Introductory Notes for Various Kinds of Reader
A study of metaphysics and mysticism must explore such a wide range of issues and topics it is bound to attract a very varied audience, each segment of which will have its own concerns and interests. I thought it would be helpful, therefore, to address a few words about In Pursuit of the Inconceivable directly to some of its various kinds of potential readers.
Working scientists and scientifically-minded people tend to be impatient with both metaphysics and mysticism. The former may seems to be a non-halting talking-shop that never settles any arguments or makes any progress, and the claims made by the latter may seem so ambiguous and woolly as to appear ‘not even wrong’.
I set out to address these complaints in In Pursuit of the Inconceivable. In Part One I show that metaphysical arguments of the kind that dominate the academic literature can be settled by reference to the nondual doctrine of mysticism and the ‘Perennial’ philosophy, and that by settling them metaphysics may be understood and the exact nature of the claims made by mysticism made clear. Only then does it become possible to seamlessly integrate the empirical sciences and metaphysics for a systematic global theory or ‘theory of everything’. For this there would be no need to dispute the empirical data or question the methods of the natural sciences. It would only be necessary to realise that the ineffectiveness of mainstream Western philosophy in trying to explain the world is a local problem, not a reason to doubt the power of human reason to reveal the truth about what lies beyond the extended empirical world of space and time, subjects and objects, and in this way place physics on a fundamental foundation.
In Part Two I speak briefly about the implications of metaphysics for physics – non-locality, entanglement, the fabric of space-time, the nature of matter and so forth – but only a physicist could properly explore these issues in depth. (For those who can do the mathematics and wish to delve deeper the writings of the physicist Ulrich Mohrhoff may be valuable).
Philosophers often have an equally low view of metaphysics and mysticism. In the academic world philosophers usually do not study the Perennial philosophy. They are unable, therefore, to find a fundamental theory that works. Generally they speculate, rather than verify, that mysticism is irrelevant to the sort of philosophy they prefer to do, and so know little or nothing about even its philosophical foundation. The state of philosophy in our Western universities today is such that the value of the philosophy department is being widely questioned and some are being closed. Philosophers are unable to defend their subject effectively, as a vital pillar of the student curriculum, against the criticism of scientists and university chancellors because by limiting their field of scholarship they have rendered their subject impossible to understand and of questionable value. The inability of philosophers who take this approach to make sense of the world is there for all to see, and they render philosophy more or less useless to both physics and religion.
I argue in my book, and like to think demonstrate, that this situation is a direct consequence of a failure to study the Perennial philosophy. If we study the whole of philosophy it becomes possible to argue that metaphysics is the most accessible, important and useful subject in the academic curriculum. First, however, we would have to make sense of it, and this would only be possible for those who study the Perennial philosophy. Specifically, we would have to study the principle of nonduality and see how it explains and solves all philosophical problems. This principle is the master key that enables us to make sense of metaphysics and reveal the secrets of reality and existence.
Religious believers are often allergic to metaphysics, and with some justification. In their popular mainstream monotheistic forms the teachings of the Abrahamic religions cannot be justified in philosophy by the use of logic and reason. To protect the dogmatic exoteric form of popular religion from a loss of faith, therefore, it is necessary to avoid the study of metaphysics. This systemic weakness allows sceptics to dismiss monotheistic religion as implausible or irrational and undermines the faith of all thoughtful people.
In their mystical forms, however, monotheistic religion may easily be justified and with a few tweaks shown to be fully in accord with logic and reason. For most believers, placing their religion on a sound philosophical footing would require some subtle adjustments to their interpretation and understanding of the scriptures, but I show that a careful study of metaphysics and mysticism is no threat to believers but will, rather, produce a deeper insight into the scriptures and a greater confidence in their truth.
The general reader should not feel intimidated by the subject matter. So difficult are the issues that most people assume, as I did until the age of fifty, that there would be little point in them studying or even thinking about the true nature of reality and consciousness. I hope to persuade you that for most people this is not the case. Metaphysics and mysticism are difficult topics and there is no getting around this. It should not be thought that these subjects are best left to the experts, however, since until we ourselves understand philosophy quite well we cannot judge who is and who is not an expert.
The difficulties of metaphysics are not caused by the sort of complexity that demands great cleverness or trained expertise, but are for the most part conceptual and ideological. Such difficulties may be no less a challenge for the professor than for the novice, and may even be a greater challenge for practiced philosophers trapped in a particular ideology or way of thinking. Both metaphysics and mysticism study reality in its most primitive and simple state, and if you understand the four propositions with which I describe metaphysics in In Pursuit of the Inconceivable then you will be well ahead of the game and in a position to begin the construction of a comprehensible, useful and personally beneficial world-theory.
Monks and meditators will have little use for metaphysics. Thus the Buddha says almost nothing about it. The practices and teachings of Buddhism are a medicine, while metaphysics is just the small print of the label on the bottle. For those who wonder what these practices are all about, however, and whether they are would be a worthwhile use of their time, the Buddha advises that we subject his teachings to critical analysis. For this we would need to read the label on the bottle.
For metaphysics one must be a generalist or ‘jack of all trades’. Specialist expertise is of limited value. This is the reason why the subject is accessible to most people. We can just make a start and pick up the technical knowledge required as we go along. In respect of understanding ourselves and our world the physicist Erwin Schrödinger summarises the situation and draws our attention to what metaphysics and mysticism are really about, the combining of all knowledge into a coherent whole.
“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
As time goes by I will post on the blog various introductory essays requiring little previous knowledge other than what may be acquired from the reading of two or three general introductions.
(There are many good ones, but for anyone new to metaphysics I would recommend Paul Davies, The Mind of God and Colin McGinn, The Making of a Philosopher).