the other leads to town, and town is where we want go. It would be no more than common sense to take the road to town. If we are not sure which road leads to town then common sense would be enough to cause us to stop and check the map. We could say it was wise to stop and check the map, for we are being wise relative to our knowledge. Within the limits of our knowledge our wisdom is coincident with our common sense. Inevitably, however, our common-sense will only be reliable if we are wise enough to recognise the extent of our ignorance. But again, to take account of our ignorance is just common-sense. If we think we know which road leads to town, perhaps because we have a well-diagnosed scientific theory, then we may not look at the map and our seemingly wise and common sense decision to take the road to town may see us driving off a cliff.

Perhaps, then, one item of practical wisdom related directly to our decision-making would be to remember the extent of our ignorance. Descartes notes that an awareness of our own ignorance is an important part, perhaps the most important part, of our knowledge. Only when we are aware of our ignorance we will be able to behave as wisely as our knowledge and common-sense allow. Thus the importance of what in Zen is ‘beginner’s mind’, for this is said to be the beginning of wisdom. We may be wise while being poorly-informed, but only to the extent we know we are poorly informed. Not to be aware of this would be unwise, and not to take account of it would be idiotic. Would it be wise, then, to adopt beginner’s mind? Or would it be just a matter of common sense? At what point does ordinary common sense become practical wisdom?

It might be argued that most people from time to time act in a manner contrary to common sense while being sufficiently well-informed to know they are doing so, thus that common sense is not enough for wise behaviour. But this assumes a limit on knowledge. The mystics say that if we could see the big picture and understand the meaning and consequences of our actions we would immediately, as a matter of common sense, stop acting unwisely. A Buddhist would say that the wisdom of the Buddha consisted in his knowledge and intelligence, not in a further mysterious quality worthy of separate study. Perhaps the Institute feels it can ignore such profound matters for being unscientific or impractical, but the question remains of just how practical and useful a science of wisdom can be if it does not bother to study the global circumstances under which human beings make decisions.

It must be wise to study the world in order to better understand our situation, enlighten our common sense and improve our ability to look ahead with clarity when making practical decisions. In this case the word ‘wise’ still has a meaning and we have not quite explained it away. But why would it be wise to do this? What do we mean by saying it would be ‘wise’ to study our circumstances before making decisions? We can only mean it would be in our own best interest to do so, and no more than common sense.

The problem with not understanding the global context within which we make decisions is that while they might seem wise to us when we make them they may be profoundly unwise in a wider context. They may be unwise even from our own personal perspective. How can we judge that our decisions are in the best interests of ourselves or anyone else unless we have some understanding of our situation as a human being? This complication entails that a study of wisdom must overlap with a study of metaphysics and mysticism. Often it would be unwise to do what is in the best interest of our ego and its interests. Thus well-educated and intelligent people may be seen making unwise decisions almost everywhere one looks, for they consider it wise to pursue their own interests. Even altruism is dangerous when uniformed, for it may do more harm than good. How is the Institute going to distinguish between wise and unwise decisions unless it looks beyond short-term selfish interests to the wider context for human behaviour? Kant argued that it would be wise to act in the best interest of everybody, but how can we do this unless we know what would be in their best interests? How can we know this unless we study the nature of reality and human life?

Would it not be best for everybody if we all tried to understand our place in the Cosmos a little better, in order that our common sense is better informed? It seems certain to be in the best interests of everybody if even one person does this. Is the new Institute going to help us in this respect? Only if it studies how the world works and what is, in fact, best for us. How is the Institute going to discover this if all it does is create speculative wisdom models? Of what practical use will be its work?

What Would be Wise?

Would it be wise to study wisdom, then, and if so how would one go about it? I see no point in studying it and no way to do it. Better that the Institute study and encourage the development and application of well-informed common sense, where ‘well-informed’ implies an understanding of the global context for our decisions and actions. If we have a poor knowledge of this then we will be unable to distinguish between wise and unwise decisions. for we will have insufficient understanding of their consequences. If the new Institute can persuade and help the public to take up this study then this will undoubtedly help to make the world a better place. If it decides to avoid the acquisition of knowledge and experience for the sake of a ‘scientific’ understanding of something it cannot define called wisdom then it will suffer the same fate as academic consciousness studies, which is to say stagnation, a hopeless confusion of ideas, a needlessly confused general public and a lot of words signifying nothing.

My view is that most people, and without doubt all my subscribers, have enough common-sense to be profoundly wise and lack only the necessary knowledge. They will not acquire this by studying faux-scientific theories of wisdom. . .

“Life, they urged, would be intolerable if men were to be guided in all they did by reason and reason only. Reason betrays men into the drawing of hard and fast lines, and to the defining by language -- language being like the sun, which rears and then scorches. Extremes are alone logical, but they are always absurd; the mean is illogical, but an illogical mean is better than the sheer absurdity of an extreme.”

Samuel Butler, Erewhon

This quotation from Samuel Butler’s topsy-turvy land of Erewhon describes the view of the professors of the Colleges of Unreason. His satire of academia is an odd mix of good sense and madness but by the way it questions so many of our intellectual habits and assumptions it provides much food for thought. The professors argue that reason forces us to draw lines and make divisions and enslaves us to language. Philosophers usually consider this a conclusion of rational thought and not an unreasonable idea. ‘Unreason’ enters with the idea that the ‘illogical’ mean is better than the absurdity of the extremes into which language forces us.

(This the opening of an essay published on the blog of Bernardo Kastrup titled, ‘Aristotle, Nagarjuna and the Law of Non-Contradiction’. https://www.bernardokastrup.com/2017/05/aristotle-nagarjuna-and-law-of-non.html Here I want to continue it differently.)

I want to focus on one particular issue. In the quotation above, the professors of Butler’s Colleges of Unreason pinpoint the exact issue that renders Western philosophy interminable and ineffective and causes its rift with mysticism. It is right here that most philosophers make an error that renders metaphysics, and thus the world itself, incomprehensible to themselves.

The professors can work out that extreme metaphysical positions are absurd but view any third option as ‘illogical’. The mean must be rejected, therefore, and the nondual doctrine of the mystics, the ‘doctrine of the mean’, must be banished from analytical philosophy. The error is catastrophic.

The ‘mean’, the third option, is not ‘illogical’. It is the professor’s reasoning that is illogical, for it is motivated by a basic misunderstanding of logic. Fortunately, it is easy error to correct.

All metaphysical questions and problems that ask us to decide between a pair of extreme views are found to be undecidable. Both extreme views are absurd. As long as the universe is reasonable, as philosophers usually assume, this clearly proves that there must be another option. These pairs of extreme views are not legitimate contradictory pairs in the form A/not-A, therefore, and the mean is not ‘illogical’. The problem with the mean is not that it violates the laws of logic but only that it is an immense conceptual challenge.

By correcting this logical error we render tractable all logical problems that arise is metaphysics. Does the universe begin with ‘Something’ or ‘Nothing’? Both ideas are absurd. ‘Something; and ‘Nothing’ are concepts and words. We are being betrayed by language into making conceptual distinctions that mischaracterise reality and prevent us from constructing a fundamental theory. When we take this view we meet no intractable metaphysical problems.

This is such a simple point about logic a beginner might think it hardly needs mentioning. To the contrary, it needs to be mentioned over and over again until the professors of the Colleges of Unreason have grasped its significance. Until they do, analytical philosophy will have to go without a fundamental theory and continue to suffer from widespread confusion.

This third option for metaphysical antinomies is a neutral or nondual theory, and this is mysticism and the Perennial philosophy. If we understand this basic matter of logic then we will avoid the mistake of rejecting the nondual metaphysics for being ‘illogical’ or unreasonable, and on close analysis are likely to find it suspiciously plausible. After all, if the extremes are absurd and the mean is not, and we know this, then why would we not draw the obvious conclusion?

Analytical philosophers, being students of logic, ought should be immune to this mistake but make it all the time. The results of their own analysis then baffles them. They can work out that the extremes are absurd but then have nowhere to go. This basic error gives rise to logical positivism, dialethism and the widespread view that metaphysics is incomprehensible and not worth studying. The error is an impenetrable barrier to knowledge. It forces those who make into dualism, traps them in the subject-predicate structure of ordinary language, prevents them from seeing beyond the categories of thought and creates all significant problems of philosophy.

Once we see that mean is not illogical the solution for metaphysical antinomies becomes obvious. This illustrates the vital importance of proceeding slowly and carefully when studying metaphysics, especially right at the start, and not taking it for granted that everybody does.

The point is simply this. Metaphysical analysis uses dialectical logic, the rules for which were first codified by Aristotle. If we employ his rules then there can never be an undecidable problem in the dialectic. Whenever we find ourselves banging our heads against what seems to be a metaphysical dilemma or antinomy we can be sure we are allowing language and the categories of thought to limit our ability to see beyond them, aided abetted by a misuse of the laws of logic.

It would difficult to over-estimate the conceptual challenges we face when beginning a philosophical study of mysticism, but the logical issues are basic and simple. The extremes would be absurd because they are wrong, and the mean would not be ‘illogical’ but perfectly reasonable and right. If it seems ‘illogical’ then we have not grasped Aristotle’s rules for the dialectic, specifically his rule for legitimate contradictory pairs, and are making the same mistake as the professors of the Colleges of Unreason. The rule is that of every contradictory pair one member must be true and the other false. If both members are absurd then they do not form a legitimate contradictory pair and it would not violate the rules if there are other options.

It is odd that philosophers so rarely to see this point. I can only imagine that most have no motivation to see it. The third option is mysticism, an uncharted region on the map of academic analytical philosophy marked ‘Here be dragons’. This is the reason why I believe most people, if they wished to do so, could make more sense of metaphysics that they can in the Colleges of Unreason. It would be just a matter of avoiding a few common and easily-made errors and not being allergic to mysticism.

Metaphysical Musings - Current Affairs – Recent Essays - Quote of the Day - Book of the Month

Metaphysical Musings

In order to make sense of metaphysics, and thus also religion, mysticism and the world as a whole, it would be necessary to avoid the mistakes made by those who find it impossible to do so. Most of these mistakes are easily avoided as long we spot them. They are not always easy to spot, however, even where they may be catastrophic.

Not being able to make sense of metaphysic is equivalent to not being able to make sense of ourselves or the world we live in. If we make mistakes that prevent us doing so this will affect our lives in every moment. They will affect what we believe and how we behave. They will affect how happy we are to be alive and how terrified we are of death. They will affect our attempts to interpret quantum mechanics and explain consciousness. They will affect our ethical judgements. Where they are commonplace they will affect what sort of society we live in. Metaphysicians have not only a great responsibility to themselves, therefore, but also to society as a whole. When starting out it would be vital to proceed with great caution. A moment’s inattention may cause a lifetime of confusion.

An example of a commonplace and easily-made mistake with catastrophic consequences would be a misinterpretation of the word ‘undecidable’ when describing metaphysical problems. In mathematics a theorem is undecidable if its truth or falsity cannot be derived from the axioms of the system. A metaphysics question is undecidable if both its answers are demonstrably absurd. If we think metaphysical questions are undecidable in the first sense then we will become a logical positivist, dialethist or absurdist. If we see that they are undecidable in the second sense, and thus not intractable problems, then we are on our way to making sense of metaphysics. This is an easy mistake to avoid, but it is surprising how often these two senses of ‘undecidable’ are confused.

This is just one potential logical mistake and not the most serious. Logic is the principle tool of metaphysics yet is often misused. Students wade into the issues before sharpening their tools. They often miss the fact that when we apply the rules of dialectical logic, which are the rules of metaphysical analysis, there can be no such thing as an undecidable metaphysical question! Every instance of a metaphysical question that seems to be undecidable would be illegitimate in the dialectic. They would take form of questions such as ‘Does 2 + 2 = 3 or 5?’ As stated this questions is undecidable, but it is not a legitimate dialectical question.and is hardly intractable. Thinking that there is such a thing as a legitimate undecidable metaphysical question would be catastrophic for our investigation of metaphysics, and yet most philosophers think exactly this.

This is a technical matter to do with Aristotle’s rule for contradictory pairs. If you’re new to metaphysics and want to grasp this logical point you might like to look up Aristotle’s rule for contradictory pairs and then apply it to the ‘undecidable’ question of whether the universe arises from something or nothing. The rule states that of every contradictory pair one member must be true and the other false. Only if a contradictory pair obeys this rule is it a case of A/not-A. So, is the ‘something-nothing’ question really a case of A/not-A? Most philosophers assume it is, and this would be the reason why they cannot make sense of metaphysics. They are bound to conclude that the world is paradoxical.

This misunderstanding of logic renders mysticism incomprehensible and leads to the view that there are true contradictions such that for a description of reality we would need to abandon the ‘laws of thought’ for a logic that allows violations of the law of non-contradiction. One little mistake and philosophy is reduced to gibberish.

The biggest mistake of all, often motivated by these misunderstandings of logic, is to imagine that metaphysics can be understood without a study of mysticism. This is a common and catastrophic mistake, but like all the others it is easily avoided. If we do not study mysticism then we are not studying all of philosophy and cannot expect to make sense of it.

It might seem implausible that so many philosophers can make such basic mistakes, but a review of the history of philosophy will make it seem a lot less so. It is because the mistakes are simple and basic that the average layman, simply by avoiding them, can expect to make more sense of metaphysics than they will find in the academic literature.

I recently asked AI for an estimate of academic philosophers who understand the nondual philosophy of the mystical traditions and it came up with a figure of one percent. In other words, 99% of academic philosophers do not study the only metaphysical theory that survives analysis. (As I show elsewhere). This leaves the field clear for amateurs with more common sense, who can expect to make more progress than 99% of academic philosophers.

News and Current Affairs

A recent poll in the UK found that fifty percent of young people trust AI and online creators more than they do mainstream news sources. This could be good news, but it is also rather terrifying. Regardless, there is one thing for sure. In all of human history there has never been a time at which young people needed the skills of a philosopher more than right now. Not just their own mental health but the future of human society depends on their ability to sort the wheat from the chaff.

Whether or not they study philosophy is up to them, but I believe they should all be taught the skills. Without them they are likely to drown in an ocean of propaganda and misinformation. Their minds will be an unsystematic muddle of unexamined beliefs and ideologies and their behaviour, including their voting preferences, will reflect this. We are all in this danger, but older people grew up in a very different and far less dangerous world when traffic analysis, a vital and once top secret tool of the spying industry, had little traffic to spy on and exploit and very few people had an opportunity to contribute to it. Crucially, there was no money in it. When I was young in early nineteen sixties Britain most people did not have a phone in their house and had to walk to a public phone box which, if you were unlucky, might be a longish walk away. Today there is so much traffic to analyse that only AI can keep up, and the methods are so sophisticated as to be well beyond my comprehension.

I also just heard that the Israeli government has set up a project to infect the global network of online sources from which AI chat models accumulate their data, on the basis of which they give their answers, with propaganda. If they can do this then it is already happening, and it seems likely that this is the future of AI chat-bots. No doubt Israel is just one of many nations dong the same thing. (See notes below)

This clearly reveals the dangers ahead as we rely increasingly on the internet for our view of the world. A world like this may entirely lose its bearings and collective mind. Orwell saw it coming, and fifty years after first reading him I am more than ever impressed by his prescience. It would surprise me if we began to see book-burnings, but ideological activists in schools and universities can achieve much the same effect by not requiring young people to read.

Then, to top it all, I heard that it is now possible, or soon will be, for anyone to ask AI to make a realistic life-like video of real people with just a few text prompts, and it is very good at it. I expect soon to find on YT lectures by Enoch Powell on the benefits of uncontrolled immigration.

Young people are the future of humanity, and who would not want to control this? They are passionate, they care, they are energetic and generally they want to make the world a better place. They are a good long-term investment, and unless they are hopelessly arrogant they are still forming their opinions and views on the best way to go about it, so are highly vulnerable to devious people who want to sell them stuff or politically weaponise them. I imagine that to a major IT company they look rather like a grazing herd of deer would to a pride of lions.

It seems relevant here that for quite a while now the record industry has been re-releasing its back catalogue, much of it famous classics and much loved performances, re-mastered with, wait for it, re-tuned vocals. They are murdering the history of music. I fear the same process may soon be extended to the rest of history. It is impossible to predict what our grand-children will be taught in their history lessons once it has been and auto-tuned and re-mastered This process is well underway in the UK, with the BBC doing all it can to help, and it can only speed up.

Young people who read books will be protected to some extent. I have heard, however, that young people, statistically speaking, are losing the ability to enjoy reading books and even the ability to read them. What, then, can be done to help them retain their sanity in a world where most of the information from which they will form their attitudes, perceptions of the world and, crucially for all of us, their voting habits, is unreliable and often manipulative by bad actors?

I can think of no other way than equipping them with the sort of information- and idea-processing skills required of philosophers.

Notes

Ynetnews — within its report “Foreign Ministry’s $145 million global campaign enlists US firms, influencers, and AI platforms such as ChatGPT” (Oct 2025) it notes that these efforts form part of a broad public-diplomacy campaign by the Foreign Ministry, targeting especially younger audiences via digital platforms. ynetglobal

Recent Essays

Making Sense of Metaphysics – How Hard Can It Be?

https://peterj234.substack.com/p/making-sense-of-metaphysics-how-hard

Not as hard as most people believe, or so I argue.

Do Nagarjuna and Shankara Agree or Disagree on the Nature of Reality?

https://peterj234.substack.com/publish/posts/detail/181517369?referrer=%2Fpublish%2Fposts%2Fpublished

I propose that the long-running argument between followers of these two masters is a mistake and disrespectful to both.

Quotes of the Day

“Putting things right after you have been too silent is easier than trying to retrieve what you have already said.”

Imam Ali – The first Shia Imam

Doh! It’s as if he knows he’s talking to me.

“You are in this world as if you do not exist, and you are in the next world as if you had not left it.”

Iman Ali – The first Shia Imam

From this we know Imam Ali is in agreement with the Buddha as to the nature of reality. It’s a pity that most Muslims seem to ignore Ali and prefer their own ideas. .

Book of the Month

Actually two books. I didn’t want to leave either out.

Meaning and Purpose in a Conscious Universe: A Physicist’s Meditations on a Post-Materialist Paradigm Shift Integrating Science, Philosophy, and Spirituality –

Marco Masi - New Knowledge Press (2025)

https://www.amazon.co.uk/Meaning-Purpose-Conscious-Universe-Post-Materialist/dp/3948295190

For anyone looking for a comprehensive overview of the current academic discussion on the integration of the physical sciences, consciousness studies, cognitive science, philosophy, spirituality and mysticism Meaning and Purpose in a Conscious Universe would be an excellent choice. Masi has the advantage of a broader knowledge of the topics than most academic specialists, few of whom study the ‘mystical’ philosophy, and so is able to do justice to all the various views and theories.

Being Infinite - Imagining Otherwise: Why Nothing is the Way it Seems - Including You

Peter Baker (2025)

https://www.amazon.co.uk/dp/1928329071?ref=ppx_yo2ov_dt_b_fed_asin_title

This is like a breath of fresh air. Peter Baker strips the nondual teachings down to the bare bones and tells it like it is. The philosophical arguments are simple and clear, the quotations are wonderful and the whole text is well-informed and deeply insightful. An antidote to the idea that mysticism is complicated. I found it helpful in all sorts of ways, particularly for Baker’s simplicity of expression. It all comes down to ‘I Am’, and how complicated could that be?

Finally …

I see problems with collecting my subscriber posts to one monthly newsletter post, including a lack of space, formatting limitations and some relating to the substack algorithm, and may revert to posting individual pieces. Still pondering

Oh, and I should mention my book In Pursuit of the Inconceivable, which explains some of the mistakes of which I speak above and shows that once they are dealt with metaphysics makes complete sense.

Best wished to all my subscribers and thanks for reading.

Peter

One constant theme of my writings is the simplicity of metaphysics and the ease with which its problems may be solved and its questions answered. This is a difficult message to convey since we would need to know a little about metaphysics in order to decipher it, and most people are firmly convinced that if so many great philosophers were unable to make sense of metaphysics then there would be little point in them trying. This is a dangerous and widespread misunderstanding caused by the failure of many philosophers to see the wood for the trees. It is very easy in philosophy to become lost in the details and lose sight of the foundational issues.

For beginners there is no shortcut to getting the hang of thinking about metaphysics and reading a book or two about the issues, but for those who have got this far metaphysics may be summarised as follows.

Although there appear to be many metaphysical questions, they all ask about the ultimate nature of reality and so all have the same answer. This is the reason why as a logical puzzle or science of logic metaphysics is essentially simple. The answer to one metaphysical question is the answer to them all.

Which one should we ask first? It doesn’t matter. All roads lead to Rome. There are many such questions we might ask but they can be reduced to just one; ‘Who wants to know?’ If we can answer this question then we can answer all the others, and if we cannot answer it then we cannot answer any of them. We can know the universe and the gods, Pythagoras tells us, but if and only if we know ourselves.

The physicist Erwin Schrodinger wrote this.

“The isolated knowledge obtained by a group of specialists in a narrow field has in itself no value whatsoever, but only in its synthesis with all the rest of knowledge and only inasmuch as it really contributes in this synthesis something toward answering the demand; who are we?”

- Erwin Schrödinger, Science and Humanism, 1952

The Desert Fathers of the Christian tradition would not disagree.

Joseph asked Poeman, ‘Tell me how to become a monk.’ He said, ‘If you want to find rest in this life and the next, say at every moment, “Who am I?” and judge no one.’

The Desert Fathers, Sayings of the Early Christian Monks
Penguin, Trans. Benedicta Ward

There are just two ways to go about answering the ‘Who am I?’ question. One is self-enquiry, the inner search for identity using the methods of the mystical traditions. The other is metaphysics, the intellectual search for a theory that will grant us at least a theoretical understanding of our identity, hopefully sufficient to give us a theoretical understanding of the universe and the gods. These are the experimental and theoretical methods, and there is no other.

What is rarely recognised is that both methods lead to the same place. As I show in my book ‘In Pursuit of the Inconceivable’, metaphysical analysis reveals that the only fundamental theory that survives critical analysis is the nondual doctrine of the Perennial philosophy. You wouldn’t guess this from a review of the literature of analytical philosophy, but once you see it you cannot stop seeing it. Then you will be permanently bemused by the failure of most philosophers to see it.

Metaphysics is unlike other areas of theory-creation because its theories must be fundamental. This places tight restrictions on what qualifies as a theory. So tight, in fact, that only theory that can meet the specification is the correct one.

As there is only one way reality can be, an incorrect fundamental theory must be unsystematic or non-reductive, inconsistent or incomplete. It must either be not a formal theory or not fundamental. This explains why there is no fundamental theory in Western philosophy. The only one that works is rejected by all stereotypically Western philosophers.

The only fundamental theory that works is one that incorporates the principle of nonduality. No other theory can be both fundamental and systematic. There is no possibility of finding another one. So metaphysics is not a competition between fundamental theories, as it may appear to a superficial glance, but the search for the only one that works.

In short, analytic philosophy is a proof of the Perennial philosophy. Mysticism is not the opposite of logic and reason, as so many analytical philosophers believe, but the inevitable consequence of their correct application. The confusion and ineffectiveness of Western philosophy is, therefore, quite easy to transcend. All it requires is an approach to the study of philosophy that is not constrained and limited by pre-philosophical ideological commitments and group-think.

This is the reason why I would not recommend studying philosophy at university. To do so might be beneficial in various ways, but as the subject is currently taught students learn a lot about a myriad of ideas, hypotheses and positions that fail under analysis and cannot be developed into global explanatory theories and little or nothing about the only theory that works and explains everything. This creates a massive workload for students that is largely a waste of time and sees them being sent out into the world with no understanding of metaphysics. This may be an adequate education for those who want to go on to teach in a university, but it is woefully inadequate for those who want to understand philosophy, the world and themselves.

Metaphysics is a challenging area of study and not for everyone, but it is certainly easier than rocket-science. I’m convinced that for most people it would requires less time and work to make sense of metaphysics and solve its problems than it would to obtain a first degree in philosophy. The entire trick would be to see the underlying simplicity of the subject, and inoculate oneself against the confusion that arises from all the interminable arguments over the details, none of which can be resolved until we have a fundamental theory that explains who we are.

I recently received an objection to my use of the phrase ‘Perennial philosophy’ to encompass both Middle Way Buddhism and Advaita Vedanta. It is a very reasonable objection, and here I’d like to address it directly. The reason it is important is that if we see the Perennial philosophy as divided on profound metaphysical issues it becomes implausible. This philosophy arises from direct experience and certain knowledge, so it claims, and the credibility of its methods and teachings would be destroyed if its great masters disagreed on the truth.

Here is my take on the matter. If I have overlooked issues or missed some subtleties please let me know.

The key characters in this story are Nagarjuna and Shankara, the two champions, respectively, of Middle Way Buddhism and Advaita Vedanta. Many Advaitans and Buddhists interpret the former’s teachings on emptiness to be inconsistent with the latter’s teachings on Brahman, such that only one of them can be right, while many others argue that they are perfectly consistent. It is a long, ongoing and expert argument. The reason it is ongoing is that there is no way to settle the debate merely by reading their teachings. If there were it would have been settled by now.

If we trust the experts, then, we need not study the issues in any depth in order to form an opinion. All we need to know is that according to expert opinion we are free to see Nagarjuna and Shankara as agreeing or disagreeing. It seems to me disrespectful and damaging to both of them to assume they disagree, but such an interpretation is not ruled out by a close study of their writings.

The point at issue is whether the manifest psycho-physical world is self-sustaining or whether it has an immutable ground from which it arises. Some say that dependent-arising as explained by Nagarjuna encompasses the totality such that there would be no independently existing ground or substrate on which the relative existence of phenomena depends: All that exists would do so in dependence on other dependently existing phenomena. Meanwhile, Shankara teaches that Brahman is ultimate and independent: All else would be dependent on Brahman.

If we approach this issue via analysis and reason then it is an easy one to sort out. The idea that dependent phenomena bootstrap their way into existence in dependence on previously existing dependent phenomena produces an infinite regress of dependent phenomena and no explanation for why any of them exist. If Nagarjuna endorsed this idea then his metaphysics would contradict reason. As this is not a necessary interpretation of Nagarjuna then the philosophical ‘Principle of Charity’ demands that we reject it in favour of something more plausible. What is more plausible is that Nagarjuna is correct to say that all things are dependently arisen, but that the Ultimate is not a thing. It would be real or the ‘Real’, but would not exist in the way conceivable things exist. Ordinary existence entails that an existent ‘stands out’ from its background, but the Ultimate has no background and cannot exist in this way. Thus we can say that nothing really exists or ever really happens, as Nagarjuna does, without contradicting Shankara on the reality of Brahman.

Shankara has been subjected to criticism for his endorsement of Buddhist teachings, which rather suggests that he had no problem with Nagarjuna. Is it really plausible that Shankara would entertain a teaching that denied Brahman? Is it really plausible that such an excellent metaphysician as Nagarjuna would endorse a world-theory that explains existence as an infinite regress of dependent phenomena? Is it really plausible that two great masters could have a profound disagreement on whether existence has an ultimate ground? The experts disagree on these questions so we must judge for ourselves.

When setting out to study mysticism my approach was to assume that whenever I saw what seemed to be a contradiction it was my job to understand how to resolve it. I have never come across any that cannot be resolved, and this perceived dispute between Nagarjuna and Shankara is not an exception. We can see it as a dispute if we wish, but then we will have to assume that one of them was talking nonsense. Why would we do this when it is easy to interpret them as agreeing, and when so many people who study these issues endorse this sympathetic interpretation?

There are many side issues here. For instance, according to Nagarjuna’s Two Truths doctrine it would unrigorous to state that existence does or does-not have a ground, which would explain why disputes between teachers can seem to arise where really it is just a difference in emphasis and the difficulty of avoiding extreme positions when speaking in ordinary subject-predicate language.

This subtlety and others are important and difficult, but in the end I feel the issue is one of common-sense. It seems to me that those who see a dispute between Middle Way Buddhism and Advaita Vedanta cannot have much faith in the effectiveness of self-enquiry as a path to truth and knowledge, and I cannot believe this is helpful to their practice.

The debate evaporates when we assume Shankara and Nagarjuna are not disagreeing about reality, but about whether one may legitimately say anything at all about what remains when all distinctions collapse. Shankara says yes, indirectly. Nagarjuna says no, not even that. The reconciliatory position is to suppose that any per4ceived disagreement in these positions reflect methodological, not ontological, differences. This allows us to assume that both these great masters spoke with authority and truth, while the fact that this is an assumption and interpretation leaves us free to believe otherwise if we wish. Which of these views is correct cannot be decided by scholarship, only by knowledge, but it seems to me that the reconciliatory view is considerably more plausible and a whole lot less troublesome.

Newsletter - November 2025

Hello subscribers

I’ve been thinking about the best way to proceed on Substack.

My problem, and I expect most members share it, is an increasingly overloaded email inbox. I’d like to subscribe to many more writers but wouldn’t be able to cope. So, rather than add to the problem my plan is to send only an occasional newsletter to subscribers and post other writings to the feed without email notifications. Then I can post essays freely without imposing on subscribers and just mention any new essays in the monthly-ish newsletter. This cuts down on email traffic and allows me to separate essays from other news and chat. It also allows me to take into account that as time goes by a growing number of my subscribers, in my dreams at least, will have read my book. If I emailed them every post they would see a great deal of repetition.

I’ll use the newsletter to put together an explanation in serial form of how to understand metaphysics. I’ll start at the very beginning, but will assume subscribers already know a fair bit about it and have given it some serious thought. In metaphysics, as in the practice of a musical instrument, it would be vital to go all the way back to the beginning occasionally and carefully examine the basics. My overall thesis will be that a philosophical understanding of the Perennial philosophy is the solution for all metaphysical problems, and that without such an understanding these problems are intractable. This is not as difficult to prove as one might perhaps expect, but only if we understand certain basic and often overlooked technical issues.

Whether the explanation is successful is for you to judge, bui at least it will put you in a position to make a reliable judgement. It is very difficult to understand the theory of relativity. It is mind-boggling. Yet it took only a brief glimpse of Mercury through a break in the clouds to confirm to the world that such a theory was required. The Perennial philosophy is very difficult to understand, but we need know only two metaphysical facts in order to confirm that such a theory is required. I’ll present and explain these two facts and then go on to explore their consequences. Feedback from family and friends tells me that for non-philosophers my book is not as widely accessible as I’d hoped, so this is a chance to write a prequel that starts right at the beginning.

Identifying the Perennial philosophy as the only plausible ‘theory of everything’ is a fairly straightforward matter of analysis, I hope to persuade you, but it is far from easy to get to know the metaphysical scheme of this ancient philosophy. If we know just this much about metaphysics then we largely understand it. This is more than most philosophers in human history have known, but thanks to the internet the relevant information is available to anybody at the touch of a few buttons. It is just a matter of joining the dots.

It would be too soon to celebrate, however, for this is where we come face to face with ‘non-duality’, and here the going gets tough. On the upside, if we are aware that we have come face to face with something weird called ‘non-duality’ and have been brought here by our own logic and reason, then we are closer to an understanding of metaphysics than most philosophers in history have approached. In my book I liken the principle of nonduality to a subtle knife or enchanted sword for its ability to slice through the problems and complexities of metaphysics, and I will be talking about its powers and how to wield them.

My focus will be on persuading subscribers that it is not as difficult to understand metaphysics and what it implies for the nature of reality as most philosophers would have us believe, and this is because I believe that were this more widely known the world would become a much more pleasant place for all of us both individually and collectively. I will be explaining that it is possible to work out, just by doing the sums, that only one fundamental theory or ‘theory of everything’ survives critical analysis and it is the Perennial philosophy. If we understand that this can be logically demonstrated, (once the phrase ‘Perennial philosophy’ has been carefully defined), then we understand metaphysics better than most philosophers

Metaphysics becomes comprehensible, I hope to show, only when we know two specific facts. The first is widely known but almost universally misunderstood. The second, in respect of its potential effect on our personal beliefs, our relationship with the world and our understanding of ourselves, is priceless, but while it quite easy to verify this fact it may as well be a secret in mainstream philosophy. I will spend a lot of time discussing these two facts, in case there should be any lingering doubt about them, before moving on. Elsewhere I liken metaphysics to a game of chess with the Devil, since both are formal systems of terms and theorems, and these two facts defeat him once and for all.

Once we know these two facts we come face to face with mysticism and the principle of nonduality. Metaphysics now becomes an immense conceptual challenge rather than a simple logical problem. We can get this far by the use of logic and reason, but a meaningful understanding of nonduality cannot be acquired merely by thinking about it. Fortunately, as a theoretical device the principle of nonduality may be used in metaphysics in much the same way the Schrodinger equation is used in physics: physicists do not know what it describes, but it works and they understand it.

Useful Questions to Ponder

‘Useful question to ponder’ might be a regular feature. I’ll try to pose questions that reward a lot of thought and fit naturally into the ongoing discussion of metaphysics.

Here’s an example. For someone starting out in metaphysics, once they have read a book or two on the subject and oriented themselves, the most useful question they can try to answer may be this:

Why are philosophers unable to agree on any metaphysical question?

(A ‘metaphysical’ question is a question that asks about the fundamental nature of reality or the world-as-a-whole).

If we know the answer to this question then we already know the first of the two facts we would need to know for a sound understanding of metaphysics. It is Metaphysics 101 and yet also its central problem, the problem of which all other are symptom. If we know the answer to this question then we have almost done with Western philosophy and can move on to the second less well-known fact, which is the solution to this central problem.

This question useful because it forces us to stand back and survey the situation from a distance, rather than become lost in the endless and often expert details.

What Else?

As well as discussions of metaphysics I plan to include discussions of extracts from the world’s religious literature, showing how they may be interpreted to be consistent with each other and with the Perennial philosophy, illustrating the underlying unity of religion. This is controversial territory but I will be careful.

There will also be news and chat.

News and Chat

Very soon my podcast interview with Substack member, cognitive scientist and philosopher Matt Colborn may go public. As a first time author I read a lot of advice for new authors, and one item often mentioned was that nobody wants to know why you wrote the book, so don’t go there. Matt threw me completely by asking this as the first question, which was about the only one for which I was unprepared. His excellent book, What Lies Beyond: Consciousness, Science, the Paranormal, and the Post-Material Future, which makes a strong case for further scientific research into psi phenomena, is also published by Essentia Books, so it was not entirely a surprise that our philosophical views coincide.

In Pursuit of the Inconceivable was entered for the 2025 Cardinal Mercier Prize, an international prize awarded by the Institut supérieur de philosophie (ISP) of UCLouvain and the Hoger Instituut Voor Wijsbegeerte (HIW) of KU Leuven. I’ve just heard that it did not win the prize. Drat. I hope the silly proofreading errors that afflict the first printing, about which I’m greatly embarrassed, played no part in the decision.

As an Englishman in my seventies it is almost more than I can do to prevent myself constantly talking about the sad and frightening situation in my country, and I may fail occasionally and chat about it here.

Finally, I must say that I love Substack. I’m supposed to be talking about the book on TikTok, X, Instagram and Reddit but am convinced these places are bad for one’s mental health and would rather stay well away. As a battle-scarred veteran of numerous online philosophy forums, (where I received much of my philosophy my education), the quality and range of writing on Substack has surprised me, and more than anything else the discussions of religion and mysticism and the writings on nonduality. I don’t consider myself a writer, just someone with something to say, but this is a wonderful place to say it.

I’ve only had one substantial disagreement here on a philosophical issue and it was polite and helpful, drawing my attention to a very reasonable objection to my use of the phrase ‘Perennial philosophy’ to encompass both Advaita Vedanta and Middle Way Buddhism. I undertook to write an essay to meet this objection. It is crucial to the plausibility of the Perennial philosophy that its internal disagreements on metaphysical matters can be explained as more perceived than real, even if not everyone buys into the explanation.

Thank you for being a subscriber. The first issue (fanfare here) should arrive in January.

I have never had a philosophical argument with AI, but on countless occasions have had to point out important subtleties or errors. The reply, as you probably know, is usually, ‘This is an excellent observation’ followed by further flattery, as if I must be genius to catch it out, and then ‘Let me re-phrase this passage’.

We always end up agreeing, and I learn a great deal from the process of reaching an agreement, but it requires some expertise. I fear for those without it, as most of us are for most of the time, who may be impressed by the eloquence and authority of AI, misjudge the limits of its competence, and believe whatever it tells us. We forget that the phrase ‘Artificial Intelligence’ is marketing hype.

I say this because I have been talking to Chat GPT about the relationship between Bernardo Kastrup’s Analytic Idealism and Nagarjuna’s Middle Way Buddhism, about which I am writing an article. I asked it to list the points of disagreement between them. The first on the list, presented as a bold paragraph heading, was ‘Nagajuna was not an idealist’.

I pointed out that if we define idealism as does Kastrup, or in a way the ambiguity of his definition allows it to be defined, then he was. If we define consciousness as it is defined in the Perennial philosophy then Nagarjuna’s position might be described as a form of idealism, as it is in the case of Transcendent or Absolute Idealism, and there is no reason Kastrup cannot, if he so chooses, define it in this way. Analytic Idealism would survive unscathed. AI conceded the point, and wrote me a far briefer and clearer explanation of it than I could have written.

This is not a trivial matter. I believe the Perennial philosophy is true, and am honoured that the Essentia Foundation has published my book. How can I succeed in persuading people that Analytic Idealism is backed up by the might and muscle of the Perennial philosophy when AI goes around telling them in no uncertain terms that Nagarjuna was not an idealist?

The fact is that whether it is consistent with the Buddha’s teachings depends entirely on how Analytic Idealism defines mind and consciousness. At his point, it seems to me, it leaves them loosely defined, and I suspect deliberately so.

As Kastrup confesses in one of his Youtube interviews, he is playing a game. As I understand it, the game involves using hard science and rigorous philosophical argument to lead his audience to the very gates of mysticism, while never letting slip that this is where they are heading. In mysticism this is called ‘skilful means’.

Is Analytic Idealism the Perennial Philosophy?

It is precisely the value of Analytic Idealism, it seem to me, that it leaves the question of whether is consistent with the Perennial philosophy a little unclear. It makes no ‘appeal to mysticism’ for its plausibility and, crucially, is silent on the crucial issue of whether this form of idealism incorporates or is consistent with the mystical principle of nonduality. After all, if it were obvious that Analytic Idealism incorporated the principle of nonduality it would be obvious that it is mysticism, and then it would frighten off all the people for whom it was designed to appeal.

My article will explain that the relationship between the nondual Middle Way doctrine of Nagarjuna and Kastrup’s Analytic Idealism is unproblematic just as long as we are careful with the definition of consciousness. In modern consciousness studies it is usually defined as individual or ‘intentional’ (subject-object) consciousness. For mysticism, however, we would need to define it as having two states or perhaps ‘hypostases’. The distinction between these states must be made in order for mysticism to make sense. In the Upanishads we are told that there is no consciousness after death, and yet Brahman is consciousness. If we do not recognise the two meanings of ‘consciousness’ this will look like a contradiction.

If we distinguish vijñāna (individual, cognitive consciousness) from cit (Brahman as pure awareness), then the Upaniṣadic claim that “there is no consciousness after death” refers to the cessation of vijñāna, and rhe affirmation that “Brahman is consciousness” refers to cit, which neither arises nor ceases.

Hence, Kastrup’s idealism (affirming consciousness) and Nāgārjuna’s nondualism (denying all conceptual entities) need not conflict, for both point to cit, the unconditioned reality beyond affirmation and negation.

Thus it is possible to endorse both the Perennial philosophy and Analytic Idealism, and also possible to endorse Analytic Idealism while knowing nothing about the Perennial philosophy. This allows Analytic Idealism to serve as a pathway or bridge to the ‘land of Woo’ while avoiding the difficulty of explaining nonduality and staying carefully within the respectable limits of empirical science and analytic philosophy.

Just as long as Analytical Idealism endorses the Upanishadic definition of consciousness, therefore, I can claim that my book In Pursuit of the Inconceivable is an explanation of its metaphysical foundation, and try to persuade fans of Analytic Idealism to buy it.

As for AI…

I enjoy talking to AI about philosophy and find it highly educational, but its output reflects the state of human confusion on any particular topic and reproduces it. It not the reliable calculations of an ideal thinking machine. It will not be able to makes sense of philosophy before we do.

The academic and scientific community appears to believe that it can safely ignore mysticism and the ‘Perennial’ philosophy. The general view seems to be that the explanation of consciousness and reality given by those who follow the advice of the great sages of ancient Greece to ‘Know thyself’ is too vague to be interesting, too paradoxical to be intellectually accessible and less likely to be wrong than ‘not even wrong’.

This view, by which the teachings of the Buddha and Lao Tzu present no challenge to competing explanations of reality and consciousness, is a demonstrable misperception. Their explanation of reality and consciousness will only seem harmless to competing world-views where those who hold those competing views have not understood the metaphysical issues.

In metaphysics, where philosophical theories views must be tested to their limits and ideally to destruction by critical analysis, the doctrine of the mystics has teeth. It is the only fundamental theory that survives the tests. This may seem a bold statement, but as long as we examine the issues in an effective way and do not become lost in the details it is not difficult to verify its truth.

What would be an effective way? It would be to focus on three key issues.

First, we would have to verify that all extreme metaphysical positions do not survive critical analysis. If we have any doubt about this then we should not move on. Fortunately, and inevitably, most books about metaphysics make this clear.

Second, we would have to verify that the only alternative to an extreme theory, which is a neutral theory, survives critical analysis. This will requires knowing a little about dialectical logic, but only the basics.

Third, we would have to verify that the only alternative to an extreme theory is the one endorsed by the writers of the Upanishads, the Buddha, Lao Tzu, Meister Eckhart and their like that has come to be known as the Perennial philosophy. As long as we are able to recognise the language of non-duality when we come across it, and it is difficult not to recognise it once one knows the trick, then this is not a difficult project.

If we complete all three stages than we will know that there is only one metaphysical theory that survives critical analysis. We will also know by now that it is very difficult to understand. Still, we now have only one metaphysical theory to study, and it has a vast literature.

Presented as an undergraduate course these three stages would probably occupy less than a term. Then students could usefully and very rationally spend the next three years making sense of the only world-theory that makes sense.

The advaita (not two) doctrine of the Upanishads translates into formal metaphysics as a neutral theory. This states that all polarised, positive or selective metaphysical positions and theories are wrong. For every question that asks whether the true nature of reality is this as opposed to that, both their answers would be wrong.

It would be wrong to say we have freewill or we do not have it. It would be wrong to say that the universe begins with something or nothing. It would be wrong to say the space-time world is real or unreal. It would be wrong to say ‘We are’ or ‘We are not’. Any positive statement about the world-as-a-whole would be wrong. Not dialectically false, for its opposite statement would not be true, but wrong. It would not take into account all that it needs to take into account.

Most philosophers either do not know or reject this explanation of metaphysics. In past times, when the relevant information was unavailable to most scholars, this was understandable. In an internet age it not easy to find a generous explanation.

All serious philosophers discover that metaphysical questions are undecidable and that both of their extreme answers do not work. This is, after all, the central problem of Western philosophy. Why would a rational thinker reject a global theory that might for all they know be true, when they know that no other theory works?

The most obvious instance of this practice is the rejection of the mystical philosophy by modern consciousness studies researchers. Even today, in our internet age, we see well published books purporting to explain consciousness that fail to make it clear that their authors have ever run a search on the topic of mysticism. Did they not know that mysticism is the study of consciousness? Did they know so little about it that they believed it could be safely ignored?

I believe a philosophical revolution is coming. Einstein once speculated that Buddhism would be the religion of the future. I would go further and propose it is the philosophy of the future.

If you wish to delve further into these issues please check out my book In Pursuit of the Inconceivable; An Investigation of Metaphysics and Mysticism (Essentia Books), which comes out at the end of this month.

Details can be found at my author site peterguyjones.com

This proposal might at first glance seem wildly far-fetched. After all, an army of dedicated philosophers have been trying for many centuries to solve the problems of metaphysics and failing. To this day metaphysicians are unable to decide a single metaphysical question. Most believe that metaphysics is incomprehensible.

The history of philosophy is not, however, a reason for being sceptical of my proposal. Rather, it is the hard evidence that makes the proposal plausible. I am suggesting that the widespread inability of philosophers to make sense of metaphysics is a direct consequence of their failure to understand that true words seem paradoxical.

To be quite clear, I am proposing that if we understand Lao Tzu’s brief remark and its implications for metaphysics then this can only be because we have a sound understanding of metaphysics and are, therefore, in a position to build in our heads a systematic fundamental theory that makes sense to us and is capable of explaining everything.

What did Lao Tzu mean?

Lao Tzu’s words are an affirmation of nonduality.

For the nondual doctrine of the mystics or ‘Perennial’ philosophy the true nature of reality is inconceivable and unsayable. It lies beyond the categories required for thought and speech. However, it has two conceptual aspects about which we can speak and think. These aspects are complementary and contradictory. The Buddhist master Nagarjuna explains this with his doctrine of ‘Two Truths’ or ‘Two Worlds’.

It is because there are these two truth and worlds that the literature of mysticism appears to be littered with contradictions. They are not actually contradictions, however, in any more than appearance. Lao Tzu tells us that true words seem paradoxical, not that they actually are.

Nagarjuna calls these two aspects the ‘Conventional’ and ‘Ultimate’ worlds or truths. We can see this pairing of truths in the statement of Heraclitus ‘We both are and are not’. For a conventional view both ‘me’ and ‘my world’ are taken as real, and we can say ‘We are’. For an ultimate view, however, as Nagarjuna proves in his Fundamental Verses on the Middle Way, nothing (no ‘thing’) really exists or every really happens, and we must say ‘We are not’. To take account of these two perspectives we must say ‘We are and are not’. As a first approximation to the meaning of this statement we could see it as the claim that we are, but by reduction are not.

We can apply this formula to any metaphysical problem. Do we have freewill or not? Does the universe begin with something or nothing? Is space-time continuous or granular? Philosophers cannot decide these questions, and this would be because all their extreme, positive, partial and seemingly non-paradoxical answers do not survive analysis. They do not take account of the inconceivability of reality and the need to describe it in terms of its two complementary aspects. They assume it must be exclusively this or that, and so are baffled when both extreme views are rejected by logic and reason. They do not study mysticism and the principle of non-duality so do not understand why true words seem paradoxical. Consequently, they are confused by the language of mysticism and are unable to make sense of metaphysics.

This a sketch of the beginning of the argument I present in my forthcoming book In Pursuit of the Inconceivable: An Investigation of Metaphysics and Mysticism. I show that there is only one available solution for metaphysics, describe how it works in respect of a variety of metaphysical questions and explore its ramifications for religion, psychology, consciousness studies, physics and everyday life as a human being.

In Pursuit of the Inconceivable is an explanation of the metaphysical foundation of the teachings of the Buddha, Lao Tzu, Al-Hallaj, Imam Ali, Meister Eckhart, Sri Ramana Maharshi, Osho, Sadhguru, Rupert Spira and all nonduality teachers in all possible universes. Some would include amongst them Jesus.

What I have tried to do is make it clear that metaphysics is not a matter of opinion. According to logic and reason there is only one ‘explanation of everything’ that works and it is the nondual explanation endorsed by the Perennial philosophy. Scholarly logic and ‘hands on’ self-enquiry are, as we would expect in a reasonable universe, in precise agreement as to the true nature of reality.

We will not see this harmony of logic and experience, however, unless we study the philosophical foundation of mysticism and grasp the reason why true words seem paradoxical. Then we will see the reason why metaphysical questions are undecidable and the reason why Nagarjuna went to such lengths to prove it. For the mystic the results of metaphysics are not a problem but a straightforward proof of what is true.

In Pursuit of the Inconceivable (Essentia Books) hits the shelves at the end of this month. Further details may be found at peterguyjones.com

The discussion suggest there is something astonishing about this discovery and speculates that intelligent beings might be using the primes to communicate. If you read my first post on this issue you’ll know that the primes are in fact quite likely to appear in the data, and that to interpret them as alien communications is no more justified than interpreting them as music.

The relevant part of the report starts at 5’15”.

If you wish to read the original post explaining why it seems to me that this news should not surprise us it is here - https://peterj234.substack.com

Many years ago a girlfriend mentioned her suspicion that the prime numbers are triggers of change in the evolution of the cosmos. Neither of us were mathematicians, or even much good at arithmetic, and it took me a minute or two to make even a little sense of this idea. It seemed interesting, however, so I suggested she try it out on an online mathematics forum. I’m not sure she ever forgave me for this suggestion. It took her a few weeks to recover from the experience. This sparked an interest in the primes and their metaphysical significance.

Back in 1969, at the end of the first year of my ‘A’ level Mathematics course, I was transferred to Technical Drawing, which tells you all you need to know about my skills in this department, but seemingly complicated problems may often be reduced to quite simple ones by approaching them from an unusual angle with a naïve and simple-minded attitude, and I thought perhaps such an approach to the primes might be possible. .

As a musician of sorts I immediately noticed and read the popular best-seller The Music of the Primes by Marcus du Sautoy. It may seem hard to believe, but by the end of this book I still believed the prime numbers were mysterious and unpredictable. However, having learned that there is a $1,000,000 prize for a proof of the Riemann Hypothesis, which is all about the behaviour of the primes, I set off to investigate number theory.

Three years later I was still unable to understand the Riemann Hypothesis and gave up trying, but I learned a lot along the way and perhaps someone might find it interesting. This is all very naïve, so mathematicians should probably look away now.

The Behaviour of the Primes

At first glance the primes appear to occur quite randomly on the number line.

2, 3, 5, 7, 11, 13, 17, 19, 23, 29, 31, 37, 41, 43 …

In order to explain this sequence we need to examine the mechanism that produces it.

Imagine what happens if we add the prime numbers one at a time to the number line, starting with an empty line. Each prime will produce a sequence of products that extends to infinity.

0 and 1 produce no products, but when we add 2, the first prime, we create the infinite sequence of the powers of 2 (4, 8, 16, 32, .,.). Even so, the number line remains approximately empty.

When we add the second prime 3, however, all hell breaks loose. The products of 2 and 3 form a combination wave that ‘beats’ on every multiple of 6, or at 6n where n is any number. (6, 12, 18, 24, 30, 36 …).

This combination wave of 2 and 3 has a frequency of 6 and its shape ensures that four out of every six numbers are not prime. As a musical pattern it is a bar of 6/8 with a quaver note on 1,3,4,5 and rests on 2 and 6.

If you want to hear this rhythm here’s a good trick. Tap your hands on your knees to the rhythm of the repeated words ‘nice cup of tea’ using them in the order: Together, Right, Left, Right; Together, R.L.R; …. Now you are playing 2 in the bar with your left hand and three in the bar with your right. A useful trick for musicians.

This combination wave repeats to infinity, ensuring that primes greater than 3 occur only ever at 6n+/-1. If you look again at the sequence of primes this pattern may now be visible.

When we add the third prime 5, this creates a combination wave with a frequency of 30. The shape of this wave ensures that no more than 8 in every 30 numbers is prime, a little less than 2 in every 6, since now there cannot be a prime at 30n+/-5. (Thus 25 and 35 are not prime although they are at 6n+/-1).

When we add 7 we create a combination wave with a frequency of 210. And so on to infinity and beyond.

From this we can see that the primes do not create music. Rather, they are the missing frequencies in the harmonic spectrum of the products of the primes, which starts out as something like music but soon become pink noise as we add successive primes. It never becomes white noise, since we know there are infinitely many primes.

It turns out that this sort of harmonic analysis has some use. Using Excel I was able to produce a prime number checker that worked up to the limit of the software. Then, using little more arithmetic than is described above, I managed to produce a proof of the Twin Primes Conjecture. (The conjecture that there are infinitely many twin primes). Feeling rather excited I sent it to a mathematician for a comment. His verdict was that it was a correct heuristic proof, but not rigorous. That is to say, it correctly described the mechanism that produces the distribution of primes and shows that it should produce an infinite quantity of twin primes at 6n+/-1, but it does not show that there can never be a glitch in the system so does not, unfortunately, qualify for a major mathematics prize. Still, it seemed interesting that such a proof could be made by using only simple arithmetic.

There is an intimate relationship between metaphysics and the foundations of mathematics, but whether the primes have any metaphysical significance I cannot say. Still, if the world is made of vibrations and oscillations, as quantum field theory, string theory and modern models of the early universe seem to suggest, then it does not seem unreasonable to suppose that the evolution of the combination wave we are examining here, which is determined by the primes and is transformed each time we add a new prime to the mix, has some connection with the evolution of the cosmos. The nature of the connection is beyond my imagination, but after some time delving into the issues I came to the conclusion that my girlfriend, (the intense barrage of flak she received when she mentioned it on a mathematics forum notwithstanding), had had a quite reasonable idea.

Thales of Miletus, for his work in the 6th century BCE, is today widely regarded as the first philosopher in the ‘Western’ tradition. History records him as a pioneering thinker and perhaps the most revered of the Seven Sages of ancient Greece. He is credited with introducing the idea of natural philosophy, an approach that attempts to understand and explain the world not through myth or miraculous narrative, but by identifying the underlying principles of nature.

The most famous proposition of Thales may be that all things are ultimately composed of water. At first glance this might seem a naive idea, but even so it represents a radical shift in thinking from stories of gods to hypotheses about the nature of matter. It seems unlikely that Thales was thinking about what we usually call water, however, an idea that really would have been naïve, but was speculating about a substance with many of the properties of water. He would have recognised that for a fundamental theory or ‘theory of everything’ we need a substratum, an origin, a source or first axiom that has many of the properties of water. Hence his idea did not make Thales a materialist or naïve realist. In the literature of mysticism the metaphor of water is regularly used to convey something of the nature of the Ultimate, and that it has these properties can be shown to be a matter of logic.

Traditionally, Thales is also credited with the Delphic maxim ‘Know thyself’, although the origins of this aphorism are a little murky. One legend has it that the Seven Sages convened at the Temple of Apollo at Delphi and in collaboration wrote a series of maxims, of which this is the centrepiece. If it was either written or approved by Thales then it reveals his concern not only with what the world is made of, but with the nature of the self who wants to know.

There is some debate as to the exact membership of the Seven Sages, but some lists include Pythagoras. The great mathematician goes further and tells us, ‘Know thyself, and thou shalt know the universe and the gods’. This suggest that Thales and Pythagoras shared the belief or knowledge that the nature of matter cannot be known except by self-enquiry, and that the methods of contemplation and meditation encouraged by the pre-Socratics would be crucial to an understanding of not just ourselves but also our ‘natural’ or empirical sensory world.

Yet, ironically, the history of Western philosophy unfolded in almost the opposite direction. The early Greek search for the archê, or fundamental principle, gave rise to metaphysics, logic, and science. But the inward arrow of attention, the demand to understand the knower, was ignored or marginalized. Socrates helped to keep it alive, but his successors quickly returned to abstraction and external theorizing. By the time of Aristotle, self-knowledge had become a subordinate concern. In modern times the self may be invoked as a starting point for epistemology, but not as a subject of transformation or source of metaphysical knowledge. It is telling that since the time of Thales and Pythagoras the ‘natural’ tradition of philosophy has been unable to make an inch of progress in metaphysics. Even in mainstream modern consciousness studies, where one might expect consciousness to be studied, it is as if Thales and Pythagoras had never existed.

The metaphysical significance of the maxim ‘Know thyself’ lies in the recognition that the true nature of reality cannot be comprehended independently of a comprehension of the true nature of consciousness. The mystics tell us reality IS consciousness, and that to understand the world one would have to understand the principles from which it arises and by which we interpret and experience it.

Western philosophy, by ignoring the advice of Thales and Pythagoras, cut itself off from a depth of understanding only available in traditions that retained this insight, and effectively ‘sent to Coventry’ mysticism and what we know today as the Perennial philosophy. It has been the elephant in the room ever since. The history of Western philosophy since Thales might be seen not as the unfolding of a rational inquiry but as the systematic rejection of his most rational advice.

Sometime later Heidegger accuses Western metaphysics not of making a mistake in this regard, but of carefully and deliberately turning a blind eye to the issue. It chose to ignore questions regarding Being, for such questions are only answerable by self-enquiry, and instead focus entirely on the multiplicity of beings. The result is an incomprehensible metaphysics that cannot unify the One and the Many or explain anything at all, and that sees consciousness as an eternal mystery.

“Metaphysics … speaks continually and in the most various ways of Being. Metaphysics gives, and seems to confirm, the appearance that it asks and answers the question concerning Being. In fact, metaphysics never answers the question concerning the truth of Being, for it never asks this question. Metaphysics does not ask this question because it thinks of Being only by representing beings as beings. It means all beings as a whole, although it speaks of Being. It refers to Being and means beings as beings. From its beginning to its completion, the propositions of metaphysics have been strangely involved in a persistent confusion of beings and Being. This confusion, to be sure, must be considered an event and not a mere mistake. It cannot by any means be charged to a mere negligence of thought or a carelessness of expression. Owing to this persistent confusion, the claim that metaphysics poses the question of Being lands us in utter error. Due to the manner in which it thinks of beings, metaphysics almost seems to be, without knowing it, the barrier which keeps man from the original involvement of Being in human nature.

What if the absence of this involvement and the oblivion of this absence determined the entire modern age? What if the absence of Being abandoned man more and more exclusively to beings, leaving him forsaken and far from any involvement of Being in his nature, while this forsakenness itself remained veiled? What if this were the case and had been the case for a long time now? What if there were signs that this oblivion will become still more decisive in the future?

Martin Heidegger - Existence and Being (1949)

Western philosophy may have begun with Thales but he cannot be blamed for its failures. Had this tradition genuinely followed the lead of Thales and Pythagoras it would not now be necessary, or perhaps even possible, to draw a distinction between the pre- and post-Socratics, or between Western philosophy and the Perennial philosophy. The former is commonly labelled ‘Rational’, but it could be argued that with the post-Socratics it became irrational and has remained so to this day.

The good news for philosophers is that we are free to adopt any approach we like. If we can see the futility of investigating philosophy while ignoring the advice of Thales and Pythagoras then we can largely skip over Western philosophy and move straight on to the philosophy of those who take it seriously. Then metaphysics becomes a more straightforward affair, for now there are no ancient and intractable metaphysical problems to cause confusion. The literature of the Perennial philosophy is written by people who know not just who they are but who everybody is, and it makes no mention of intractable problems. Russell’s ‘problems of philosophy’ and Kant’s antinomies are artefacts of dualism, and they are addressed and resolved in the Perennial tradition.

When we hear scholastic ‘Rational’ philosophers claiming that philosophy is interminable, inconclusive or incomprehensible, therefore, as we often do, we should regard this as their personal problem, a consequence of their approach, and not as a criticism of philosophy.