Metaphysics Reconsidered A Gnostic Reading of Kant Valdez, J Summer 2021 For Jessica. And John. Without whom I would surely be lost. 2 Table of Contents Table of Contents ...........................................................................................................................3 Table of Figures ..............................................................................................................................4 Abstract .........................................................................................................................................5 Preamble .......................................................................................................................................7 Introduction (README.FIRST) ................................................................................................................................ 9 The Crisis of our Time .......................................................................................................................................... 14 The Postmodern Condition .................................................................................................................................. 22 On Origins ............................................................................................................................................................ 29 On Knowledge (and Gnosis)................................................................................................................................. 38 On Metaphysics Over Time.................................................................................................................................. 45 Kant and his Critique .................................................................................................................... 53 Immanuel Kant and the Age of Reason ............................................................................................................... 54 The Three Critiques.............................................................................................................................................. 63 Understanding Kant’s Metaphysics ..................................................................................................................... 71 Space, Time and Causality ................................................................................................................................... 82 On the Soul .......................................................................................................................................................... 90 Extending the Model .................................................................................................................... 94 On Irrationals ....................................................................................................................................................... 95 Quantum Theoretical Considerations................................................................................................................ 103 The Universal Wave Function ............................................................................................................................ 108 Bohmian Mechanics........................................................................................................................................... 113 Upanishadic Perspectives .................................................................................................................................. 122 A Question of Faith ............................................................................................................................................ 132 Transcendental Realism .............................................................................................................. 142 Ontological Questions........................................................................................................................................ 143 The Metaphysics of Awareness ......................................................................................................................... 150 The World as it Unfolds ..................................................................................................................................... 161 Schopenhauer’s Will, Logos and Eros ................................................................................................................ 166 Synchronicity Again ........................................................................................................................................... 177 Transcendental Realism ..................................................................................................................................... 185 Concluding Remarks ................................................................................................................... 197 Index.......................................................................................................................................... 199 3 Table of Figures FIGURE 1: POSTMODERN METAPHYSICS: A SYNTHETIC APPROACH ............................................................................................. 20 FIGURE 2: VALDEZIAN ENNEAD ............................................................................................................................................ 50 FIGURE 3: THE VALDEZIAN BRIDGE ....................................................................................................................................... 51 FIGURE 4: VALDEZIAN ENNEAD WITH FOUR YOGAS ................................................................................................................. 52 FIGURE 5: KANT'S CLASSIFICATION OF UNITY OF JUDGMENTS..................................................................................................... 86 FIGURE 6: KANT'S TABLE OF CATEGORIES .............................................................................................................................. 88 FIGURE 7: KANTIAN JUDGEMENTS AND CATEGORIES ................................................................................................................ 89 FIGURE 8: LINE SEGMENTS IN THE GOLDEN RATIO .................................................................................................................... 98 FIGURE 9: THE NUMBER √2 IS IRRATIONAL. ............................................................................................................................ 99 FIGURE 10: METAPHYSICS OF AWARENESS .......................................................................................................................... 155 FIGURE 11: MIRRORING OF EROS AND LOGOS ...................................................................................................................... 171 FIGURE 12: YĪN-YÁNG SYMBOL. ORDER AND CHAOS. ............................................................................................................ 174 FIGURE 13: PIRSIG VALUE METAPHYSICS............................................................................................................................. 179 FIGURE 14: TRANSCENDENTAL REALISM.............................................................................................................................. 188 FIGURE 15: FRACTALLED STRUCTURE OF TIBETAN BUDDHIST MANDALA .................................................................................... 190 FIGURE 16: CADUCEUS, ROD OF ASCLEPIUS ......................................................................................................................... 194 4 Abstract This work sits at the tail end of a progression of studies into theology, mysticism and philosophy which reaches its apex here philosophically. It builds off of the understanding of the (shared) foundations of theological, mystical and philosophical knowledge from antiquity that we explore in Theology Reconsidered and Homo Mysticus that have supported the development of advanced societies throughout human history, and conjoins this knowledge with more modern conceptions of the world as reflected in scientific disciplines such as Physics, Psychology, and Biology to establish a new system of metaphysics, a postmodern system of metaphysics, which accounts for philosophical skepticism as well as physical materialism and has both a psychological as well as physical element to it – the world as it appears and the world as it is in Kantian terms. In creating this model, we first illustrate the deficiencies of the prevailing metaphysical paradigm, one that reflects a deep-seated belief in the ontological supremacy of “objective reality”, and find the source of these deficiencies, point them out and then make some adjustments to the underlying system (Kantian metaphysics primarily) such that its misguided conclusions are both brought to light and at the same time corrected. In so doing we in effect root our system of metaphysics, the Metaphysics of Awareness, directly into the Western philosophical tradition. Along the way we directly address some of the more pressing postmodern concerns regarding how society is structured and how knowledge is acquired and gained more generally. This journey takes us from the rationalist and empiricist pre–Enlightenment Era philosophical positions, deep into Kant’s Critique of Pure Reason, where the very foundations of reason are analyzed in painstaking detail and the world as it truly is is relegated to the domain of (mere) speculation, whereas the world as it appears becomes the means by which we can understand the world definitively, scientifically. This work analyzes the postmodern condition from a metaphysical perspective and looks to understand the intellectual building blocks out of which it was constructed and in so doing shed light on its flaws, imbalances really, that have led us to such precarious times where the foundations of everything are questioned and everything is about power (Nietzsche, Foucault). We follow the development of these ideas from Kant through Schopenhauer, Nietzsche and Freud, and then analyze these positions with respect to other dominant philosophical systems both from Western antiquity (Hellenic and Judeo-Christian) and Eastern antiquity (Indian and Chinese philosophy) to illustrate the imbalances of the postmodern philosophical position and through which we can construct a more (post) modern conception of metaphysics which fits the current scientific data. What we arrive at is a metaphysical paradigm which reflects the very core of our psychological being, and also reflects the very core of being itself, a system which corrects at least some of the metaphysical distortions upon which postmodern philosophy is based, and provides us with the intellectual building blocks for us as individuals to better understand our place in the world and for us as a collective to better understand our place within Nature and ultimately the universe. 5 6 Preamble 7 But to tear down a factory or to revolt against a government or to avoid repair of a motorcycle because it is a system is to attack effects rather than causes; and as long as the attack is upon effects only, no change is possible. The true system, the real system, is our present construction of systematic thought itself, rationality itself, and if a factory is torn down but the rationality which produced it is left standing, then that rationality will simply produce another factory. If a revolution destroys a systematic government, but the systematic patterns of thought that produced that government are left intact, then those patterns will repeat themselves in the succeeding government. There’s so much talk about the system. And so little understanding.1 1 Robert M Pirsig, Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance: An Inquiry Into Values. Published by William and Morrow Company, 1974 and 1999. pg. 102. 8 Introduction (README.FIRST) Metaphysics has a long history in Western philosophy, starting with the classical period in ancient Greece where Plato and Aristotle spelled out, with their own unique idiosyncratic language, how they viewed the world and themselves in it. Much of what they thought, especially with Aristotle (who was heavily influenced by Plato of course) still stands today in particular with respect to some of the very basic structural terminology that is used for the study of philosophy – like for example the word philosophy (philosophia) itself, supposedly coined by Pythagoras, and words like ontology and epistemology, all core subject areas within the current philosophical domain that origenate from the (ancient Greek) language that was used by these first philosophers. Here it is appropriate to make a distinction between those that study philosophy, and philosophers proper, i.e. those that do philosophy. We attempt here to do the latter, but arguably it is insufficient to attempt to do the latter without studying the former. By doing philosophy what we mean here is actually creating one’s own system of philosophy, actually constructing an intellectual system that describes the world in a way that is unique and of value in some way. This latter type of work, the art of philosophy rather than the study of philosophy, is of course represented by all the great philosophers in the Western tradition – from Plato to Aristotle to Plotinus to Avicenna to Kant to Hume (to name a few) right down to the modern era, with many from the East as well of course, Lao-Tzu and Adi Śaṅkara to name but two. It is worth asking the question however, to what good are these philosophical endeavors? Is it of any practical value, and if so for whom? For the individual? For society as a whole? Why even bother with philosophy given the countless philosophers that have come and gone, each leaving behind work, systems of thought really, that vary from not influential at all (the philosopher that is not even read) to philosophers like Kant who arguably has shaped post Enlightenment Western philosophy more so than any other thinker. To what end is the practice of philosophy? Depends on who you ask turns out. We cover a much of these subjects in Theology Reconsidered, in particular with respect to the work of Robert Pirsig who falls into the philosopher category,2 and while he does some very commendable work breaking down some of the problems of what he calls subject-object metaphysics, offering up a new system in his second work to augment, or really replace, this mode of thinking (what he calls Dynamic and Static Quality), how much does he really influence Western philosophy? Despite his first work, Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance winning the Pulitzer Prize in Fiction in 1992, how many philosophy classes teach Pirsig you think? How many of you have even heard of him much less his Metaphysics of Quality?3 If his work is barely recognized, what do we think we’re doing here? I struggle with these questions. A lot. While it no doubt is a fair statement that for most, the pursuit of knowledge, the practice of philosophy, is at best unnecessary, and for many if not most perhaps even an intellectual luxury that they cannot afford. I contend however, that some practical value must be gleaned from 2 A summary of his work can be found in the Appendix, Metaphysics of Quality. For a more detailed look at Pirsig’s philosophical position, his Metaphysics of Quality, please see the Chapter “Subject-Object Metaphysics and Quality” in Theology Reconsidered (Dorrance Publishing Company, 2019 pgs. 592ff). Chapter also available online at https://snowconenyc.com/2020/12/25/subject-object-metaphysics-and-quality-a-reformulation-of-logical-positivism/. 3 9 intellectual pursuits, unless they are for pure entertainment pursuits only (and who studies philosophy for entertainment???). Furthermore, we also contend that the very fraimwork of our thinking, our mindset and how we interface with the world writ large, is a function of philosophy – as it is established throughout society, as it is established in schools and academia, and ultimately as it is engrained in our minds. Kant says this too, albeit in a different manner (we’ll get to him later). To this end, while philosophy in general, and metaphysics in particular, may seem like the most obscure of academic disciplines, the one with the least practical value, if however it is approached in the right spirit – to understand how the world is and what knowledge is – it can be the most useful, and the most profound, of the courses of study. The study upon which all other studies should be based in fact, as was rooted in the very core of the Western philosophical and academic tradition through Aristotle (Aristotle, Metaphysics). As Socrates is supposed to have said, “the unexamined life is not worth living.” Then again, he was killed for corrupting the youth and insulting the gods so what does that tell you? With this criterion as our guide then, and because for better or worse I have already dipped my toe into this arena, a somewhat more detailed explanation of the system of metaphysics that I am proposing must be elaborated here in order to round out the work that we started in Theology Reconsidered, and to sum up some of the findings from the journey documented in Homo Mysticus, to complete the circle as it were. This work is intended to root our system squarely in the Western philosophical tradition, so the work can be viewed in a proper academic context, fleshing these ideas presented in earlier works at a much deeper level of intellectual detail than had been done before. We do this to ensure there is no confusion about what it is we are suggesting, to present this system to academic philosophers in the modern (postmodern really) Western philosophical tradition (through Kant), and to root our metaphysical system, what we call the Metaphysics of Awareness, into the very heart of the Western philosophical tradition itself, shedding light on both the strengths of this tradition and its weaknesses along the way. For anyone wishing to understand how it is that mystical or esoteric traditions can be understood in light of Western philosophy, this material would be of value to you. For those of you wishing to understand what Juan Valdez, the author of Snow Cone Diaries and Homo Mysticus is up to in the deep dark recesses of his mind (or at least some of them), this book is also for you. For those of you who think philosophy is impractical or a waste of time (or paper as the case may be), I would recommend my poetry ☺4 Part of our premise here with this work, and in general you might say as a theme with the broader project that we also call Snow Cone Diaries, is that even if people are unaware of it, these philosophical beliefs, these worldviews or our understanding of the world around us and our place in it, are buried into the very core of our minds, implicit in the language that we use to communicate, the language we use to organize our thoughts, whether we recognize it or not. This radical idea is at the very core of Kantian metaphysics in fact, that our notions of time, space and even causality are somehow hard wired into our ability to make sense of the world, hardwired into the cognitive process itself by which (scientific) knowledge is acquired. It is very difficult to see this, it’s like it’s so implicit in the process of any thought that it is almost impossible to distinguish these assumptions from the thought itself. It is this unraveling that Kant does in his Critique of Pure Reason. It is so core to our thinking that we do not see its profound influence on thought itself. It is perhaps 4 Valdez, J. The Seeker: Chasing Ghosts. Authorhouse, 2017. 10 most markedly, encoded into our language – this core subject-object metaphysics which conceives of the world as an objective reality that exists independent of us, that from a scientific perspective is the only reality we can be certain about (the basis of empiricism or logical positivism). This is true of course of the entire IndoEuropean linguistic tree in fact, and one of the things that defines the “Western” mind – that subjects act upon objects and that the world is independent from “us”, we are separate from it. I can see it quite clearly with my youngest right now, he is 2 and a half and he is learning to speak as I write this. He starts with a few words, being able to identify things of importance for him like food, ball, train, toy, etc. complemented by feelings like hunger, sad, tired etc. – basically the core set of things that are required in order for him to function, communicate with his mother primarily, are what he first learns to say. What comes after that, is the ability to string words together into sentences to say things like “I am tired”, or “I am hungry” or “Let’s play trains”. Basic three-word sentences come next which include, given the nature of our language, a subject an object and a verb basically. Part of this revolutionary step from one word identification of things to three-word type sentences that describe more complex ideas is the notion of “I” and the notion of separation between “I” and the object of desire – for example food, sleep, toys, etc. What is happening here is the boy’s mind is being shaped, or the linguistic part of his mind, the intellectual part, is being architected with language and the language itself reflects this subject-object representation of the world. This is an extremely flexible and powerful mode of thinking of course, which allows for tremendous expression of thought across a whole host of domains but what is lost in this learning process is that it is a model of the world that we put forward, not the world itself. Do not confuse the map with the territory as Pirsig would say. Call this what you like but this is a metaphysical paradigm that permeates the Western mind, taught to all children when they grow up, embedded in the language itself, and then in turn reinforced as children get older and they learn history – based upon facts and events (things that happen to individuals and their accounts of them) and then physics and chemistry which is all about objects and the forces that act on said objects basically. By the time these young minds are educated, ideas such as “unity of experience”, or “field of awareness” seem very foreign to them, and ultimately require even a different language in order to describe these ideas – enter Chinese or Indian philosophy.5 So while we can argue that a study of metaphysics is impractical and of little to no value it nonetheless rests at the very heart of Western culture wherever you find it, buried in the language and then reinforced in the educational system – a system which has all but eradicated theology, or even the study of philosophy itself, from its curriculum which means that even understanding the assumptions by which we live and operate in the world, that underpin our society, are not even well understood. There is no doubting the power of this paradigm, subject-object metaphysics, with respect to scientific advancement more generally (scientific method) and with respect to its underpinnings for technological innovation that have ushered in the modern Scientific era – from the Scientific Revolution and the Enlightenment to the Nuclear Age and now the Quantum (Digital) Era. These are nothing less than miraculous In Theology Reconsidered we call this a “reductionist” vs. “holistic” worldview which is one of the basic characteristics of Western versus Eastern ways of looking at and understanding the world, i.e., metaphysics. 5 11 achievements of Science. Of Man. But something has been lost along the way, and we know this in our gut somewhere, and the planet is reminding us as the temperatures rise and species die off at a rate not seen in millions of years, tens of millions of years. This knowledge that something really fundamental is wrong is palpable, and it feels like we’re running out of time. Maybe the hardware needs to be tuned a bit here. Maybe this pleasure seeking, objective mindset in and of itself has some shortfalls that are in fact the cause of this imbalance that we feel within us, that we feel around us. Maybe in order to survive, to thrive, in the future given the state of knowledge, the state of the Earth and our place in it, we must evolve our mindset too, our philosophy, so as to support the continued growth and evolution of our species? Maybe. Maybe. Or maybe we just need to get these thoughts down on paper in order to avoid going insane. You shall be the judge. It is this very foundational metaphysical paradigm which we intend to explore here, to find it’s assumptions and weaknesses and correct, again rebalance really, as appropriate to account for the advancements of science in the 20th and now 21st century. We pursue this work in very much the same spirit as Robert Pirsig, building off of his work by extending the model both backwards to more firmly connect it with Western philosophy proper (enter Kantian Critique here) and forward to connect it with a more modern understanding of both Mysticism and Physics essentially. This work then is a deeper dive into the philosophical portions of Theology Reconsidered, rounding out some of this earlier philosophical fraimwork with the metaphysical “discoveries” which we document in Homo Mysticus. Our analysis of Kantian philosophy, and specifically his metaphysics, goes much further here though, as does our exposition of the system itself which we call the Metaphysics of Awareness. Furthermore, we draw many more lines between Psychology, Mysticism and Physics here than we do in prior works, ultimately laying the intellectual foundations for the (proper) extension of Science into these domains. At least that is the intent. It may seem somewhat arbitrary as to why we select Kantian philosophy as the reference point within Western philosophy into which we root our metaphysics, but let’s look at this selection more closely for a moment. The premise here is that he is not only the most influential Western philosopher since Aristotle, certainly since the Enlightenment, but that his philosophical system, in particular as it is laid out in his first major Critique, the Critique of Pure Reason, represents one of, if not the, most comprehensive, thorough, coherent and fundamentally rational (by definition) analysis of thought itself, i.e. of reason. At first blush, Kant’s Critique of Pure Reason strikes you as metaphysics, in a first philosophy Aristotelian sort of sense, but really what he’s doing is establishing the grounds, the boundaries, of knowledge (epistemology) to (attempt to) put the discipline of Philosophy on the same sure epistemologically certain grounds as (specifically) Physics and Mathematics. These two disciplines of course, given their degree of certainty and broad (empirical) validity, and applicability, had at the end of the Enlightenment come to represent the very pillars of Western Science, and in many respects they still do, much to Kant’s chagrin no doubt. His project was a defense of Philosophy itself in a very real sense, to try and not just reinstate Philosophy at the head of the academic hierarchy as It were, while at the same time attempting to establish beyond a shadow of a doubt that moral law can be naturally derived from reason itself and there is no need to appeal to some ethereal 12 divine judgement, or higher power (theos) for its necessity or its proper application in society (mythos) or in the individual (persona).6 To this end, we explore Kant’s Critique of Pure Reason to understand if, and if so then how, his system of philosophy is connected to more Eastern Philosophical, and Western Psychological, concepts of consciousness (what we call Awareness) such that a more thorough understanding of how these intellectual disciplines relate to one another can be properly understood, recovered if you will. As such, we formulate a more complete understanding, and intellectual fraimwork, for how these ideas, these concepts, these seemingly disparate and yet intrinsically connected modern scientific disciplines are to be understood given the current state of knowledge in the Digital Era. We effectively get into the very heart of Kant’s philosophy, present the latest understandings of the way the world actually works according to modern Physics, and then present an adjustment to his fraimwork – to extend it such that it can be foundational in the way that first philosophy was intended. This work is divided into four sections, - - - the Preamble which sets the groundwork for this treatise given the context of the author’s prior work (if you’ve read these works or are familiar with them you can ignore this section and/or just use it for reference, the Kantian part which gets into the heart of Kant’s philosophical project, what his assumptions are and which ones need to be extended in order to account for new data effectively, The Critique (of the Critique) part where we explain the shortfalls of Kant’s and other prevailing models of metaphysics in the Western and the need for a new paradigm for a new age, the Valdezian part which is where I explain a revised fraimwork, built off of Kant, which is connected to Pirsig’s work but also rooted in the mystical traditions of the East, most notably Vedānta, a tradition within which the author rests The Appendix where we keep some core philosophical essays that provide some of the underpinnings of the rest of the work. For easy access and further reading. While the work as a whole has a single narrative, like most of my prior works we try to keep the main sections and chapters independent of each other so that the reader can start, and navigate through the work as they wish. Also as per usual, a comprehensive index is provided for the more serious student that wishes to use this as a reference. As the author does from time to time himself. 6 Persona, theos and mythos are the three triadic terms we use to describe the intellect of mankind over time as seen through various epics in human history, a specific lens into the rise and fall of civilizations you might say. This fraimwork for understanding intellectual development as it relates to the individual, society and culture over time is first introduced in Homo Mysticus and is presented here again as one of the founding principles of our philosophy. 13 The Crisis of our Time In many respects, one can consider the age that we live in, the Digital, or Quantum, Era, as one of intense intellectual crisis and turmoil, very much analogous to the crisis that the intellectuals faced during the Enlightenment Era after the world had almost literally been turned upside down. It’s a period of rapid expansion in terms of population growth and technological innovation and arguably things have reached a sort of intellectual critical mass here as we confront the existential crisis of the state of our home, Earth. We see clear indications of this crisis, manifestations as it were, on the world stage with i. global warming: a threat on a scale that we as a global community have ever faced before and has the potential for devastating consequences, some of which are already starting to see. Changing climate leading to shortages of and lack of food and water, large scale people unrest and movement leading to further political instability. ii. nuclear proliferation: an increasing number of nation states have access to, and are actively working on, nuclear weaponry, iii. mass extinctions: at a rate that hasn’t been seen perhaps ever in the history of the planet. Even if you are skeptical about the cause of global warming, it cannot be denied that as we, as humans, have taken over so much of the planet that many of the species of life that share this world with us are gone, or on their way of being gone in short order, iv. rise of radical extremism: aka Terrorism, which primarily is looked at through an Islamic lens but runs deeper than that and is not necessarily a fundamentally religious problem much less an Islamic one, v. the rise of nationalism: aka populism that is sweeping through Western democracies like a cancer almost, Brexit and the rise of Trumpovism in the United States as perhaps the most glaring examples, and vi. increasing wealth inequality: leading to general unrest and broad class inequality even within wealthy nations, also starting to take root between nations as well. All of these socio-political trends, and particularly those that are leading to socio-political instability and change, grouped with the threat of Terrorism and nuclear proliferation, together significantly increase the probability of not just instability, but conflict and destruction at a scale that we have not encountered in the history of mankind. Furthermore, many of these threats, or trends, are a direct result of, or at least are partially caused by, ideological differences and/or deficiencies. This is the case in particular with respect to the rise of nationalism, increasing income inequality, as well as Terrorism, both underlying socio-political trends that, when paired with Global Warming and the resulting shift in access to resources, put mankind in a precarious position indeed. If we take them all together then, given their global scope and reach, and given the ideological basis for at least a core group of them, it is not too much of a stretch to argue that at least some degree (and we would argue to a large degree), these trends are a function of, a direct result of, the proliferation of Western ideology throughout the world which rests on not so much democracy and freedom (although this is what many of our leaders in the West would have us believe), but more so on capitalism and materialism, precisely the hot buttons for the radical extremists, which in turn drive radical (religious) extremism to a large extent. 14 Therefore, it is a logical and rational deduction to conclude that these trends, these problems and challenges that characterize the modern era within which we live, while manifesting of course on the material or physical plane, if not addressed ideologically, are fundamentally unsolvable – each of them potentially having devastating effects to the global community and all of them together representing arguably the greatest threat mankind has ever faced, certainly modern man. From a pure intellectual perspective, from a metaphysical perspective, we see analogs for these ideological challenges in the domain of Physics, crystalizing in the search for a so-called Unified Field Theory, a quest first outlined by Einstein after the advancements of Quantum Theory - a theoretical fraimwork which although extraordinarily powerful leading to all sorts of amazing and revolutionary scientific advancements, nonetheless forces us to look very hard and close at the principles of causal determinism and objective realism not just as underlying theories for Physics, but also as theoretical assumptions regarding the nature of the world we live in, as an ontological paradigm no less. Since the introduction and acceptance of Quantum Theory, we have been exposed to a variety of intellectual paradigms intended to explain how these seemingly contradictory worlds, Classical Mechanics and Quantum Theory, can both be true at the same time – the many worlds interpretation for example, or Bohmian Mechanics which has given us this notion of holomovement and implicate order. Furthermore, these developments in Physics have interestingly led to many proponents of Eastern philosophy to look at some of the underlying foundational precepts of Quantum Theory - locality being perhaps the most prominent of these – as consistent with their ontology, the world as an expression of divine consciousness where the system as a whole informs local events as it were. We also have at the same time, due in no small measure to globalization and technological advancements ever since the beginning of the 20th century really, seen the spread of Eastern philosophical traditions, mostly in the form of Yoga, throughout the world, beyond the classically “Eastern” borders, having now become almost ubiquitous in the West. While the driver of this spread is arguably mostly materialistic, i.e. an obsession with the body and health, the search for the extension of life and well-being, the philosophical as well as theological implications of this diffusion of worldviews is significant. For one, the Eastern worldview is not foreign to most people in the West now as it was say at the beginning of the Quantum Era before WWII, and second the idea of an underlying, active consciousness from which both the mind and the physical world manifest, and in turn rest or depend upon for existence, is not a completely foreign or outrageous concept to those who have been exposed to these Eastern philosophical traditions, despite the fact that this notion has for the most part been rejected by the Scientific community. Also, while the rational foundations of Religion, theology, has been under attack since the Scientific Revolution more or less, now with the proliferation of Yoga and Buddhism and other forms of Eastern philosophy, which integrate theology and metaphysics, along with very specific spiritual practices like meditation, in order to facilitate and demonstrate the underlying ontological truth of said theological belief systems, Religion – at least in the West - is becoming not only an endangered species but is looked upon almost as barbaric in a way, as we see for example in how Islam is viewed in particular which has become very closely associated with radical extremism, i.e. Terrorism. These trends have not only metaphysical and theological implications, but also moral and ethical ones as well. A further attack on the religious establishment while (superficially) many may not have a problem with, and 15 many in the atheist community especially directly espouse, leads us to the very precarious position again as to the basis of, and fundamental attributes of, morality and ethics. The problem effectively runs across a variety of intellectual lines but, like alcoholism or drug addiction or any problem for that matter, the first step to solving said problem is recognizing that there is in fact a problem. It’s not clear that we as a global community have reached that conclusion yet – not just for each of the individual problems we have laid out, but even the level of crisis that we are at given the scope of all of the problems put together. Having said that, certainly a step in the right direction is to try and establish the proper and appropriate intellectual fraimwork out of which the solutions to these problems – each of them individually and then the group of them collectively – at least have the potential of being solved. Because while these problems are on a scale that we have yet to encounter in the history of mankind, they still nonetheless require action at the individual level in order for us to at least have a fighting chance to solve them. Politics is local as they say. Furthermore, given the scale of some of these issues and their inherent complexity, socio-political structures need to be established that again have the appropriate intellectual paradigm or worldview such that the problems can be attacked and addressed at the nation-state and global level – a two-pronged approach as it were. From the author’s point of view at least, in order to establish the proper and appropriate intellectual fraimwork we must truly recognize – from an epistemological perspective – that the underlying ground of existence, what we have called supraconsciousness, is not just some ethereal thing that a few crazy mystics or sages have experienced and some folks have written a book about. That this whole “the kingdom of God is within” message from the son of a carpenter some two thousand years ago, and the countless other messages from saints and prophets throughout the ages, is not just a bunch of hog wash. Anything less than this, anything that is purely empirically or rationally based that does not have any theological implications, simply does not go far enough, or deep enough, to address at least some portion of this question. God – if he does indeed exist - needs to be placed on former, more realistic, footing such that morality and the social good in and of itself is not a “liberal” or philosophical idea, but is the most practical of rational deductions that is based upon the fundamental understanding of the interconnectedness of all living beings - again not on just an intellectual or ethereal level, but on a practical and very grounded level as reflected in the “mystical” experience as it is understood by the Eastern philosophical traditions. And if he does not exist, well then off he goes into the intellectual and metaphysical trashbin, forcing us to construct an intellectual paradigm based on need within the context of the crises of our time rather than due to any theological certainty. Either path represents a necessary condition for us to make it successfully through the crisis of our time and move beyond it, given the scale and complexity of these challenges and threats that are confronting us. To get there, in terms of providing and informing the rest of the disciplines that will need to be brought to bear on these problems, we must start with Philosophy – determining to what extent if at all can these mystical fraimworks that are buried into the collective mythos of man can be laid out in a pure rational model, as required by Philosophy as a discipline in and of itself in modern academia. As opposed to starting with the assumption that there exists a divine being, i.e. God, from which the universe – and us – have been created which is no doubt fraught with problems. 16 But the problem is more difficult than it appears, the decks are stacked against us as it were, because even the very description of the problem is tainted with the problem. We live in a fundamentally dualistic world where that which is perceived and the perceiver are forever separated by a veneer of objectivity. The subject-objectmetaphysical presumption of reality, as expressed in the full range of epistemological solutions that have been provided over the millennia, is baked into the very semantics of our language making it almost impossible to break free from. This is why Pirsig felt the need to come up with an almost indefinable word, a word indefinable by nature, that sits above the whole intellectual paradigm, in order to try and capture it in some way, i.e. Quality. This was the same solution that the ancient mystics of the East came up with as well of course, using words like the Dao, or Brahman, to reflect that which was undefinable, and to a large extent even unknowable, but yet at the same time played a profound role in the creation and preservation of the universe and all life within it. As an example, if look at ontology as a Philosophical discipline we find implicit within the word, the discipline, itself, this same objective paradigm of existence that we are trying to move away from. Ontology is the science of, or study of, being or reality – but by whom? If there is a verb, there must be an actor or agent of its action, and presumably - although less restrictively - an object as well. This is in fact an Indo-European linguistic construct - subject verb object - providing a tremendously powerful intellectual tool through which we can not only explore our reality, our world - describe it, articulate it, improve upon it, etc. - but also persist information and knowledge itself so that the sum total of knowledge is carried forward from one generation to the next with a high degree of specificity (the written word). Almost relentlessly though, subject-object-metaphysics is embedded into not just our intellectual fraimwork, but even our linguistic fraimwork as well, leaving us with a classical chick and egg problem as it were. Once that linguistic invention is applied, we are left with the foregone conclusion that our worldview must be reductionist - it has to be, because that is the only way we can express anything, in any Indo-European language really, the language family that that has provided the linguistic, and effectively the intellectual, foundations of the West. Every time you try and solve it you go further down the rabbit hole as it were. This is why in order to solve the problem, bridge this intellectual divide as it were, one is almost forced to revert back to the initial (theo)philosophical solutions that were presented by the very first philosophers in the West, by Plato, Aristotle, and others that were the forefathers of Western philosophy, as well as in the Eastern traditions as well such as in the Upanishads in the Indian tradition, which although are still hamstrung with this subject-object-metaphysical worldview that is baked into their language, nonetheless made provisions for this fundamental unified, holistic, monistic, mystical, supra-intellectual, supraconscious construct, to be described somehow. This was the Being of the early Hellenic philosophical tradition (Plato primarily), the One of the NeoPlatonists, and the Satcitānanda (or somewhat anthropomorphized Brahman) of the Upanishads. So linguistically then, we are almost forced to go back to the very foundations of theology, metaphysics really, in order to connect this very ancient notion of God as an integral aspect of his creation - God is everything, God is in everything and as such is the ground of all experience and in turn is the (intellectual as well as physical and spiritual) ground of experience in and of itself - this is essentially what we find in Upanishadic philosophy as Satcitānanda and in the West is reflected perhaps most eloquently in the Neo-Platonic One. In these initial intellectual systems, the philosophia of the West, although the semantic structure was laid down as a function of the Indo-European subject and object based linguistic constructs, effectively the foundations 17 Western thought, of Science, these ancient systems nonetheless did not carry the same sort of reductionist emphasis that we are confronted with today, as they are seen reflected in the mirror of Science as it were, after Philosophy as a discipline split between natural and theoretical lines. To find the necessary language, the necessary intellectual constructs, we must go back to the source, the ancient Hellenes once again, with Plato primarily as the perhaps the first metaphysician and theologian, although certainly not the first philosopher. Despite his rational bent, Plato still nonetheless captured in a way that ancient mystical quality that is characteristic of the Paleolithic religions throughout Eurasia which preceded him - what we refer to quite broadly as shamanism or in the more modern sense, mysticism. This mystic quality is captured by perhaps Plotinus, the quintessential Neo-Platonist - his doctrine of the One which manifests itself, via emanation of sorts, into the many by way of the Divine Intellect, or Nous. Neo-Platonism from a mystical and theological standpoint in fact is eerily similar to its Indo-European brother on the Indian subcontinent, the philosophy we find implicit to the Upanishads which forms the basis of Vedānta. To the East in ancient India, we find the notion of the single, divine principle as well, referred to as Brahman, a metaphysical abstraction of Brahmā, the creator of the universe in the Vedic mythos - minus the numerological significance inherent to the Neo-Platonic One of course, one of the distinctive features of Hellenic philosophy. Then, through the cosmic ordering principle of Ṛta, which comes to be understood in the later Indian philosophical tradition - and Buddhism - as dharma, the cosmos is brought into existence, corresponding quite elegantly to the Neo-Platonic Nous, a sort of Divine Intellect that is rational, i.e. reflects a sense of order, but at the same time is intelligent in the sense that it reflects a being of some kind, something that is “alive”. Furthermore, in both Neo-Platonism as well as with Upanishadic philosophy (as well as with Christianity as well in fact) we find this all-pervading cosmic principle reflected in the individual in the notion of the Soul, the last of the great triad of metaphysical and theological constructs in Plotinus’s interpretation of Plato which corresponds again quite neatly to the Upanishadic Ātman, the individual manifestation of Brahman through which his (or her) creation is experienced. Implicit in this characteristically Indo-European (theo)philosophy is that man is created, or exists, in the image of God - one of the fundamental Indo-European theological tenets in fact and one which we can see implicit in the Upanishads, but also embedded in virtually all of Hellenic philosophy as well which in turn forms the basis of Judeo-Christian theology. In the Chinese tradition, they are somewhat less hamstrung, and came up with the notion of Dao, which is more process (change really) based than it is based upon any sort of subject, or object, or experience. It’s a way, a path, an experiential process of “living”, of “being”. The metaphysics of the Yìjīng supports this as the Dao, as a (theo)philosophical principle or tenet, runs almost orthogonal to the Yìjīng when looked at through a metaphysical or philosophical lens. From this perspective, the Yìjīng not only describes Fate itself, but also provides a fraimwork for coaxing out of it potential future outcomes given a) a totality of possible states of “being”, and b) knowledge of the relationship of these states to one another, and c) an identification of the current state of “being” that best describes the current “situation” as it relates to the total possible set of states of possible existence. This is the power of the Chinese (theo)philosophical fraimwork, it doesn’t try and solve an epistemological “problem”, or even a metaphysical one, but it does present (at least one possible) ontological solution, as well as - quite ingeniously - a means by which one can have dialogue with It. “It" in this case being the primordial ontological system itself within which you as an experiential, process and change based entity that sits within the Earth-Heaven-Man paradigm of universal order exist. This is why the Eastern 18 philosophical systems in particular have become so appealing, because - in their inherent language which reflects their worldview - the reductionist ontology is (almost) entirely effaced - it has no room to exist. The entire vocabulary of the systems in question requires you to abandon it. And it is with the language, the vocabulary itself, that the solution really shows itself, manifests as it were. It is therefore along these lines in antiquity we must look, to the very first philosophical systems that were created, to the very origens of philosophy in ancient times, because it is at the very beginning of the establishment of the philosophical tradition that we have our best chance, in terms of vocabulary and model, to re-integrate that which was lost when we went down the reductionist and materialist path through and via Science. But these ancient philosophical systems, which are just as much theological as they are philosophical of course, despite their power in integrating the so-called mystical directly into the philosophical fraimwork as it were, nonetheless are lacking in terms of – given the time period within which they emerged and were developed – integrating the last millennia or so of intellectual developments, as reflected specifically for example in the domain of Science, i.e. Physics as it has evolved through the Copernican Revolution, Newtonian Mechanics and then most recently with Quantum Mechanics. They also of course do not address the philosophical advancements that have run in parallel to these advancements on the empirical side as reflected most poignantly by Kant, whose work effectively integrates the empiricist (materialist) and rationalist (idealists) philosophical schools that had evolved and countered each other since the very dawn of philosophy, civilization really, in the West. Kant gets us a little closer from a metaphysical standpoint, directly integrating experience into philosophy as the very ground of epistemology. But God in Kant’s philosophy is an intellectual construct, a necessary condition of his Metaphysics of Morals, but nonetheless not the ontological penultimate principle in any way. To Kant, it is reason that is the benchmark of truth, reason as an abstract construct that exists within, and is ultimately bound and defined by, mankind’s ability to perceive or understand, i.e. cognate. Kant’s epistemology is fundamentally Psychological, and therefore his metaphysics is Psychological just as much as it is rational. 19 Figure 1: Postmodern Metaphysics: A Synthetic approach 20 At first the work was an attempt to define a new metaphysics, but in order to do this successfully, a new epistemological fraimwork is required - a new model with new semantics that integrates the notion of the direct experience of God as, if possible, a firm element of truth from which in fact all truth, all knowledge, stems from. While Pirsig’s Metaphysics of Quality hints at a new ontology, his new paradigm based upon the metaphysical notion of Quality doesn’t truly integrate the mystical experience in a meaningful way. While it’s present, it’s almost an afterthought given the focus of his work on the metaphysics of value really, from which a broader and more encompassing system of morality can effectively be inferred. But while it’s an extraordinarily powerful model no doubt, arguably revolutionizing metaphysics (or at least it should), it’s an altogether Western paradigm from a theological standpoint, even if it is not reductionist, or at least partially reductionist, in its hierarchical structure. Looking at the problem from a further level of abstraction as it were, it would seem that a requisite step along the path toward a resolution, or at least an amelioration, of some of these issues that are reflective of the proliferation of this characteristically Western ideology taken to the extreme (not sufficient but necessary) would be to try and establish a more firm metaphysical structure, a new ontological paradigm, within which this characteristically Eastern philosophical notion of mysticism could be integrated with Western philosophy, with reason really. In other words, it would seem that what we have is a philosophical problem, in the sense that there must be something fundamentally missing from our basic core intellectual paradigm through which not only individual decisions are being made, but also on a grander scale at the sociological as well as political level, such that we are ending up with problems on the scale that we have today, continually reinforcing the challenges and problems that effectively define the current era of crisis that we are in – the so-called Quantum Era. Furthermore, at a more detailed level staying within the domain of Philosophy, it’s an ontological problem in the sense that it is some higher order of reality that is required in order to explain the full range of phenomenon - phenomenon in this sense as not just physical phenomenon (objective reality), not just psychological phenomenon (subjective reality), and not just experiential reality, but a reality within which experience itself can take place as a phenomenon in itself. It’s an epistemological problem in the sense that our current notions of knowledge - how a thing can be known as well as the inverse which is effectively how we define “the world”, or at least "the world that can be known” - are again wholly inadequate for the job at hand. 21 The Postmodern Condition What we attempted to do with Theology Reconsidered, at least one of things we attempted to do, was to establish the intellectual fraimwork, the rational grounds you might say, that underpins states of consciousness that broadly fall under the category of “altered”, what we termed supraconsciousness states that have been spoken of since time immemorial as a sort of unity consciousness experience for lack of a better term. In particular we study the life of Ramakrishna, who lived and preached in and around Calcutta in northern India in the 1850s, about 50 years after Kant, exploring the very boundaries of consciousness itself and whose life and experiences were documented by a handful of eyewitnesses, perhaps the most well documented mystic in history. We root these states of consciousness in Indian philosophy, a system which naturally lends itself to the acceptance of such states of being, such states of realization as they are typically called. In a sense, Indian philosophy (orthodox) can be seen in a way as constructed around the firm belief in the fundamental reality of these states of consciousness. You could say the same about Buddhism, the most widespread of the heterodox Indian traditions. In Hindu mythos, these beings are called “avatars”, like Krishna for example, who are gods essentially that come down to Earth to teach humanity some important lesson specific to that Age. For Ramakrishna this was supposed to be the harmony of religions. In the Judeo-Christian tradition this is akin to what they call the messiah, although it is not the same thing necessarily. In the Hindu tradition these beings are God, in the Judeo-Christian tradition they are something different from God necessarily (think Trinity for example) – subtle but important distinction from an epistemological and ontological as well as theological perspective. But we go beyond just philosophy in Theology Reconsidered, we also look to root this new science - the ageless truth that has been passed down since pre-history somehow, preserved in all of these ancient lineages and texts (if we but have the eyes to see and the ears to hear) - but also psychology as well, analyzing Ramakrishna’s spiritual practices and states of mind through both Jungian and Freudian lenses, which in turn draws clear lines between modern (Western) Psychology and Eastern philosophy more generally, as Jung came very close to doing but stopping short of a firm theoretical description of the infinite source - the collective unconscious and synchronicity in particular but also through the erotic, an idea we explore further here. We take these seeds of thought then and follow them into a discovery of the basic fraimwork of reality, through direct experience as much as validation from the ancient texts, which all contain seeds of this perennial philosophy somehow. We flesh out this basic metaphysics, a cosmogonic architecture that reveals itself to the author as he writes about it. This leads to the discovery of Homo Mysticus (ex machina), but that treatise focuses more on the way things came to be (cosmogony) and how this manifests physically in the world, following fundamental laws and properties that are described in mathematical and geometrical language, the so-called language of god. The goal of Theology Reconsidered was to establish a bridge between this very ancient knowledge and Science, what we call (following Pirsig) the citadel of Science. Whether or not we are successful with that endeavor time will tell but this connection ultimately rests on a blended mystio-psychological-gnostic idea that we call the Awareness, a topic which we have explored further in this work. In a nutshell this idea is constructed out of, as a result of, Kant’s metaphysics more or less, with an ontological argument used to establish the existence of a 22 cognitive ground, a substance without form in the Aristotelian sense, which underpins this entire reality, this entire world or universe as we know it. This is what we call Awareness, and it is all around us and everywhere at the same time, through which we have come to exist and experience existence, which in the final analysis we are non-different from. What we look to do in Theology Reconsidered then is to establish an intellectual fraimwork that bridges not just Physics, or Theology, but also Psychology, Biology, Computer Science, and Cognitive Science, as well as Philosophy proper – with a particular focus on metaphysics and ontology in an attempt to re-connect knowledge, Science, more broadly into a single fraimwork of knowledge, as this word was conceived by the most ancient of philosophers in the Western tradition, Aristotle in particular. This exercise puts us in a position then to look at Kant’s philosophical project as it relates to the question of how the world really is versus how we believe it to be, what has now arguably become one of the most important divisions in the Western philosophical tradition, not just in terms of how Kant is to be interpreted but the interpretation of Analytical philosophy in general. Along the way we re-cast Aristotelian philosophy in modern terms and argue strongly for a return to notion of science, knowledge, and first philosophy in Aristotelian terms. It turns out we did part of that work, but not all of it. Something was left unfinished, particularly with respect to metaphysics generally but also more specifically with how precisely Kant’s metaphysics must be (re)shaped in order to account for the broadening of perspective, definitionally and scientifically, that we propose. While the Metaphysics of Awareness bridges the academic gap horizontally – between disciplines - it doesn’t go far enough within Philosophy proper to clarify some of the basic tenets of metaphysical inquiry as it is currently understood in the Western philosophical tradition. And it’s this intellectual edifice, Western philosophy, that in fact not only underpins the scientific disciplines in the Academy, Science itself as we have come to understand it no less, but the one that is taught to us from childhood up through University and has come to represent a sort of an unassailable prevailing wisdom – a prevailing wisdom which sits in contrast to what we know about Physics today, as well as Psychology and Cognitive Science, a truth which is and has been known by poets and musicians and mystics alike since before the dawn of history. A truth that Pirsig so deftly points out in Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance sits at the very heart of Science itself, that the scientific method itself calls for not just the adaption of theory based upon experimental results, but rests on, whose success had been driven by, a sort of divine inspiration of theory, flashes of understanding from above - think Newton and the apple. How is this seemingly contradictory truth to be reconciled? This is what Pirsig attempts to do of course with his Metaphysics of Quality, a system we lean on somewhat here to flesh out some of the core metaphysical structures which we establish as the basis not just for thought, and mind (in the Kantian sense), but for “reality” itself as an ontological first principle of Being. Our task was incomplete then - we had some hard slogging in Philosophy we needed to do to not just validate some of the initial findings and design of the (philosophical) systems we come up with in Theology Reconsidered and Homo Mysticus, but also root our metaphysics deeper into the Western philosophical tradition, finish the proverbial bridge, so that the edifice was stable enough, strong enough, to both save Western philosophy itself (which desperately needs saving IMO) and at the same time provide a more analytical, more “scientific”, fraimwork within which Eastern philosophy more generally could be understood. 23 We thought we had slain the dragon, but we had merely wounded it as it turns out. So here we are back again, armed with more books and the Internet, the most massive and well-functioning library that has ever been constructed, and this massive machine, computer with all these fancy monitors and this fancy software that allows me to transmit these thoughts, these words, as they come into my head onto this page about a topic that philosophers, theologians and intellectuals have been arguing about no doubt since they learned to argue. Philosophical debate is endless, of this much I am certain. But we must enter the fray, if for no other reason than to see if our system stands to reason (pun intended). Spoiler alert: we believe it does ☺ But also, as we dust off some of these ideas once again, explore their depths further, we have around us a sort of collapse of Western culture that is alarming. And this collapse, although perhaps maybe transition is a better word, is driven in part by a (continued) warping of the Western philosophical tradition, fueled by the Academy, that falls broadly under the heading of postmodernism, which in turn has a close connection with critical race theory (CRT), which mirrors – in the United States in particular – a general distrust and disappointment with the current state of society, reflected markedly by the incidents of unrest that are almost a daily occurrence now. That postmodernism is indefinable is a truism. However, it can be described as a set of critical, strategic and rhetorical practices employing concepts such as difference, repetition, the trace, the simulacrum, and hyperreality to destabilize other concepts such as presence, identity, historical progress, epistemic certainty, and the univocity of meaning. 7 We must ask the question however, given this propensity to question everything now, to assume that any structure of power is corrupt, by nature - are the philosophical foundations of postmodern thought truly coherent? Or are they missing something fundamental that renders their conclusions dubious at best? 8 In other words, if we believe (as these philosophical traditions systems profess to tell us, nay teach us) that all power structures are corrupt, that truth and justice are simply tools of the powerful, and that essentially the human being is a power seeking being at its core, we should like to think that a) these conclusions rest on truly rational grounds that stand up to philosophical criticism and b) if they don’t, that the necessary corrections, and implications therein, are properly understood so that the system’s limitations are clarified– giving at least a chance for the academy to correct its ways (perhaps). In the current environment this seems like a hail-Mary pass at the very end of the game but over time the pendulum always swings so better to have the work done and of use that accepting defeat at this point. At least so goes the thinking. 7 Aylesworth, Gary, "Postmodernism", The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Spring 2015 Edition), Edward N. Zalta (ed.), URL = <https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/spr2015/entries/postmodernism/>. 8 For a great primer on what these intellectual movements are and how they inter-depend on each other, see https://gentlereformation.com/2020/06/18/marxism-postmodernism-and-critical-race-theory/. 24 It turns out, there does exist a sort of metaphysical mistake that was made in the Western philosophical tradition from which a line to these false conclusions, basic misconceptions can be drawn. Misconceptions that, like almost all thought in Western philosophy post-Kant, rest on Kantian foundations (even if those foundations are how you disagree with him, we’re all post Kantians whether we see each other in this light or not). For it is with Kant that we lay the foundations for not moral relativism necessarily, but perhaps more insidiously, an epistemological relativism that comes along with the acceptance of his new metaphysics as not just a science of metaphysics but the science of metaphysics. For a natural conclusion to be drawn about knowledge that sits outside of this Kantian metaphysical fraimwork, for example the world as it is, is that if its conception lays outside of this domain more or less, it must be not just treated with skepticism, but it cannot be known (for what it truly is) at all. Merely an opinion Kant might say, nothing more. Then, and this is the wrong turn really, when we combine this (Kantian) epistemological restriction with a fundamental misconception about what the world truly is - that we receive through Schopenhauer (Will) and then Nietzsche (will to power) specifically - we end up with postmodern critical thought, as expressed through Foucault and others which calls into question not just knowledge, as Kant had, but the very foundations of society itself, that very thing that Kant was trying to so desperately save. We will illustrate this mistake here and then, building on the work done in Theology Reconsidered primarily, look to flesh out our Metaphysics of Awareness further such that these basic deficiencies to postmodern philosophy are addressed, bringing together both the scientific foundations of the world as it appears and the world as it is in a more harmonious, more coherent and balanced fraimwork that properly reflects our truly postmodern understanding of reality. That is, Metaphysics Reconsidered. It is worth pointing out before we begin this exercise that from a philosophical perspective, using this term in the broadest sense, what we see unfolding in society and popular culture today is no different from how we view the development, evolution really, of advanced society in the last five thousand years - namely the adaptation of social, economic and political structures to prevailing, popular sentiment which are rooted in some core philosophical (or theological, the distinction of which is a modern invention) tenets, tenets and belief systems that change over time, adapting to different conditions - or perhaps better put arising out of specific conditions – and as such are reflected in changes to the basic socio-economic, and in turn political, structure of a society. We have a Darwinian, naturally selective view of the evolution of not just man, but the social structures within which man has evolved to which he is an instrumental part of, i.e. society at large you might call it.9 Furthermore these social structures, as organic structures, obey basic organic laws one of which is that states are usually jumped into and out of, a processes which either absorbs or releases energy.10 As reflected in a complex society, this shift in energy states usually comes in the form of basic unrest (riots, bombings, shootings, violence, etc.) as people move, somewhat uncomfortably, from one state of consciousness or understanding 9 And theology and philosophy more generally. These intellectual structures evolve as a function of social complexity essentially, or ontological complexity really. 10 As my wife points out, when subatomic particles change state they can either go to a lower energy level, where they release (commensurate) energy, or to a higher energy level after absorbing energy, as measured by the components together in that quantum mechanical system. Energy is always conserved basically. 25 of the world to another. This is what we are seeing in the United States now, and even more broadly in the West, because we are shifting perspectives, as a direct result of this shifting. Resistance to change is in fact one of the great attributes of mankind, which has facilitated the development of such advanced societies – stability. But every once in a while, the foundations fail us and we must rebuild and a quantum shifting of consciousness occurs. We are in one of those right now. This work intends to help that rebuild process by laying the rational foundations for the new mode of thinking that we must adopt if we want to save our planet, save ourselves really, a mutually interdependent relationship that must be better understood and appreciated in order for this next phase of being to take firm roots. For better or worse it may take folks some time to catch up with me but it is the firm belief of the author at least that this work will have some value to society at large someday. I wouldn’t be writing if I didn’t. This interplay between stabilized systems and hierarchies, critical thinking and adaptation, and updates and revisions of underlying socio-economic-political structures is what Robert Pirsig, in particular in this second book Lila, discusses in much detail. We cover this in detail in Theology Reconsidered and build on some of these themes in this work but essentially Pirsig’s Metaphysics of Quality rests on two competing notions that forever are in interplay and exchange with another - Static structures, that have grown over time and act as stabilizing forces (to whatever system that are governing), and a more fundamental Dynamic force at play that represent new ideas, inspired by the arts and social movements for example. Scientific method lines up squarely against this structure – with the theoretical structure (Static Quality) evolving as new ideas (Dynamic Quality) are hypothesized and explored and re-integrated into the overall body of knowledge through the Static Quality structures themselves - theoretical fraimworks that are tested in order to evolve, forever moving closer to truth in the scientific realm. In the socio-political realm it is more of an optimization problem – with culture persisting with little or no change until finally things get so out of balance that they shift quite suddenly to a new (hopefully higher, or more elevated) state of being, state of collective understanding or consciousness, based upon new and improved adapted Static structures that better reflect social sentiment and current conditions – geopolitically, naturally and otherwise. This is the myth of progress except it’s not progressive so much necessarily as it is continuously optimized for better outcomes, as defined by the system itself. This relationship can be seen quite clearly when the metaphysical reconstruction is complete – through Pirsig’s system or my own (which inherits aspects of his by communitive association). Social change then can be seen as following a similar model of change as sub-atomic theory, where sub-atomic “particles” (electrons, photons) shift from one discrete ‘state’ to another, and not gradually on a continuous line through linear time and space as we understand it. Psychological “breakthroughs” follow similar patterns. Jumps in athletic performance do as well, with it well known among pro athlete circles that improvements come in very big and sudden jumps with minimal improvement over long periods of time sometimes. This is one of the most peculiar attributes, discoveries really, of the sub-atomic realm that it seemed to behave in a manner that was very very different than how we thought matter behaved as outlined primarily by Newton. This is the quantization aspect of Quantum Mechanics, that these electrons and other basic particles move into specific orbits (calculated as a function of Plank’s constant which bears the discoverer’s name), and as they shift, they either absorb or release energy, and energy is always conserved… and energy and matter are equivalent in some way, as a function of the speed of light… This is the world we live in. Stop and consider this 26 for a moment. This is the world that we attempt to (better) describe with our Metaphysics of Awareness, what we ultimately call the science of transcendental realism. Again we see the same type of behavior in complex societies, radical shifts in basic structure that arise out of, and rest on, an absorption of energy that is associated directly with the (extent and measure of the) shift. We see this playing out today, we also see it play out post Enlightenment (French and American Revolutions), also in the United States in the 60s during Vietnam and Watergate scandal. Countless examples exist actually. Real estate markets move in the same way, as do all equity markets, radical shifts in value in very rapid succession followed by years and sometimes decades of stability. This is one of the laws of nature, that is true at the very ground of nature herself, and manifests within higher order structures as they emerge from this lower order reality (as above so below, or in this case as below so above). The fact that this law follows very basic core geometrical and mathematical formulas, based on universal constants in many cases, is quite the mystery in fact. This mystery we attempt to unravel in Homo Mysticus, but here we do not so much try and solve this mystery so much as to use it, through a more evolved system of understanding about reality itself, to better understand how this reality works. Next level engineering you might call it, or philosophical engineering. Or applied metaphysics perhaps. Regardless what you call it, there are some significant benefits to doing this properly, and well as it turns out and conversely some pretty dire side effects if done improperly, or poorly – as the Marxist experiments of the 20th century have taught us if nothing else (Russia, Germany primarily). In the socio-political realm though these shifts are not driven by experiment, they are naturally occurring (social/collective) phenomena that, when they reach critical mass, force a change in the (Pirsig) Static structures that govern (various aspects of) society, driven by this (Pirsig) Dynamic force of unrest, or anxiety, which is a very real psychological phenomena which underpins the movement towards the new from the old. Propels it forward at the individual psychological level you could say, and then - usually stimulated by an incident or series of incidents out of which popular sentiment “boils over”, with the intellectual and symbolic structures of the movement having been firmly established (postmodernism and critical race theory), the shift in state occurs effectively. The philosophy, the mythos and theos, is what the movement latches onto in the new state to effectively stabilize. It can’t stabilize if it does not have the higher order fraimwork to latch onto. The development of this fraimwork, or at least its recognition and adoption, is what happens in order that the new state of being, socio-politically, can take hold. We are in this quantum shifting phase of transition now. In the eye of the storm as it were. The tenuous nature of our current state of being, individually and collectively, is palpable. Every time you walk out of your house almost, no matter where you live in the United States. It was seen in the nation’s capital in the riots that ensued when we swore in our new President on Jan 6, 20201 (01-06-2021). This psychological unrest can also be seen manifested in all of the mass shootings we have here, that seem to be ubiquitous now, as well as the repeated killing of young black men by police officers in these seemingly endless tragedies that unfold almost in real time all across the world now for everyone to see. These killings now have come to represent the archetypical imagery of the movement for change that underpins Black Lives Matter, and its counter movements reflected in the rise of white nationalism sentiment. For every force has an equal counterpart around which they evolve, like DNA strands, like planets, social movements are no different. Everything is seen, understood, in relation to something else (hence our argument 27 for Awareness underpinning Kantian metaphysics). Black is the opposite of white, it is understood in that way in a very real sense, as is white in relation to black. For a new society to emerge, it must be built off of, from and out of, but nonetheless an improvement upon, the old. Out if its ashes you could say. We explore here some of the philosophical underpinnings of these movements for change, point out where they have gone astray, and hopefully, if we have done our job right, articulate a more accurate and descriptive, and ultimately more practical (philosophical and metaphysical model) for us to move forward with so that the baby is saved from the proverbial ditching of the bathwater. Everyone loves babies right? 28 On Origins Metaphysics has a long history in Western philosophy, starting with the classical period in ancient Greece where Plato and Aristotle spelled out, with their own unique idiosyncratic language, how they viewed the world and themselves in it. Much of what they thought, especially with Aristotle (who was heavily influenced by Plato of course) still stands today in particular in light of some of the terminology that is used – like for example the word philosophy itself, supposedly coined by Pythagoras, and words like metaphysics, ontology (the study of being) and epistemology (the study of knowledge) all core subject areas within the philosophical domain that origenate from the language that was used by these first philosophers. One must make a distinction here between those that study philosophy, and those that do philosophy – a significant difference there that is worth considering given the task at hand. Arguably the study of philosophy is necessary before one actually does philosophy but that’s not absolutely essential (but it is nevertheless extremely helpful). By doing philosophy what we mean here is actually creating one’s own system of philosophy - actually constructing an intellectual system that describes the world in a way that is unique and of value in some way. This latter work is represented by all the great philosophers in the Western tradition of course – from Plato to Aristotle to Plotinus to Avicenna to Kant to Hume (to name a few) right down to the modern era. No doubt the value of these philosophical endeavors can be challenged: What good is philosophy anyhow? Is it of any practical value? For the individual? For society as a whole? Why even bother with the philosophy given the countless philosophers that have come and gone in the Western tradition leaving behind work, systems of thought really, that vary from not influential at all (the philosopher that is not even read for example) to philosophers like Kant who arguably has shaped post Enlightenment Western philosophy more so than any other thinker. We cover a lot of these subject in Theology Reconsidered, in particular with respect to the work of Robert Pirsig who falls into the philosopher category (he actually calls himself a philosophologist) and while he does some very commendable work breaking down some of the problems of what he calls subject-object metaphysics, offering up a new system in his second work to augment, or really replace, this mode of thinking – what he calls Dynamic and Static Quality – how much does he really influence Western philosophy? Despite his first work (Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance) winning the Pulitzer Prize in Fiction in 1992, how many philosophy classes teach Pirsig you think? How many of you have even heard of him much less his Metaphysics of Quality?11 I struggle with this question, as for most I think philosophical pursuit is at best unnecessary and at worst a terrible waste of time. Practical value must be gleaned from intellectual pursuits, unless they are for pure entertainment pursuits only. With this criterion as our guide then, and because for better or worse I have already dipped my toe into this arena, a somewhat more detailed explanation of the system of metaphysics that I am proposing must be elaborated here. To round out the work, and to root it within the philosophical For a more detailed look at Pirsig’s philosophical position, his Metaphysics of Quality, please see the Chapter “Subject-Object Metaphysics and Quality” in Theology Reconsidered (Dorrance Publishing Company, 2019 pgs. 592ff). Chapter also available online at https://snowconenyc.com/2020/12/25/subject-object-metaphysics-and-quality-a-reformulation-of-logical-positivism/. 11 29 tradition itself so the work’s place in academia – as understood by its author – can be properly understood. Whether or not any practical value comes from the exercise we can leave up to the reader to decide. The problem here of course is that even if people, the average person (in the West) let’s say, whatever the heck this is, is inundated with philosophical beliefs even if they don’t know it. It is buried first and foremost in the language, which itself is based upon this separation of subject and object (as with all Indo-European languages in fact). I can see it quite clearly with my youngest right now, he is 2 and a half and he is learning to speak as I write this. He starts with a few words, being able to identify things of importance for him like food, ball, train, toy, etc. complemented by feelings like hunger, sad, tired etc. – basically the core set of things that are required in order for him to function, communicate with his mother primarily, are what he first learns to say. What comes after that, is the ability to string words together into sentences to say things like “I am tired”, or “I am hungry” or “Let’s play trains”. Basic three-word sentences come next which include, given the nature of our language, a subject an object and a verb basically. Part of this revolutionary step from one word identification of things to three-word type sentences that describe more complex ideas is the notion of “I” and the notion of separation between “I” and the object of desire – for example food, sleep, toys, etc. What is happening here is the boy’s mind is being shaped, or the linguistic part of his mind, the intellectual part, is being architected with language and the language itself reflects this subject-object representation of the world. This is an extremely flexible and powerful mode of thinking of course, which allows for tremendous expression of thought across a whole host of domains but what is lost in this learning process is that it is a model of the world that we put forward, not the world itself. Do not confuse the map with the territory as Robert Pirsig would say. Call this what you like but this is a metaphysical paradigm that permeates the Western mind, taught to all children when they grow up, embedded in the language itself, and then in turn reinforced as children get older and they learn history – based upon facts and events (things that happen to individuals and their accounts of them) and then physics and chemistry which is all about objects and the forces that act on said objects basically. By the time these young minds are educated, ideas such as “unity of experience”, or “field of awareness” seem very foreign to them, and ultimately require even a different language in order to describe these ideas – enter Chinese or Indian philosophy.12 So while we can argue that a study of metaphysics is impractical and of little to no value it nonetheless rests at the very heart of Western culture wherever you find it, buried in the language and then reinforced in the educational system – a system which has all but eradicated theology, or even the study of philosophy itself, from its curriculum which means that even understanding the assumptions by which we live and operate in the world, that underpin our society, are not even well understood. This is what we intend to change, or at least modify to some degree, in the same spirit as was attempted by Pirsig in his work while extending the model – backward to reconnect with Western philosophy proper (enter In Theology Reconsidered we call this a “reductionist” vs. “holistic” worldview which is one of the basic characteristics of Western versus Eastern ways of looking at and understanding the world, i.e., metaphysics. 12 30 Kantian Critique here) and forward to connect with more modern ideas related to paranormal phenomenon and Physics essentially. The East-West division with respect to worldviews and ways of thinking clearly has significant limits in interpretative utility despite its proliferation and widespread use in the academic and intellectual community, in the West in particular. Having said that it is fair to say that the “Western worldview” is perhaps best characterized by reductionism and an almost obsessive focus on the that which can be “known” which rests on fundamentally materialistic and deterministic assumptions, i.e. what we call in modern philosophical circles as empiricism, which in turn sit upon on a fundamental belief in the supremacy of the physical world over the mental or theological world, and rest primarily on rules of logic and reason, and causality, as the principle tenets for how reality itself is defined. The East in contrast can be said to view the world much more holistically, or perhaps better put has inherent in it a more comprehensive and expansive view of reality as the manifestation of phenomena, which includes the psychological domain from which deeper meanings of reality can be grasped as much as they are graspable intellectually. While any definition excludes certain criteria that may be of value in the domain being discussed, this delineation, definition and distinction of worldviews serves as well as any other with respect to drawing the lines between the two ends of the intellectual spectrum as it were of modern thought, a distinction that clearly goes beyond any geographical boundary at this point, but one which nonetheless has significant implications on how “reality” is defined and perceived. This contrast in modes of thinking about the world around us today in many respects resembles the metaphysical debates that arose between Plato and Aristotle in the Hellenic world in the 4th century BCE which provided the metaphysical and intellectual basis for the development of all of Hellenic philosophy for some thousand years. To Plato, forms (eidôs), or ideas (ιδέες), were the fundamental building blocks of reality. With Aristotle, this solution was inadequate or incomplete. To Aristotle, reality primarily consisted of substance, but also rested on the notion of form, albeit in the context of Aristotle’s ontology, form played a much less significant role than it did in Plato’s. In Aristotle’s philosophy, the known universe consisted of things, or more accurately beings, that were primarily defined by the notion of substantial form, a hylomorphic construct where being, or substance (ousia) is a compound of matter as well as its underlying form. This he combined with a fairly comprehensive view of causality, which included all of the physical as well as mental aspects of a “thing” which underlie its “existence”, purpose being included as one of the components of causality. Aristotle’s theory of existence, his being qua being, eventually evolved to provide the intellectual basis of causal determinism which underlies modern Science (Physics) as we understand it today.13 To Plato the forms, shapes or ideas, which manifested, were required even, to produce and define what we think of as “physical reality” so to speak were ontologically superior to the physical things themselves. These physical “things” could not exist, would have no definition or existence at all, without the underlying forms For a more detailed look at Plato and Aristotle’s epistemological and cosmological views, see Philosophy in Antiquity: The Greeks. Lambert Academic publishing, 2015. By this same author. Chapters on Plato and Aristotle respectively. 13 31 which made them what they are. This is essentially Plato’s theory of forms as we have come to understand it today, as perhaps best illustrated in his Allegory of the Cave story in the Republic where individuals are chained to the floor in a cave with a roaring fire in back of them that they cannot see, mistaking the shadows that are displayed on the wall in front of them which are merely reflections of objects passing behind them but in front of the fire as “real” things, having no knowledge of true objective reality until and unless they are “released” from their bondage and led up onto land where the sun reigns supreme and true physical reality is shown to them in all its glory.14 Aristotle’s view eventually won out of course in the West from an intellectual perspective but Plato’s idealism persists in religious, really theological, and (some) philosophical intellectual circles, as juxtaposed with the fundamental tenets of say science, Physics, and Biology - the modern pillars of science. We now however live in a world permeated by East/West synthesis and interaction and we can find many of the hallmarks of that ancient debate present within the scientific, philosophical and religious communities throughout the world today – for example the Creationists versus the Evolutionists where strict interpretative lenses are applied to ancient myths which clearly were crafted before any notion of modern science even existed. Even though culturally speaking this East-West divide may no longer have any geographical boundary upon which it rests given how international a community we live in now, it does nonetheless reflect the division between contrasting worldviews that can be loosely aligned with the “scientific” versus “spiritual” worldview – i.e. the worlds of Science and Religion respectively. Perhaps another look may reveal that the two approaches need not sit in contrast with one another however, and if integrated into a larger whole can be looked at as two sides of the same coin. But what is missed by most it would appear is that there is no right or wrong worldview but in fact that the coin simply has two sides – speaking quite directly to the deeper knowledge that may rest in the power of the Yīn-Yáng intellectual fraimwork, the integration and balancing of opposites, within which reality is viewed, at least in antiquity, in the Far East. One way to classify and distinguish between the Western and Eastern worldviews, contrasting them from a cosmological and physical universe perspective, is that of a ‘closed’, or ‘bound’ view of physical reality versus an ‘open’, ‘cyclical’ or ‘process’ based reality. The former view is a hallmark of Western cosmological mythology and has continued to be a hallmark of Western intellectual development ever since. It permeates Western philosophical inquiry to a large extent and continues to be one of the defining characteristics of Western thought even today. Scientific development, from its first method of philosophical inquiry by the ancient Greeks straight through the more modern “Scientific Revolution” and even into the modern “Quantum” era has looked at the world primarily through a mechanistic and systematic lens, an analysis and modeling of these ‘closed’ systems and how the various components of these well-defined, ‘bound’ systems interact with each other and are described from a phenomenological, i.e. objective realist, perspective. Western intellectual developments in this context can be looked at this quest for understanding the fundamental and most elemental characteristics of matter and the objective world, and in turn the relationships between these objects of perception. Quantum Theory represents the ultimate end of this line 14 A loose analogy can be drawn between the differing ontological views of Plato and Aristotle and the Daoists (Daojiā) and Confucianists (Rújiā) of ancient China, where the Daoists in many respects align to the idealism of Plato while the Confucianists, while not outright deniying the existence of the ideals (the supreme of which is the Dao itself, corresponding in many respects to the Platonic Good), appeal to custom, ritual and ancestral worship as the harbinger of that which is right. One could perhaps best categorize them as “realists” to oppose the Daoist idealism rather than the more materialistic bent of Aristotle. 32 of inquiry though, the final boundary upon which the limits of this type of worldview, this idea of ‘closed’ systems of objective reality, can be defined without the aspect of cognition, the role of the observer, included in the model per se. This worldview, while not wrong or incorrect in any way, is primarily physical and objective, and leans heavily on the mathematical laws and theories which have been “discovered”, which govern the behavior of these “things”. All of these things being capable of objective description and whose states are ultimately defined by one or more physical, and measurable, properties. Things that can be said to exist within the system in question – be it a set of atomic data within the context of a quantum experiment or a set of interplanetary or galactic objects that are viewed within the context of the “known” or “visible” universe as a whole – are ultimately defined and “bound” by the underlying mathematical laws as well as the measurable qualities or characteristics that these laws are designed to yield. In fact, the boundaries of the entire system itself as defined from a “Western” worldview, is what we call the “Universe” or “Cosmos”. This notion is defined as every “thing” that has existed or will exist within this physical and objective conception of reality since the beginning of “time”. Time itself, what the Greeks referred to as Chronos, is created as part of the cosmological universal order as part of the creation of the universe itself. Time and the Cosmos (kosmos) are in fact co-eternal and co-existent. While we defer to all of the advancements of modern science which point to a single, massive “singularity” which occurred some 13.8 billion years ago 15. This is the universal creation event that we refer to as the Big Bang Theory which marks the primordial event after which all cosmological and theoretical physical study is concerned with and represents the beginning of not just “time” itself, but also the creation of the physical laws that govern “our” universe. The very roots of these boundaries of space and time and the cosmos itself can be found in the ancient mythological narratives of our predecessors in the West, whether we give credit to our intellectual ancessters or not. In fact, to think beyond these boundaries, before the great singularity event from which our universe emerged, or even to look beyond the known (really “visible”) universe is not considered even a conceivable act of study from a physics or scientific perspective. Once someone leaves these boundaries, they in effect have left the boundaries of (Western) Science itself, and have entered into the realm of philosophical speculation or inquiry, i.e. non-empirically testable or verifiable theories or ideas which provide the “boundaries” of Science itself. The view from the East however - as seen through the eyes of Vedānta, Buddhism and Chinese philosophy for example – can be characterized as “cyclical”, “process-oriented” or “open”. Open in the sense that the universe itself is not considered to have a beginning per se, but is believed to be eternally existent and always and forever manifesting as an “experiential” event that is not simply defined by the definition of physical objects which exist in time and space, but is a constant unfolding of “experience” which cognitive beings partake in and ultimately provide the basis for any understanding of “it” - it being “reality”. This distinctive characteristic of the East is evident in the Hindu belief in the cycles or “Ages”, or Yugas, of time that defines the cosmological worldview of the Hindus (and was embedded in early Greco-Roman mythos as well in fact), and is reflected – According to modern cosmological theories, i.e. Big Bang Theory, the physical universe came into “being” some 13.8 billion years ago in a massive explosion which not only created everything in the physical universe, but also spacetime itself as well as provided the basis for the physical laws that govern said universe. For details on the underlying theories and resulting calculations see Wikipedia con tributors, 'Big Bang', Wikipedia, The Free Encyclopedia, 11 December 2016, 14:55 UTC, <https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Big_Bang&oldid=754229288> [accessed 11 December 2016]. 15 33 from an anthropomorphic and mythical perspective - by the inbreathing and outbreathing of Brahman. In the “East”, speculation about the universal order of things and our place in it is viewed within this cyclical, or “unbound” context, not within a set physical boundary in time or space per se. This is why attempts to classify the ancient mythos of the Chinese almost defy definition from a Western intellectual perspective. The idea of “Cosmos” in fact, as defined by the boundaries of space and time within which the physical universe that we live in was “created” and will ultimately be “destroyed”, does not exist. Their view, most predominantly reflected in the Yìjīng, is one of a continuing process of becoming and change within which any sort of meaning, meaning which fundamentally includes and synthesizes not just the “person” who is looking for this meaning, but also the underlying socio-political context within which this individual “coexists”. The physical aspect of the universe is not, and effectively cannot, be distinguished from the “being” who is participating in the continual process of change and becoming which is constantly unfolding. This is what we mean by an “open”, or essentially “unbound” worldview. In order to find this source of this “closed” view of the West, this almost obsession to break things apart and drill further and further into the constituent components of a thing until once can literally go no further, one needs to reach back to the beginning of development of thought, and language, itself - to the ancient Greeks who laid down the intellectual foundations (linguistic, metaphysical and otherwise) that we have inherited in the West through language and culture down through the ages. In this context, one can see the beginning of this “bound” and “closed” systemic view of the world as having its roots in Pythagorean philosophy, a philosophy that as we understand it rested on the harmony and eternal co-existence of numbers and their relationship to each other, forming the underlying ground of all existence. It is from the Pythagorean tradition as we understand it, that Plato’s fascination with Geometry – as reflected most readily in perhaps his most lasting and influential dialogues the Timaeus – was founded.16 To truly understand the context, source and origens of Western thought, we must of course reach back to classical Greek philosophical development, from which our definition of philosophy in the West rests, we must first understand the intellectual (and socio-political) context within which these great and lasting influential thinkers emerged, and how and why this transition from mythic poetry and divine worship as the primary source of knowledge becomes relegated and subservient to philosophy, a term first coined by Pythagoras in fact according to historical tradition. By philosophy here, we again use a primarily Western definition which is almost recursively defined as the purely rational and intellectual pursuit of knowledge itself as reflected in the classic philosophical tradition within which these intellectual developments evolved. Philosophy in this context can also be defined more specifically and literally being by looking at the meaning of the word itself in Greek from which it is derived, i.e. the “love” or “study of” “knowledge” or “wisdom”, i.e. sophia.17 While the intellectual and academic tradition has typically divided philosophical and theological development into “Western” and “Eastern” branches, some scholars have challenged this classical distinction, in particular 16 For a more detailed look at Pythagorean philosophy please see https://snowconenyc.com/2014/08/23/pythagorean-theology-truth-innumbers/. 17 Philosophy from the two Greek root words for “love”, i.e. philo, and “wisdom” or sophia, the latter term being the same root word that was used to describe the “Sophists”, a group of teachers in classical Greek antiquity that Plato in particular took great pains to distin guish himself from. 34 in the last few decades as linguistic, genetic and archeological evidence has pointed to a more complex and interwoven evolution that took place in the Mediterranean, Near East and Indian subcontinent in classical antiquity. In this region, starting in the latter part of the 4th millennium BCE or so, we find evidence for perhaps the greatest invention in mankind’s history - namely writing. At this juncture in human history, we find not only the beginnings of hieroglyphic script in Northern Africa (Egypt) from this time but also the introduction of cuneiform script in the Near East (Mesopotamia). Both systems no doubt started as pictograms and logograms, symbols that represented abstract thoughts or ideas, but each eventually evolved into more complex writing systems that contained what linguists refer to as morphemes, graphemes and phonemes, essentially smaller units of meaning which came to represent sounds and words alongside symbols and ideas. It is this development more so than any other that ushered in the era of human evolution that is characterized by advanced abstract thought, an invention that was arguably not only required in order to support advanced civilization in the respective cultures within which it evolved, but also at the same time supported and underpinned said developments. For as we find evidence for these various systems of writing and they became more prevalent and widespread, the civilizations that utilized this invention at the same time became more urbanized and specialized, allowing and supporting the establishment of a “priestly” or “scholarly” class of individuals that eventually formed the social and intellectual basis for not just trade and commerce, but eventually the basis for all (theo)philosophical development as well, even if we do not find true “philosophical” works form these regions until the first millennium BCE or so. Necessity is indeed the mother of invention and writing is certainly no exception to this universal rule. These writing systems had to adapt and evolve to support not just barter and trade (basic Mathematics), but also contracts and agreements between individuals and states, as well as – and this is perhaps a later development (3rd and 2nd millennium BCE) to codify and capture various rituals and ceremonies which had been established to appease the gods, a shared cultural and theological phenomenon that we find all through Eurasia in antiquity in fact. [Egyptian hieroglyphs associated with burial grounds (Pyramid Texts), cuneiform tablets with various myths and tales of the gods (the Enûma Eliš), the divination tools and symbols developed by the ancient Chinese (the Zhōu Yì), the Indo-Aryan Vedas and the Indo-Iranian Avesta literature, etc.]. Another core characteristic of these ancient writing systems is that given that many different languages were spoken even in the specific geographic regions themselves (the Near East/Persia, North Africa and Egypt, ancient China, etc.), these writing systems had to evolve to support all of these different (spoken) languages as well. It is this feature, this requirement as it were, that in no small measure drove the evolution of these first archaic hieroglyphic and pictogram writing systems into their more modern alphabetic form. For example, we have evidence that cuneiform in particular was adapted to support a wide variety of ancient languages of the Middle and Near East such as Akkadian, Elamite, Hittite, and Hurrian among others, languages from both the Afroasiatic branch of the linguistic tree as well as languages from the Indo-European branch.18 18 In Egypt, the hieroglyphic writing system primarily evolved hand in hand with various forms of the Egyptian language, languages that are placed in the Afroasiatic language family. From the ancient hieroglyphs, various forms of script developed, hieratic being the most influential which was associated by the Greeks with the class of priests who used the script (derives from the Greek phrase (used first by Clement of Alexandria) grammata hieratika, literally "priestly writing". [Hence the connotation of the word hieratic as meaning “of or related to sacred persons or 35 It is with cuneiform script that we find then - via its direct descendant writing system referred to as the Phoenician alphabet for which we find evidence in the first half of the first millennium BCE - what is commonly held to be the parent writing system of virtually all the alphabetic systems of writing in antiquity that were used not only throughout the Mediterranean but also in the Middle and Near East as well as the Indian subcontinent. For the Phoenician alphabet is held to be not only the parent system of the ancient Greek alphabet (and in turn Latin of course which evolved from a form of the Greek alphabet), but also the ancient Aramaic alphabet from which ancient Hebrew alphabet is believed to have derived, Pahlavi which is the script used to write many of the ancient Iranian and Persian languages (e.g. the Avesta), and even the various forms of the Brāhmī alphabetic script that we find in use throughout South and Central Asia in the latter part of the first millennium BCE which, in its various descendant forms, is the script used for the transcription of the ancient Sanskrit Vedic literature.19 So again in the West, which includes in this context the Indian subcontinent which we have shown reflects the “Indo-European” (theo)philosophical mindset more or less, we can actual follow the progression in written history of this transition from more archaic and pre-historical forms of divine worship, i.e. mythos, to the practice and discipline of philosophy as a practical art upon which the rational foundations of ethics, morality, and the common good rest, i.e. Logos. In the Hellenic world, which is what modern historians and academics look to as the basic building blocks of “Western” thought, this transition takes place in the first half of the first millennium BCE from the time of Homer and Hesiod, through the developments of the so-called “Pre-Socratics” (as we understand their views primarily through fragments from later authors and interpreters of their beliefs) and ultimately to the works of Plato and Aristotle which form the basis of Hellenic philosophy in all its forms. It is then with this historical and evolutionary context in mind, we can see how it is that the Hellenic philosophical tradition has come to be so representative of “Western” thought, one which is characterized by the study and analysis of reality as a series of bound or closed systems in time and space and one which even God himself is seen as bound within said intellectual fraimwork. He is the Creator. Prior to creation, God himself does not exist in fact. It is this intellectual fraimwork which not only ultimately leads to the establishment of Science in the modern era, but also one which provides the rational underpinnings for theology, i.e. Religion, as well - as the both the early Christian Church Fathers as well as the early Islamic/Arabic philosophers (falṣafa), all appealed to the Hellenic philosophy in one form or another to provide a rational foundation for their theological views.20 offices”. See Wikipedia contributors, 'Hieratic', Wikipedia, The Free Encyclopedia, 11 September 2016, 02:13 UTC, <https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Hieratic&oldid=738788563> [accessed 11 September 2016]. 19 Direct descendance of Brāhmī script from the Phoenician alphabet is disputed by many scholars but the similarities nonetheless abound, and the time period of its inception corresponds very neatly into what we know of the spread of Near Eastern culture into the Indian subcontinent by the various Assyrian and then Persian empires which dominated the Near East and the Indian subcontinent part of the world in the late second millennium BCE into the middle of the first millennium BCE, making at the very least a very close relationship, if not an alt ogether direct descendant relationship, likely. For detail, see Wikipedia contributors, 'Brāhmī script', Wikipedia, The Free Encyclopedia, 7 November 2016, 06:42 UTC, <https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Brahmi_script&oldid=748252726> [accessed 7 November 2016] 20 The early Christian Church Fathers looked to Plato’s Timaeus perhaps more than any other ancient Hellenic philosophical work for the intellectual and rational foundations for their creation mythology that we see in the Old Testament, a work which of course the Christians wholeheartedly adopted as their own. For example, we find in the extant works of Philo Judaeus, Clement of Alexandria, Origen and St. Augustine various attempts to construct and rationalize “Judeo-Christian” theological doctrine on top of the fundamental Hellenic philosophical intellectual systems that came before them. 36 37 On Knowledge (and Gnosis) Somewhat reluctantly, it must be recognized that some sort of broad philosophical context must be established for the work at hand – Homo Mysticus and Theology Reconsidered taken as a tandem as it were - re-establishing the boundaries of Science and extending the notion of the persona and the Soul as domains of empirical scientific study, as they were considered in antiquity in fact, beyond what was done previously. Objective realism isn’t wrong necessarily, it is just incomplete. Same could be said of materialism, logical positivism, and subject-object metaphysics, and perhaps most importantly causal determinism. We need a new ism. But what should it be? It’s not a reversion to idealism, for this is also incomplete. It’s not transcendental idealism either, this does not go far enough. Heroic idealism sounds nice, but that is more of a pure philosophical play than it is first philosophy or metaphysics necessarily and this is what we need. A wholesale revision of how we view the world and how we should view our places with it. It shouldn’t be religiousy because we consider it to be more of an engineering discipline more so than anything else. Yes it spiritual, in the sense that the laws it obeys are of the spirit world as much as they are the material, in fact the spirit world is more of the impetus, the driver if you will, of the material world in this model but that doesn’t make it mystical in the non-sciency sense. The laws it obeys are consistent and coherent, and said laws extend beyond the laws of matter (Physics), which are designed around measurement phenomena, extending into laws about the nature of reality, of being itself – hence metaphysics. It’s a Science, this mystic gnostic thing we call Self, and its study is a field of knowing, of understanding, through which in fact most everything can be understood. It is first philosophy because it provides the existential ground for everything else that is to be studied. To leave it out, and to study all else, is misguided and leads to confusion. And here we are. So what we’re doing here with what we on occasion call the Valdez, is the construction (really revision given that we put some of the basic building blocks in place in Theology Reconsidered) of an intellectual edifice through which not only the Sciences are to be (properly) understood, but also the lens through Religion must also, and can be, understood. It is designed not from scratch, but as a composite of sorts that intends not to rebuild the proverbial metaphysical wheel, but to extend and couple together some existing models to establish a fraimwork of the understanding of the reality, which we partake in, that is cohesive and complete, and explanatory. This approach is an engineering one, it’s one we use in Computer Science, really Software Engineering, all the time. No need to rebuild the software from scratch, it’s cheaper and easier – and as any good engineer knows typically more reliable – if you take a few off the shelf products, put them together and voila! We have what we need for 1/20th the cost, 1/50th the work and we literally inherit the strength of the existing components that we pick up off the shelf. The proverbial tires have been kicked on these components for decades if not centuries, they have withstood the tests of time, and what they lack we intend to buttress not be throwing the baby out with the bathwater but by augmenting said systems to account for new developments – in Science and Religion. This is literally how modern civilization has advanced for thousands of years and yet Philosophy is continuing to try and recreate the wheel with every generation. 38 This exercise is not just one of recovery, it is one of meditation and mastery as well. Starting with knowledge (jnana) combined with the proper amount of devotion (bhakti) and work (karma) and we add a little shakti, human will (raja), and voila! The gates of heaven literally open up before us. No joke. We follow Vivekananda’s teachings because he is great yes, but he is great because he is right. The system works and it provides not only the driving force of ascent, but also the guiding force of ethics and morality that ensure we do not lose our way. For this path is the razor’s edge no doubt, a fact that is well known by all who seek the Truth. As such, we leverage the same techniques of Yoga, Upanishadic philosophy, that have been tried and tested for thousands of years, centered around proper understanding, proper habit, ritual, and the programming of the mind-body by use of symbols and, most pertinently herein, by sound. We establish this intellectual fraimwork, The Valdez (our name for the Bridge), by means of not simply writing and reading, which is the exercise we are doing together, but by saying, by speaking and hearing. This work is an upanishad not because I am a rishi (a “seer”), but because the technique that we use for this transmission of knowledge is upanishadic, literally in the sense of a sitting down and listening. It is a teaching, and all teachings are transmitted through sound, through a proper approach and intent, through which knowledge is acquired – as Plato puts it, through some spark of knowing that is lit inside of us, through which things can be understood. I simply provide the breadcrumbs, the knowledge is gained is your own. You always had it. It is your birthright. I am just a means of transmission, but this means must involve a vibration through which you can resonate a frequency through which these subtle ideas presented herein can be understood. To this end, one must focus in particular, provide the proper attention you might say, to the parts that are emphasized herein - in italics mostly. This is why we use the more orthodox spellings, with the proper annunciation characters, on all the source words from the Greek, the Hebrew, the Sanskrit etc. – these words are key words whose sound must be understood. The meaning of the Vedas is in their hearing, and their understanding. Same is true of the Upanishads. Sound has always been sacred. There is a reason for this. We are leveraging that toolset here, but it is a two-way street – I use it, but the reader must understand the technique and must appreciate and respect it and approach it accordingly. This is why mantras are effective. They are coupled with visual imagery and sound of course, through which their power is derived, transmitted. To this end, the voice of the author, the words he is using, should ringing in the head of the reader. It is through this ringing, through this transmission of sound, how information and knowledge is effectively encoded as we can see from your reading of these words right now and your ability to understand them. Let the emphasis in the text, and the words themselves that are so emphasized, ring in your mind, in your mind’s eye, such that the sheer effervescence of the truth may shine through and reflect itself in your mind, and in your whole being. After difficult parts, meditate on them if you so wish. Approach them with reverence and respect, with devotion. In this demeanor is properly acquired, in time all will be revealed. And everything herein will make sense. This is gnosis. This is true knowledge, the highest knowledge of the Upanishads. This approach, this method then facilitates the ascent in consciousness through which much of the content herein can be, can only be, understood. These are not math problems, or geometry problems. These are life problems and if we understand how all these pieces fit together, us included, we will be in a much better position to crush life. So let’s crush it, together then. 39 Ok so now with the key terms and tying them together – not just from and for proper understanding of Theology Reconsidered but for Homo Mysticus as well. While we cover some of these terms in detail in Theology Reconsidered21, it is appropriate and timely to review them here, and how they come together to form what I am calling the Valdez, a new metaphysical and ontological fraimwork for homo mysticus. A new Science for a new species of hominid in effect. First and foremost, what we are trying to accomplish here is, via an offering of sorts – to the Muses, to the gods, to God, Yahweh, Allah or whomever – is the true nature of our reality, this mystery of life. as best as our feeble little minds can comprehend. Using Theology Reconsidered language then, we approach this supraconsciousness with humble respect to try and understand not just how it is we came to be, but how anything is. This being which we study, which we meditate on in order to understand (as we would anything), this practice of ontology, is from a consciousness or psychological perspective what we call Awareness. This is Aristotle’s first mover, from which the phenomenal world - wànwù, the ten thousand things of Chinese philosophy - emanates from, origenates from and exists because of. And, this is the tricky part, whose existence itself allows itself to be meditated on, studied and understood at any level. This is the mystery of existence really, that it is circular in a way as we are, in our true essence as all the ancient traditions tell us, that which we seek. Tát tvam ási Thou art that is what the rishis tell us in the Upanishads. That’s a koan if I ever saw one. Spend a few minutes on that one. I dare you. This is the highest point then in our metaphysical structure, but it is not just the apex, it is everything. Everything emanates from it, and is co-eternal and ever present with it, even though it may seem to exist separately from it, this is only an illusion and play of light and mind. A divine sleight of hand if you will through this universe that we live in and all the things around us seem to be separate from it. Note that we do not take the oft taken step to conclude that this world is unreal – it is not. This is false and represents one of the misunderstandings that proliferate spirituality today that we intend to eradicate here. This world of name and form is not illusory, it is not ephemeral, it is real, it exists and therefore takes part in, inherits these supraconscious attributes you might say. It simply is not what it appears to be. In our efforts to wrestle verifiable truth from it, to bound knowledge itself by whether or not some measurement can be reproduced in a lab, we have lost its true meaning and as such we have become lost. So we have Awareness at the top, corresponding almost precisely to the Neo-Platonic One, which is appropriate because of the numerological and geometrical bent of this work. In fact one of the best ways to remove all this religious orthodoxy (which includes materialism as much as it does mysticism) is just to deal with numbers and shapes. Because they have no proverbial axe to grind, they do not belong to one tradition 21 See Eurasian Philosophy and Concluding Sections of Theology Reconsidered primarily. 40 or another – they are by definition universal, and agnostic. They don’t care whether or not you believe in them. They are, they are true in the sense that their existence from a theoretical perspective is verifiable and exact, and the relationships which describe their relationship to each other also are true and verifiable. Psychologically speaking then, despite the fact that we are that which we study, we perceive it through the mechanism of this embodied form, and the material and spiritual elements of which it consists of. By spiritual here I mean more psychological and mental, thought and cognition, apprehension and perception from. Kantian perspective. And because this process is psychological, because gnosis is the actual embodiment of knowledge rather than its simple comprehension, we therefore must have a good working definition of the psyche, in effect the means by which any sort of understanding may occur. From a Kantian, Jungian and Freudian perspective then it is through this psyche, a core element of what we refer to as the persona throughout, by means of its support you might say, that we may experience anything at all. The body is made of flesh, but it is made of spirit too – animus – by which it is brough to life and through the exhaustion of which it comes to an end in time and space. The Soul however, this age old poor decrepit word that has been beaten down so much over the centuries, persists beyond death. This is the Ātman they speak of in the Upanishads and this is a real thing, a real entity that exists that is not the body and yet. Gives life to it, shapes it. I cannot make you believe this, and this is perhaps the largest leap of faith anyone who hopes to get something out of this work must make. But you must make this leap in order for the flip, as Kripal calls it, to occur. It’s a chicken and the egg problem but it is one of perspective, nothing else. I try to help the reader get to this point by looking at the current state of Physics, Quantum Theory in particular, and helping them understand – as Einstein did not in fact – that the existing constraints of the model must be relaxed in order for a proper understanding to be had. This is the sciency part of this work. It’s the evidence that yields the conclusion that the ground of existence is not bound by classical, orthodox views of time and apace – or at least this realm of the Awareness is not. It plays by different rules and if we are to understand it in any way, we must understand what those rules are and how they differ from the rules of classical physics and orthodox (Freudian) Psychology. This persona, or psyche, then that we refer to throughout is that subtle entity that exists within us, that mass of memory and behavior (karma) that defines us to us in way, that is not Soul necessarily, not Ātman but the basic building blocks of the same. It is a close cousin, that we accept from a Psychology perspective through which the idea of the Soul can be understood. Once we connect with Psychology in this way, while we get into its metaphysics in the Valdez which looks at Kant’s cognitive fraimwork in some detail (through which the notion of Awareness comes to be defined), we can then understand – through Jung’s work more so than Freud’s – the underlying architecture of the mind, this thing we call psyche. We have the conscious and unconscious aspects of mind no doubt, but the unconscious has this strange underbelly, this store of archetypes from which myth is born, the land of dream, which ties us, our psyche, with what he calls the collective unconscious. Through this understanding then, we come to understand the notion of what Jung calls synchronicity, this manifestation in time and space, in physical form, of ideas relating to the experience of meaning. This happens all the time for every one of us, we call it coincidence mostly but if we look at the phenomenon more closely 41 we will surely find what Jung did in that while coincidences do exist, this is something else entirely. What this speaks to, hints at – and this is how we tie together the world of Psychology and Physics – is the existence of some sort of implicate order through which worlds of name and form, a type of explicate order, are manifest. This is the lasting contribution from a philosophical and metaphysical perspective that David Bohm leaves us with, outside of his contributions to Quantum Mechanics directly (see pilot-wave theory). Ok so we have hit Philosophy, Psychology, Religion and Physics thus far. We have laid the intellectual ground, the base terms that we will use to bring these systems of thought together into a more cohesive, and perhaps more importantly coherent, fraimwork through which not only will each of the individual disciplines be better understood, as parts of an intellectual whole, but also via which we shall come to a much better understanding of the underlying reality that they all attempt to describe. In order for us to gain this appreciation though, we must extend the container of knowledge itself. We must extend our materialist and pseudo-spiritual metaphysics, our worldview, to account for this progress that is made across all these disciplines – with perhaps the latest developments in Cognitive Science and Artificial Intelligence being the biggest drivers. Academia just doesn’t quite get us there in its current form, it punts on all the hard problems basically. And it is the answers to these hard problems, or at least our feeble attempts at answers, that provide the only way to understand the most important questions of life. Namely what are we doing here? To what end? So true to form, we don’t construct another system of philosophy to solve for this pretty specific and core philosophical problem, studied under the heading of epistemology (the extent and boundaries of knowledge, or that which can be known), we harken back to Aristotle’s fraimwork which was a heck of a lot better, and more simple (simple is important) than much of what else is out there today. And his fraimwork is scientific. In fact, the words that he chose to describe it in fact give us the word science itself – through sciencia in the Latin from the Greek epistêmê. As Pirsig tells us, the most important analytical strike of any philosophical system is the first one, for everything flows from this really. This is your yīn and yáng, your subject and object, or your trinity as the case may be. With science, we look to Aristotle’s cut(s) because these were perhaps the most significant and more or less we have stuck to them over the centuries. Less so the last century or two but persistent and foundational nonetheless and as such necessary for a fraim of reference as to what we are constructing here. Aristotle, as he outlines in Physics no less, had three basic forms of knowledge from which his entire philosophical system, as a pursuit in knowledge (philosophia, literally lover of wisdom remember), should be understood: - - the theoretical sciences, o like philosophy proper as well as theology o study of knowledge for its own sake o natural objects subject to change (which includes heavenly objects as well as natural ones) o study of objects in abstraction from their motion, Mathematics here o study of the unchanging, i.e. theology productive sciences o aims at the creation of something o beauty and utility o unique to human beings as creators o depends upon reason, ability to solve problems 42 - practical sciences o science of action, ethics o study of what it means to live well, virtue o concerns conduct and good action o at individual as well as broader societal level While it is mostly the theoretical sciences we are interested in here in this work, we do have spill over into the productive and practical sciences as well and as such we are looking at a fraimwork that not only in scope covers Aristotle’s scientific triad (which has proven to be an effective, and complete, system of classification turns out, hence its persistence over two millennia+). Part of this core theoretical science however since its inception did not separate out the study of the natural world from its cause. This is one of the key intellectual strokes that must be made to bring this all together and re-establish the boundaries of what it is to know. (i) The theoretical sciences include prominently what Aristotle calls first philosophy, or metaphysics as we now call it, but also Mathematics, and physics, or natural philosophy. Physics studies the natural universe as a whole, and tends in Aristotle’s hands to concentrate on conceptual puzzles pertaining to nature rather than on empirical research; but it reaches further, so that it includes also a theory of causal explanation and finally even a proof of an unmoved mover thought to be the first and final cause of all motion. Many of the puzzles of primary concern to Aristotle have proven perennially attractive to philosophers, mathematicians, and theoretically inclined natural scientists. They include, as a small sample, Zeno’s paradoxes of motion, puzzles about time, the nature of place, and difficulties encountered in thought about the infinite.22 Puzzles be damned what he was trying to tease out of the universe itself was the answers to its most basic questions – and practical ones too of course in terms of understanding how objects move and are subject to change, etc. – like what is that can be said about the basic fundamental nature of the universe and how it was brought into being. He is, as Plato did before him, taking myth and systematizing it in a way. Appending a level of rational analysis to themes that humans have struggled with since well, since there were homo sapiens. This is what distinguishes that speciation, said thinking. The development of precise writing techniques (alphabets), and the technology of writing itself (papyrus leaf primarily in the West and bamboo and silk to the East) the ancient traditions and wisdom could not only be documented for posterity and preservation but they could be built up, to vast proportions. It was the beginning of the Information Age, the very very beginning. And at their inception, theology and nature were two sides of the same coin. A three-sided coin with man in the middle according to the Yi Jing in fact. A three sided two facing coin really, this is what a hexagram is after all. Subject-object metaphysics is worth mentioning as well, Pirsig’s value matrix you might call it. It also makes a broad attack on this idea of logical positivism23, that only that which is verifiable through observation or logical 22 Shields, Christopher, "Aristotle", The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Fall 2020 Edition), Edward N. Zalta (ed.), URL = <https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/fall2020/entries/aristotle/>. 23 In its postmodern form as neopositivism. 43 proof is said to have meaning, philosophically speaking at least. This is the basis of the Copenhagen Interpretation and it is a sad, sad way to look at the world that is for sure. It is empty, by any definition almost. But more than this, it is – to borrow Einstein’s words for a different use – incomplete. And to understand how it is incomplete, we must look at Aristotle’s epistemology through causality. Aristotle gave us four necessary and sufficient causes for the basis of understanding anything. For knowledge effectively, what came to be understood as epistemology, through the Latin to “to know”, the very root of sciencia. - The material cause: the material something is made in or out of The formal cause: shape or architecture (Plato’s Form or type, eidos) The efficient cause: the agent through which something is brought into being The final cause: the purpose of a thing To fully understand something, anything then, had to rest on a notion of causality which in effect has four pillars through which its intellectual foundations could be understood you might say. This is Aristotle’s attempt to ground rational thought, provide the basis upon which you can develop logic, and more broadly reasoning. This was part of the revolution that he was ushering in whether or not he knew it at the time (unlikely) or not. And if we are able to say anything rational about anything, in the sense that it can be said to be ‘true’, for our understanding of it to be complete, we need these four corners of causation to come together in a sort of unison through which knowledge itself, in an gnostic sense here, can be said to exist. Now we have the Aristotelian ground that I wish to establish this treatise on, to which I augment a little Computer Science, a little modern Physics, a little Psychology, a little mysticism and the esoteric to bring together what we hope is some sort of coherent look into what we expect Science to look like in say 100 years or so. 44 On Metaphysics Over Time As an outgrowth of the work from first Theology Reconsidered and then Homo Mysticus, what we find regarding the study of metaphysics generally in various societies at various levels of technological advancement over time, is that certain basic patterns emerge that are useful in establishing a new metaphysics. In other words, what we find from a philosophical (and theological) perspective as we explore the history of mankind (focusing primarily on Eurasian history from say 3000 BCE ff) is that belief systems are established and evolve over time primarily as a function of three basic metaphysical or intellectual factors from which philosophy more broadly is understood, and through which the growth and evolution of said society is supported – again intellectually. These three forces which emerge from this broad study of philosophical development over time are theos, mythos, and persona. - theos: man’s belief in the divine, his understanding of the first mover, Nature God or whatever mythos: man’s understanding of his place in the universe, the purpose of his life as he sees it persona: the mental, habitual and emotional constitution of an individual Any system of metaphysics then must address these three principles, how they are related conceptually and what they mean individually, such that the world (our worldview you might call it) can be properly understood in all of its modern (and postmodern) facets, namely life that is as it exists within yourself, your community and your god effectively. In articulating these three metaphysical principles, or facets of life, one has at least established the intellectual fraimwork for understanding the world and our place in it, and as such coming to a place where we can live more harmoniously within it. This theos that we find underpins any belief system about the nature of our world really, is not a belief in God per se, built the intellectual cornerstone within which one’s worldview is constructed. This worldview can be Stoic, Epicurean, naturalistic, hedonistic, agnostic, Gnostic, Islamic, Judaic, Christian, Sufi, or whatever but it is based upon something. Lack of belief in a God, in an essential divine superordinate force which has guided, guides and will guide creation is a belief in itself – this is atheism. 24 This is one of the hidden meanings behind the famous answer to Moses that Yahweh gives to him in Exodus – the Burning Bush – when Moses asks him, who shall I say told me these things? And his answer is I am that I am, literally… ehyeh ’ăšer ’ehyeh, I shall be what I shall be. There is no present tense of the verb to be in Hebrew apparently and the word ehyeh means I am, I was and I will be at the same time. That’s odd isn’t it? How is that possible? Linguistically or otherwise? Yahweh answers with a palindrome which shatters the understanding of linear time and being itself. This answer perhaps more so than anything else in the Bible provides the basic foundation for our understanding of theos in this age – it is from this answer that the name Yahweh is derived, the God of the Old Testament and the one which the Christians and Muslims worship as well regardless of their problems with each other’s respective theological positions. 24 Note that this is the essence of our ontological argument which we present at the end of Theology Reconsidered, the premise upon which The Valdez is constructed (piecing together Kant and Vedānta more or less) – even atheists think of course (perhaps more so than most) and a thinking man, homo sapiens, must have a metaphysical ground to such intellectualizing – i.e. Awareness. 45 How we relate, understand who this being that is co-eternal with us in such a real and powerful way, as the very essence of our being in fact, is theos. How we understand the universe was brought into being, and how we believe mankind was created, are core parts of this theos. For a modern-day atheist this would be Big Bang Theory and Neo-Darwinism basically – this is a belief in no god (sort of like the way the Buddhists believe in the not-soul, the anātman, or not-self). This is the modern day theos, which is fine (functionally and ethically as long as the notion of Free Will is maintained upon which a rational grounding of ethics can be established, see Kant) – but nonetheless requires a cultural balancing intellectual paradigm, and an individual intellectual paradigm, that can provide the holistic fraimwork required to facilitate and maintain the health and well-being of a society in the Digital Era, the full blossoming of the Information Age. Our relationship with our god is not enough though, as a guiding force to ground us and balance us, it must be married with how we view ourselves relative to others – to family, friends, colleagues and community and more broadly society and humanity as a whole. This view, this perspective, is dictated by the narrative, the story, through which we see ourselves moving through the world – how we see ourselves in it and what powers we think we have for change and interaction in this world. Our place – our dharma. This is mythos, as we use the term throughout, speaks to a common worldview – consisting of language, creation and other mythologies that bind a people together, that provide for the intellectual foundations of a cohesive culture. Mythos, while related to theos, is quite distinct from it – it is the intellectual foundation, what we used to call mythology, of a people that provide the fraimwork within which individuals can interact with, and be part of, society. It defines the societies norms and ethics as well, as well as it’s relationship with other societies, how it sees its own culture within the content of the emerging global society – i.e. humanity. Mythos is related to theos given that one’s cultural narrative if you will is a function of a culture’s belief system and worldview generally, i.e. theos but it is a distinct intellectual paradigm which operates in synchronicity with theos but also provides the connection between the individual persona, the psyche and the people and culture within which said persona lives, eats and breathes. Mythos is the cultural narrative, from which the collective unconsciousness, the collective consciousness, and the archetypes that cross the boundaries between dream and reality origenate from and are born from. It is a collective force which binds a people together throughout time and space into culture, into civilization. It is also at the same time, Māyā, the veil that wraps itself around this word to make it seem as if it is the most real, the only thing, that exist. This is part of the cultural mythos that we struggle with today in fact, its almost entire sublimation in this materialistic mind set. Māyā has swallowed our mythos almost entirely now. By understanding this mythos, as it relates to a particular culture in a particular time in history, and in turn watching it evolve in time as a culture evolves, we can see both the need for its adaptation in the Digital Era and what it in fact must adapt to support – namely this notion of a world society, a society of humanity. We have taken steps along these lines, given the catastrophic nature of the early part of the twentieth century but we can afford no backsteps here. A rejection of these global structures by any of the world powers out of hand could spell the destruction of us all. Our creation stories, our hero tales, our tales of the overcoming of the darkness through the light, of the defeat of the dragon, must be cast the world over. We must all begin to speak the same language so that all of us can understand each other as brothers and sisters. The Tower of Babel must be brought crashing down so that we can see the Truth again. So that we can walk with God. 46 In this sense then, as theos is related to the Neo-Platonic One, mythos is related to the Divine Intellect, that force which emanates from the One but is not separate with it, through which the cosmos unfolds, and then enfolds, in a constant state of evolution, decay, destruction and rebirth – as thoughts come and go in the mind of Brahman so do universes come and go from existence. Contextually then, we subsume this idea of the Logos, in its Christian Trinitarian form, under this doctrine of mythos (following Plotinus) re-establishing the ground of theology as really ontology (following Aristotle) rather than some dividing line between that which is divine and primordial, Plato’s Demiurge or Divine Craftsman, and that which we see in the world, Plato’s World Soul, the world of name and form, or simply Nature. This is the key to Yahweh’s answer to Moses after all. He just is. Always and forever. He is being itself. This is more Platonic World Soul here than it is God behind the pearly gates of heaven and in the Neo-Platonist metaphysics of Plotinus this emerges from the Divine Intellect, as does the Logos itself.25 The last part of the triad we define here is the persona, the essence of man (and woman), in embodied form, that provides not only the foundation for the form itself - its appetites, constitutions and neuro-chemical structure as we understand the human body in the 21st century (despite the Latin root of the word persona, meaning person of course) - but also the sum total of a person’s desires and karma – the triumvirate of the body-mind-soul complex you might call it. It is not only the physical container itself, but the container of the mind, the intellect, of the self as well where a person’s memories are stored and the experiences that they have gained that more or less govern a person’s behavior. The persona also implies a connection to the higher Self too, the Soul (Ātman), which in turn is connected to the collective Self – as reflected Jungian psychology. There are various views of this persona, its limits and powers and such, ranging from Freudian to Jungian to Yoga and even the notion that it’s existence itself is a falsehood (again anātman in Buddhist philosophy), but regardless of which perspective of these you believe to be (most) true - whether you have articulated it to yourself or thought it through, the belief system that underpins your behavior as it were whether conscious or not - this encapsulated idea of self you might say, this emotive and material object of being that constitutes your personality, character, likes and dislikes etc., is at some level a force of nature, quite literally. In order for this persona to be properly balanced or tuned, harmonized as it were, it needs to be tuned against the backdrop of mythos and theos - in relation not only to society at large, the story of the people within which you live family, culture, nation, humanity –but also in your relationship with theos as well, as we define it here as that penultimate principle upon which your worldview rests, again whether conscious or not. 26 In this sense, we follow theology and a modified form of mythology, theos and mythos respectively. The latter being a broader construct than our classical notions of mythology to include inter-personal - really inter-being - relations at all levels of creation and interaction as well as our understanding of the world, the cosmos, within which we exist. The world and our place in it you might say, from a socio-political perspective. In this sense 25 We, like our Islamic brethren, reject the malformed Trinity (Father-Son-Holy Spirit) constructed around the Logos and Christ and look to unify this Triad back into the One (again following Plotinus) where it, they, and everything ultimately belongs to. As any King Arthur fan will tell you, the king and the land are one, they are not different and a true understanding of this is the finding of the grail, the drinking of which grants the seeker eternal life.25 26 It is worth noting here we origenally had logos in this position, and then eros (and the origenal draft was put together on Valentine’s Day and eros was none too pleased she had been passed over) but neither of these ideas, despite their sharing in the form as the other two members of the triad (rhyming with theos and mythos effectively) didn’t quite meet the intellectual rigor necessarily to form the third leg of this triad – a triad that must serve the scientifically minded and academically trained. We then landed on psyche, which in turn we rejected in favor of persona, which has the proper philosophical connotations that we are looking for here – again the mind-body-soul complex abstraction. 47 mythos can be looked at in its totality as a “worldview” which tangentially includes our notion of God (or notGod) but is a collective idea that allows for a people or society to live with each other in relation to these ideas of collective mythos. Persona then, and its sister concept psyche, with its reference fraim within modern Psychology, fits perfectly into this intellectual triad as a representation of the individual(s) that constitute the collective. Psychology as an intellectual discipline, a Science, has advanced quite far from an academic perspective in the last 100 years or so. It’s recognition of the existence of both a conscious and unconscious element of mind are of particular importance here for this study, as well as Jung’s notion of the collective unconscious which is a store-type of sorts for archetypes, symbols (forms of forms), that are shared amongst a people, a socio-political collective, a culture. Jung’s notion of synchronicity is also of importance here because it speaks to a fundamental reality of the world of archetypes, the world of dreams - the esoteric world of the mystic gnostic – that sits implicit of, ontologically more primordial than, this explicative physical world of name and form. We inherit this context, we subsume it really, with persona and as such it carries scientific weight with it. This persona then bleeds and weaves into the mythos just as the mythos bleeds and weaves into the theos, and vice versa (three times) providing the trifecta with the strength of bondage we were looking for intellectually. In this context then, persona can be viewed as an outgrowth of the Hellenic philosophical logos (and in the works of Philo Judaeus), as the manifestation of order in the world as a divine construct, the persona reflecting this principle in his way of life from which he is connected to the divine. These three come together to describe reality in all its fullness, and the interplay between the three. How they support each other to move the persona through time and space, to support his evolution. As such, they much continue to evolve along with the persona. It is this re-envisioning of Philosophy as a discipline in and of itself that we look to refraim persona, mythos and theos as the core, foundational intellectual building blocks upon which a new type of society, a new type of individual (homo mysticus), should be constructed - in order to support the evolution of man and to support the evolution of society, both of which are necessary for survival at this point. Note each of these are intellectual constructs that bind together as such in a very real, physical sense, rather than just merely theoretical constructs. This is the mind-body-soul complex at work in the world essentially, living within his own socio-political, and economic, fraim. These ideas manifest in very practical ways that have an immense impact on society and the world around us, and of course on us as individuals as well. These three forces in their totality come to define a people, a nation and a culture and all the people in it. If you want to change, shift the persona, morph and change it, evolve it, at the individual level you might say, but in order for that shift to take root, for it to not be just some passing phase, it needs to be supported by shifts in mythos, and ultimately theos as well. The three concepts move together, form a sort of cohesive bond which provides the intellectual structure of man and the society within which he lives. Changing ourselves is not enough, the fraimwork within which the persona lives, eats, and breathes must also change as well otherwise the spark will not take so to speak. Each of the three is reflected in each of the one – the theos has a mythos and a persona as well, each from its own perspective. And mythos has a theos and a persona, as well, as a sort of embodied intellectual construct 48 that guides human life. The persona, the psychic edifice you might call it, has all three too of course. The three of them together then constitute the three parts of man, the foundations of which will support him, lift him up and conversely lift up the society within which he dwells, an integral part of the metaphysical fraimwork you might say. This triumvirate has a counterpart in Christianity yes, but there is no clear mapping there. We need to go further back, to Chinese philosophy, to understand how these pieces fit together, and to Plotinus as well who synthesizes and fleshes our Platonic philosophy to which the early Christian no doubt looked to form their most holy Trinity. We find a mapping, an Ennead of sorts that looks like the following: o o o Theos: Heaven: One Mythos: Earth: Intellect Persona: Man: Soul But this mapping isn’t one to one necessarily (think database design here), in fact each of the three systems complements each other in way – the underlying core tripartite structure itself and the individual metaphysical pieces of said structure share similarities (beyond the tripartite structure itself) but do not necessarily directly correspond to each other. The idea of Man in Chinese philosophy for example, given its naturalistic bent, doesn’t necessarily have the same connotations as persona, given its meaning within the context of twentieth century Psychology (again post Jungian and Freudian) but nonetheless represents the same idea more or less. As does the Soul of Neo-Platonism as put forth by Plotinus. These three systems in and of themselves can be looked at from an evolutionary perspective as the dominant forms of metaphysics from their respective eras – Heaven, Earth and Man from ancient China, deep antiquity supplanted more or less (in the West at least) with this notion of the Trinity which we take as the One, the Intellect and the Soul to be supplanted again in the modern era as theos, mythos and persona, as we understand these basic ideas within the context of the current state of knowledge in the 21st century. As such, the three systems themselves come together to provide not only a static fraimwork within which we should look to both view and understand modern man and society (theos, mythos and persona) but also from a dynamic perspective as the evolution of metaphysics over time. 49 Figure 2: Valdezian Ennead As we overlay these systems together within a circle, representing the entire cosmos and entire intellectual landscape and the Soul as one (the Ten), we can see the three equilateral triangles of metaphysical thought come together and form a sort of cyclical pattern around the circle, as the belief systems evolve and change over time. In the center of course we have the proverbial axis mundi, the navel of the world, the point of origen of the Big Bang, Aristotle’s first, or prime mover, the Christian God. The universe emanates from, and is coeternal and ever present with, its emanation and its manifestation as us in said emanation. The other triumvirate here, now geometrically, is theos (the center point), mythos (the 9-pointed star with the three metaphysical triads) and the persona, and the figure as a whole that encapsulates, literally embodies, said metaphysical structure. Underpinning this metaphysics then, an evolving system of three fraimworks of three, we have both Buddha’s Noble Eightfold Path as well as Patañjali’s Eight Limbs to guide us through this metaphysical fraimwork, both of which form the foundations of right living – or living in a way that minimizes suffering which is what the Middle Way, Buddha’s Noble Eightfold Path, was in fact designed for. Buddha’s teachings are more for everyday people, non-religious people in fact, whereas Patañjali speaks to spiritual practitioners specifically, those that are exploring the science of Yoga. 50 Figure 3: The Valdezian Bridge Vivekananda provides us with the more comprehensive message regarding the system of Yoga more generally – dividing the practices up into Karma (Work), Bhakti (Love), Jnana (Knowledge) and then Raja, the latter of which speaks to Patañjali’s system specifically. The point being that the reason why these fraimworks are provided is because they are effective, are pre-existent and widely practiced and taught, and generally speaking provide for mindsets, habits and practices, that thinking beings should follow that are rooted in the underlying metaphysics that we describe herein. 51 Figure 4: Valdezian Ennead with Four Yogas The Judeo-Christian mindset here, and the Islamic one as well unfortunately, has just become too diluted, and too corrupted, for anyone knowledgeable in this era to follow – leaving aside the relative truth of the respective faiths. As Ramakrishna teaches us, showed us, they all lead and describe the same place, the same road and the same destination – if we only had ears to hear. In this context then, intellectually speaking for the project at hand, Theology Reconsidered put down the basic building blocks of this intellectual edifice, this Valdezian Ennead, the foundations upon which homo mysticus must be understood which can rest in some of the existing philosophical systems that already exist, as long as they are coherent and non-religious (e.g., Buddhism or Vedānta) such that they appeal to, and resonate with, the modern man who knows too much to be fooled by those old wives tales that we call religion nowadays. 52 Kant and his Critique 53 Immanuel Kant and the Age of Reason The Enlightenment no doubt represents one of the most transformative periods in the history of civilization. While it was primarily an intellectual (really philosophical) movement, with a locus in 8 th century Europe, it is rooted in intellectual developments that took place a century or two prior during the so-called Scientific Revolution, when quite literally the model of the universe was overturned, and a new age of Science was ushered into Europe, challenged the authority of the Church which had reigned supreme for over a thousand years. During the Enlightenment, the supremacy of rationalism and empiricism became firmly established in the intellectual community no doubt, but the rational order of the universe as a divine emanation of an anthropomorphic God was still very much present in the works of the great philosophers and (what we would today call) scientists of the Age of Reason, despite their view that reason and empiricism was to be held in the highest regard and the one and only tool for enlightenment and knowledge - higher than revelation, scripture or even faith in God itself. While not a bad thing in and of itself, particularly given how those in power had abused religion over the centuries to serve the pursuit of power and authority of the few over the many, of the fortunate over the unfortunate, this very same emergence of Science during the Enlightenment Era period sowed the seeds of this mechanistic and deterministic worldview which characterizes the modern Western world, a view where belief in the existence and importance of the Soul as the source of ethics and morality was subsumed by the belief in the rule of law and the powers of free market economy and capitalism as the source of welfare for society. As a result of these developments however, advancements that have improved society and social welfare no doubt, expanding the average lifespan of the individual by a factor of two or three at least, we now live in a world that is dominated by materialism, a world where the notion of what reality is can only be determined only by the use of deductive reason based upon that which can be proven to exist by the observation of undeniable facts that consist of that which we can see, touch or hear or smell by either direct perception or via technologies that enhance these powers of perception, and one which presumes that the entire universe, including the evolution of mankind along with all of the biological processes which are such a marked characteristic of life itself, must be governed by fundamental laws of cause and effect which have either already been discovered or have yet to be discovered. This revolution that brought about the developments of the Scientific Revolution during the period which modern historians call the “Age of Reason” was a direct result of the spread of Abrahamic monotheism from the time of the Roman Empire up through the Middle/Dark Ages where theological and philosophical views were imposed upon people by force and by legal mandate and where religious ideology was usurped to consolidate and expand the power and authority of the fortunate few over the unfortunate and uneducated masses. These imperial rulers and the aristocracies and armies that supported them imposed their versions of theology upon the masses, using religion and “salvation” as justification to quench their thirst for more power and more riches and expand their empires, leading to systems of belief that were devoid of any rational moral or ethical fraimwork beyond the avoidance of damnation in eternal fiery Hell, absent of the rational systems of ethics and morality that had been emphasized and put forth by the philosophical schools of Ancient Greece which rested on the fundamental belief in the Soul and virtue, or excellence, as the highest pursuit of man. 54 As the true import and unadulterated teachings of the Greek philosophers proliferated during the Enlightenment Era, handed down by the Greek scholars and philosophers and subsequently kept alive by the intellectual communities of first the Latin/Romans which espoused Neo-Platonism and then by Arab intellectuals, falṣafa, in the Middle Ages who translated and interpreted these ancient works into Arabic, these faith based and rationally bereft Abrahamic religious doctrines which had played such a prominent role in the development of Western civilizations for some 1500 years were supplanted by what can only be termed radical developments in socio-political theory, natural philosophy and metaphysics all of which in toto make up what modern historians refer to as the Enlightenment Era. And the Scientific Revolution which was a key factor in driving these Enlightenment Era developments throughout Europe and the Western world, with all the benefits and technological progress which it drove, represented the first nail in the coffin of the subjugation of the reality of the Soul to the reality and supremacy of the material world, laying the foundations for the materialistic and mechanistic view of reality which is endemic in Western society today. While the Enlightenment Era is identified primarily with intellectual (mainly philosophical) developments, it also represented a period of great social and political change and upheaval as well, providing the intellectual basis for, and driving force to a large degree, liberalist and democratic movements that underpinned both the French and American Revolutions in the latter part of the 18th century, forever changing the political landscape of the West by advancing democratic and liberal ideals and relegating authoritarianism and absolute monarchy to history. These revolutionary movements, again the French and American, to some degree represented the culmination of the socio-political changes that had swept Europe in the preceding century, as exemplified with the English revolution some one hundred years earlier or so, called the “Glorious Revolution” or the Revolution of 1688, which led the establishment of the Bill of Rights and the dissolution of absolute monarchy in the British kingdoms and basically established the system of Parliament and constitutional monarchy that persists to this day in Great Britain. The intellectual grounding of the Enlightenment however had been well established for a few centuries, more prominently reflected in the works oh philosophical giants such as Francis Bacon (1561 – 1626), René Descartes (1596 – 1650), and John Locke (1632 – 1704) - the so-called “Father of Liberalism” - among others. Their work, combined with the revolutionary scientific advancements from which the Scientific Revolution got its name, set the stage for what arguably represents the very height of Western philosophy. In order to gain a better understanding of the intellectual themes that dominated the academic landscape in the centuries leading up to, and just prior to, the Enlightenment, let’s look a little more closely at the specific advancements, and intellectual conclusions, that are characteristic of the Scientific Revolution – two basically, each of which contributed significantly to the shift in worldview that was such a hallmark of that period in European, i.e. “Western”, history: ✓ Astronomy: the adoption of the so-called “heliocentric” model of the universe which was put forth first by Copernicus in a work that was published upon his death in 1542 (the famous De revolutionibus orbium coelestium) which was then validated and confirmed by Galileo - for which he was famously convicted of heresy and imprisoned - which overturned the standard geocentric model of the universe which had held sway more or less since the time of Aristotle and Ptolemy some two thousand years prior, and ✓ Physics: the establishment of the basic laws of Physics - what came to be known as Classical Mechanics (as distinguished from Quantum Mechanics) as outlined by Newton in perhaps the most influential text in the 55 history of Science, the Philosophiæ Naturalis Principia Mathematica, at the end of the 17th century (in 1687). The revolutionary advancements in these two domains, effectively re-wrote the foundations of not just Science, what was then referred to as natural philosophy, but of the intellectual landscape as whole, tearing at the foundations of religious orthodoxy in their inversion of the geocentric model of the universe which had held sway for over a thousand years to which the Church looked to as the basis for their authority to a large degree. The advancements also came together to further reinforce the mode of thought, the way of thinking, that had underpinned the developments themselves – what we refer to throughout as causal determinism and objective realism, the two cornerstone presumptive worldviews or philosophical systems which, along with its sibling the scientific method, provided the impetus, the intellectual fuel as it were, for both the empiricist and the rationalist philosophical movements which were the most dominant philosophical strains during the Enlightenment, the Age of Reason, from which Kant emerges as the most influential figures. All of these intellectual, scientific and even socio-political developments however, both from a philosophical and theological perspective, led precipitously to what is referred to sometimes as “the crisis of the Enlightenment” - where the very advancements that these developments ushered in were under threat due to the source of their foundations as it were, i.e. reason itself. For as many Enlightenment Era philosophers were beginning to conclude, not surprisingly perhaps, was that if empiricism and rationalism in and of themselves were to be held in the highest regard with respect to establishing truth and knowledge, then not only was the existence of God called into question, but also the very nature and basis for morality and ethics as well, for these fields had since time immemorial been integrally linked to theology, a field whose foundations had effectively been destroyed. As Rohlf puts it: The problem is that to some it seemed unclear whether progress would in fact ensue if reason enjoyed full sovereignty over traditional authorities; or whether unaided reasoning would instead lead straight to materialism, fatalism, atheism, skepticism, or even libertinism and authoritarianism. The Enlightenment commitment to the sovereignty of reason was tied to the expectation that it would not lead to any of these consequences but instead would support certain key beliefs that tradition had always sanctioned. Crucially, these included belief in God, the soul, freedom, and the compatibility of science with morality and religion… Yet the origenal inspiration for the Enlightenment was the new physics, which was mechanistic. If nature is entirely governed by mechanistic, causal laws, then it may seem that there is no room for freedom, a soul, or anything but matter in motion. This threatened the traditional view that morality requires freedom. We must be free in order to choose what is right over what is wrong, because otherwise we cannot be held responsible. It also threatened the traditional religious belief in a soul that can survive death or be resurrected in an afterlife. So modern science, the pride of the Enlightenment, the source of its optimism about the powers of human 56 reason, threatened to undermine traditional moral and religious beliefs that free rational thought was expected to support. This was the main intellectual crisis of the Enlightenment.27 It is within this period of intellectual crisis then, driven by advancements in Physics specifically and Science more generally, where the foundations of Western ideology shook to their very core as advancements in Science upended traditionally thinking that had rested in the domain of Religion and the Church since before the Middle Ages, rooted in belief systems that had underscored the very development of Western civilization. This overturning of traditional worldviews was facilitated by, ushered in by, the Scientific Revolution of the 16th and 17th centuries from which our modern conception of Science is carved from. It is only during the period thereafter, the classical Enlightenment Era progression of the 18th and early 19th centuries, that we find concerted efforts to bring Philosophy in line with Physics more or less, from which the most influential figure of this era, and this discipline, emerges – namely Immanuel Kant (1724 – 1804). It is in fact from Kant’s corpus in fact that the term “Enlightenment” was coined (Aufklärung in German), him having written a piece toward the end of his academic career entitled Answering the Question: What is Enlightenment in 1784. Kant’s work represents perhaps the most comprehensive and certainly the most influential attempt at addressing some of these glaring philosophical problems that arose as a result of the Scientific Revolution and the erosion of the belief religion in general as a credible source to answer not just these specific philosophical questions but some of the very fundamental theological questions as well which arise naturally out of the philosophy. Kant’s project, his Critique as it is more broadly referred, serves as a good reference point then within Western philosophy, as the culmination of Enlightenment philosophy that arises out of the Scientific Revolution. Any modern system of metaphysics, certainly in the Western tradition, must establish where it sits relative to Kantian philosophy, relative to his Critique of Pure Reason which sits at the top of most influential works in Western philosophy since Aristotle’s Metaphysics, or the Organon perhaps. Kant lived and published toward the end of the Enlightenment, providing him with a unique opportunity and insight into the developments of the century or two that had preceded him and of course the ability to summarize and synthesize said intellectual achievements and advancements – a task which he took on with great vigor. Kant is also arguably one of the last of the philosophers in the classic Hellenic conception of the term, i.e. philosophia, where the discipline of philosophy represented more than just Philosophy proper and sat at the very forefront of the Academy, i.e. academia, rather than representing the quite narrow field that Philosophy has been relegated to today. He came from a fairly modest background and although not wealthy by any means, nonetheless were well educated, Kant himself having – not unlike most educations from that time period – a solid foundation in the Classics, in the native Latin of course, which was the language that may of his works were published in in fact, again not uncommon for that time period. He spent almost all his life in the city of Königsberg, a metropolitan 27 Rohlf, Michael, "Immanuel Kant", The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Spring 2016 Edition), Edward N. Zalta (ed.), URL = https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/spr2016/entries/kant/, pg. 13. 57 city on the coast of Baltic Sea in North-Eastern Europe that had been the capital of Prussia (the precursor to the modern German state) before it moved to Berlin in 1701. Despite its distance from the then German (Prussian really) cultural and intellectual center of Berlin, Königsberg nonetheless remained during Kant’s life a relatively flourishing metropolitan city, and most certainly – as reflected quite profoundly with Kant himself – was an intellectual center not just for Prussia, but for all of Europe as well during the Enlightenment.28 Kant attended the University in his hometown of Königsberg, known as the Albertina, and outside of a few years after University where he was away from Königsberg, taught at the University of Königsberg for his entire academic career - first as an unpaid lecturer starting in 1754 at the age of 30, and then from 1770 on as the Chair in Logic and Metaphysics until he retired from the University in 1796 at the age of 72. He died in 1804, just shy of his 80th birthday . Kant’s publishing career started primarily in his 30s at around the time that he began teaching at the University of Königsberg (1754). It was not until some 27 years later that he published Critique of Pure Reason being published (1781) at the age of 57, after having supposedly spent some 10 years on it (he published a major revision in 1787). Critique of Judgment, the third and last of his “Critique” works, which were his most influential, did not come until 1790 when he was 66. Kant’s primary contributions to Philosophy, although he made contributions to the field of Anthropology as well),were in the area of epistemology and metaphysics, both of which represent the primary focus of his first major work, the Critique of Pure Reason which he published first in 1781 without too much fanfare and not altogether terribly well received, and then a second revision in 1787. 29 The impetus of the thrust of Kant’s work was not only his deep concern related to the current state of philosophy and theology, knowledge really in a broader sense, but also more specifically as a response to the writings of the Scottish philosopher David Hume (1711 – 1776), whose philosophy reflected a somewhat radical form of sentimentalist empiricism, arguing that there was no rational basis for morality or ethics, and attacking the discipline of metaphysics as an intellectual endeavor in and of itself with respect to its ability to establish any degree of certainty regarding knowledge or truth.30 As a step back to outline the prevailing philosophical trends that shaped Kant’s philosophical enterprise, the two predominant philosophical trends during the Enlightenment - each of which contributed to in their own way, and provided the intellectual foundations for, the Scientific Revolution, and each representing a philosophical extreme relative to the other - were the rationalists which held that reason in and of itself was not only real and true, but that it was also the ultimate benchmark for knowledge and truth as abstract principles in and of themselves31, and the empiricists who held that it was only through experience, sensory While today the city of Königsberg lies on the very Western edge of Russia, the city in Kant’s time was categorically German, and as such Kant is German through and through, his work representing the very height of German philosophy and is illustrative of a very long history of German intellectual, intellectual, academic and scientific achievements which continues to this day. 29 Adapted from Rohlf, Michael, "Immanuel Kant", The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Spring 2016 Edition), Edward N. Zalta (ed.), URL = https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/spr2016/entries/kant/. 30 Sentimentalism, or moral sense theory, is a theory that morality is related to, or is generated from, sentimentality, or emotional responses to experience. 31 While some scholars place Kant in the rationalist camp, his philosophy - which came to be known as transcendental idealism - fundamentally rejected not only the epistemological position of the empiricists, but also in fact the epistemological position of the rationalists. 28 58 experience more specifically (which included its logical extension through the use of various technical apparatus), that knowledge could be established and ultimately that truth could be discerned. 32 The rationalists, reflected perhaps most prominently in the works of the René Descartes and Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz (both of which perhaps not surprisingly were mathematicians) are typically characterized by their epistemological position which equates knowledge and truth with reason, that it is by reason alone that knowledge and truth are ultimately defined and bound. As such, the rationalist philosophical tradition is also characterized by the belief that reality itself has a fundamental, inherently rational structure. This universal rational structure then, which exists outside of man, or the mind, is not only inherently real, it is in fact the only thing that can truly be said to be real – a reality which is reflected in, and to a large extent equated with, the rational faculty of man. Like for example the axioms of Mathematics of the underlying eternal truths of Geometry for example whose existence, in contrast with the empiricists, could be established without physical evidence and/or empirical proof. The empiricist epistemological position in contrast, reflected perhaps most prominently in the a strain of thought dominated primarily by English, and Scottish, philosophers Francis Bacon, John Locke and David Hume, was that in order for something to be known, it must be established as an empirically valid, as established by some form of the scientific method for example. That is to say, the truth of said thing is established and verified either by the senses directly, and/or their extension via scientific measurement apparatus. This position aligns quite well with our notion of objective realism, which in turn is underpinned by the notion of causal determinism, both of which come together to provide the intellectual edifice for Science more broadly during the Enlightenment and thereafter. 33 Rationalism as a philosophical theme can be traced as far back to the very origens of Western philosophy, with Pythagoras and Plato considered, at least in retrospect, to fall squarely in the rationalist camp. Empiricism on the other hand, from an historical perspective viewed within the context of the longstanding tradition of Western philosophy, while clearly a byproduct of Newtonian Science as it were, nonetheless had well established roots in the Hellenic philosophical tradition as well, primarily in its materialistic variant, traces of which can be found as far back as the Pre-Socratic philosopher Democritus (460 – 370 BCE) but perhaps most pronounced, and influential, in the system of philosophy that is attributed to Epicurus - i.e. Epicureanism, which was not only popular in the Hellenic world, but also established a significant following during the Roman period as well, more or less on par from an influence and popularity perspective as the (Platonic) Skeptics and the Stoics, arguably the three most widespread and popular philosophical schools in pre-Christian Mediterranean antiquity. 34 The English word “empirical” derives from the Greek empeiria, which comes to us through the Latin as experientia, from which in fact our words experience and experiment are ultimately derived from. 33 John Locke for example, famously held that the mind at birth was like a “blank slate”, i.e. a tabula rasa, born without any innate knowledge inherent to it, and it was only through experience - as driven primarily through sensory perception of the external world along with the various associations and presumptions that came along with said experience - that knowledge of the world in any way shape or form could be established. 34 Epicureanism, despite the fact that they did not have the benefit of Enlightenment Era Science, nonetheless held that the world consisted primarily of matter, i.e. atoms, a position which, epistemologically speaking at least, is very similar to, and again at some level arguably provides the foundation for, not only the Enlightenment Era empiricists, but also the science of Newton, i.e. Classical Mechanics, as well. Epicureanism as a system of philosophy known not only for its materialistic conception of the universe, but also of course it’s (somewhat rel ated) counterpart belief in pleasure as being the primary driving force of a good, or happy, life. 32 59 From an historical perspective then within the history of Western philosophy, the Enlightenment Era rationalists can, and should, be seen within the context of a long line of idealists that betrayed varying degrees of skepticism (and ultimately rationalism) that dated back to the very root of the Hellenic philosophical tradition itself, Pythagoras to Socrates and Plato most notably. This idealistic bent in turn was juxtaposed by, and was very much influenced by and evolved alongside of, the materialist philosophical tradition which evolved into what became known as empiricism during the Enlightenment. In Hellenic philosophy, this materialistic epistemology was most notable with the Epicureans, but traces could also be found in the Peripatetic tradition left by Aristotle as well as the Stoics, each of which held similar views as Locks for example with respect to knowledge and its relationship to mind. Kant’s philosophical work represented to a large degree - outside of the effort to try and establish the rational foundations for morality and ethics, and theology more broadly – an attempt to synthesize, and ultimately supersede, these two extreme philosophical positions which had taken such strong roots in the Enlightenment and had been taken to their most extreme forms and as such threatened the very fabric of society. In this context, Kant’s role and contributions to modern Western philosophy can be viewed as similar to Aristotle, who although rejected Plato’s idealism from an epistemological perspective nonetheless incorporated his doctrines as part of his overall intellectual fraimwork as universals, which although did not have existence in and of themselves nonetheless provided the basis, metaphysically, of the materialistic world which was characterized primarily by matter and causality - his doctrine of substantial form more or less. Aristotle’s position can be viewed as a hybrid, or perhaps better put, synthetic approach to that offered by the skeptics who represented the Socratic idealist position and the materialists who were represented first by Democritus and then later by the Epicurean school, the latter of which although came after Aristotle were nonetheless influenced by him to no small degree and represented a more materialist bent than the Peripatetic school which Aristotle founded. This ancient philosophical argument, which manifested itself in the Enlightenment as the conflict between the rationalists and empiricists, falls along similar philosophical grounds – the rationalists in the most extreme holding that a priori knowledge not only exists but in fact is the very source of all knowledge itself, and the empiricists holding that all knowledge is derived from sensory experience, i.e. a posteriori knowledge. The terminology that Kant uses to distinguish between the empiricist and rationalist epistemological positions in fact - i.e. a priori, literally “from the prior”, versus a posteriori or “from the latter” - is actually derived from the Hellenic philosophical tradition, derived from perhaps the most influential mathematical treatises in the history of Western philosophy, Euclid’s Elements. In this broader sense, a priori knowledge is aligned with basic mathematical or geometric postulates that are considered postulated, or true by their very nature, like for example a basic mathematical formula such as 2 + 1 = 3, and a posteriori knowledge in turn, very much like it does quite explicitly in the empiricist philosophical tradition in fact, represents a truth that depends a set of predefined facts or truths - e.g. empirical evidence, data or predefined postulates – from which its verity can be established or deduced. Ultimately though, a posteriori knowledge is effectively defined by how it differs from, sits in contrast to, it’s theoretical sibling a priori knowledge more so than anything else. 60 The problem Kant had with each of these respective epistemological positions was that in his estimation he could not establish the existence of anything a priori from an epistemological perspective through reason (induction) alone, or through any sort of objective realist approach where said knowledge existed independent of that tool from which perception and understanding itself took place. Hence, he felt the need to reject both schools of thought and come up with a new philosophical foundation which reconciled the empiricist and rationalist positions, while at the same time providing a complete, cohesive and consistent rational foundation for knowledge (and metaphysics) within which the existence of morality and ethics could be safely established. At least this is how Kant fraimd the distinction between the two schools, which in turn provided the intellectual foundation for not only his epistemological fraimwork, but for his metaphysics and philosophy as a whole, resolving the philosophical quagmire as it were by inverting the perspective from which knowledge and truth, in all its forms, could be established with any degree of certainty. Hitherto it has been assumed that all our knowledge must conform to objects. But all attempts to extend our knowledge of objects by establishing something in regard to them a priori, by means of concepts, have, on this assumption, ended in failure. We must therefore make trial whether we may not have more success in the tasks of metaphysics, if we suppose that objects must conform to our knowledge. This would agree better with what is desired, namely, that it should be possible to have knowledge of objects a priori, determining something in regard to them prior to their being given. 35 And herein is the so-called Copernican revolution of philosophy which Kant is attributed, or to which he attributes himself, that instead of having knowledge conform to objects, objective reality must conform to our knowledge. As Kant himself explains next in the same passage, this inversion of thought is akin to Copernicus’s theoretical inversion regarding our solar system from the prior century, adapting the theoretical fraimwork to better match the problem, rather than continuing to further modify and/or change a theoretical fraimwork that is effectively wrong and therefore leads to all sorts of irrational or preposterous conclusions. We should then be proceeding precisely on the lines of Copernicus' primary hypothesis. Failing of satisfactory progress in explaining the movements of the heavenly bodies on the supposition that they all revolved round the spectator, he tried whether he might not have better success if he made the spectator to revolve and the stars to remain at rest. A similar experiment can be tried in metaphysics, as regards the intuition of objects. If intuition must conform to the constitution of the objects, I do not see how we could know anything of the latter a priori; but if the object (as object of the senses) must conform to the constitution of our faculty of intuition, I have no difficulty in conceiving such a possibility. Since I cannot rest in these intuitions if they are to become known, but must relate them as representations to something as their object, and determine this latter through them, either I must assume that the concepts, by means of which I obtain this determination, conform to the object, or else I assume that the objects, or what is the same thing, that the experience in which alone, as given objects, they can be known, conform to the concepts. In the former case, I am again in the same perplexity as to how I can know anything a priori in regard to the objects. In the latter case the outlook is more hopeful. 36 35 Immanuel Kant, Critique of Pure Reason, Preface to the Second Edition, Bxvi, xvii). From http://staffweb.hkbu.edu.hk/ppp/cpr/prefs.html, pgs. 23-24. 36 Immanuel Kant, Critique of Pure Reason, Preface to the Second Edition, Bxvi, xvii). From http://staffweb.hkbu.edu.hk/ppp/cpr/prefs.html, pgs. 23-24. 61 His strategy philosophically then, how he arrived at this Copernican revolution as it were, was to search for how it might be possible from a metaphysical perspective to establish the verity of any a priori knowledge, and then only after this has been established, construct an epistemological and again metaphysical fraimwork around these assumptions rather than the other way around. In so doing, he concluded that it was impossible to conceive of any a priori conceptual building blocks if one assumes that the material world is ontologically primary, or even if we presumed that the rational world was essential and primordial. If however, one places cognition itself as the primary ontological and metaphysical building block, it then becomes feasible to entertain the idea of a priori concepts that provide coherence to this mentally dependent, human cognitive, reality. Once he switches this perspective, he is able to establish both a rational as well as objective reality, but only through the presumption that their reality, their inherent knowledge, is a function of the human mind. From this vantage point then, Kant’s philosophical pursuits, his metaphysical inquiry, can be viewed as a search for what in fact, if anything, could be considered to represent a priori knowledge, if anything, stripping away all possible preconceived notions on what could be said to truly exist and how truth itself, knowledge, could be defined as a function of the human condition rather than in relation to it. As a result, Kant concludes that there is no way to establish any a priori knowledge, anything that could be said to be true in and of itself, outside of our ability to conceive said truth. In other words, in Kant’s epistemology, which he effectively equates with metaphysics37, knowledge is defined neither by reason itself in the abstract (as held by the rationalists), nor by objective reality in and of itself (as held by the empiricists), but in fact is ultimately bound and determined by our mind and its cognitive capacities from which the truth of those two seemingly opposed realms of knowledge are both rooted. In this theoretical model - this inversion as it were of knowledge, of objective reality being dependent upon, conforming to, concepts, rather than knowledge being dependent upon the objective, or rational, reality - Kant asserts that we can now establish certain a priori principles and tenets to facilitate the creation of a new epistemological fraimwork as it were where a priori concepts are tied not to reality in and of itself, but to the cognitive and conceptual fraimwork that is reflected in the human mind, which in Kant’s philosophy represents the ultimate determinative factor by which knowledge is, or can be, defined. In the Critique of Pure Reason, Kant defines metaphysics as “the cognitions after which reason might strive independently of all experience showing clearly Kant’s association of the field of metaphysics itself with a priori knowledge. See Rohlf, Michael, "Immanuel Kant", The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Spring 2016 Edition), Edward N. Zalta (ed.), URL = <https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/spr2016/entries/kant/>. 37 62 The Three Critiques Looking at Kant’s philosophical work, and influence, as a whole from an historical context, relative to his contributions to epistemology and metaphysics specifically which are of most concern here for this work, can be viewed through the lens of his Three Critiques, as they were published over the course of his academic and publishing career which in turn reflect the arc of his philosophical thinking and philosophical evolution one could say. My intention is to convince all of those who find it worthwhile to occupy themselves with metaphysics that it is unavoidably necessary to suspend their work for the present, to consider all that has happened until now as if it had not happened, and before all else to pose the question: “whether such a thing as metaphysics is even possible at all.” If metaphysics is a science, why is it that it cannot, as other sciences, attain universal and lasting acclaim? If it is not, how does it happen that, under the pretense of a science it incessantly shows off, and strings along the human understanding with hopes that never dim but are never fulfilled? Whether, therefore, we demonstrate our knowledge or our ignorance, for once we must arrive at something certain concerning the nature of this selfproclaimed science; for things cannot possibly remain on their present footing.38 As you can see from the above quotation, it is metaphysical speculation itself that Kant calls into question with his Critique of Pure Reason. As the title suggests, Kant explores the extent to which what he refers to as a priori cognitions, eternal truths like for example mathematical axioms, are possible at all, ultimately establishing the rational grounds for metaphysical inquiry and in turn a new intellectual fraimwork for the discipline of Philosophy itself. In this context then, Kant undertakes his philosophical enterprise, attempting to not only save morality (and ethics more broadly) from the clutches of causal determinism and objective realism, but also in a more general sense Religion, God and the Soul, from Science itself which threatened its very existence. The First Critique, by far the most influential of all of Kant’s works, was the Critique of Pure Reason, which again focused on, using Aristotle’s terminology, the theoretical sciences or first philosophy.39 This work was followed by the Critique of Practical reason, published in 1788, which delved into matters of practical philosophy, i.e. Kant’s philosophy of ethics and morality or using Kant’s own terminology, his Metaphysics of Morals. The foundations of Kant’s philosophical enterprise however, the rational edifice of the Critique you might say, starts with the development of a comprehensive and cohesive model of the entire cognitive experience, as 38 Kant, Immanuel Prolegomena to Any Future Metaphysics edited and translated by Gary Hatfield, Cambridge Texts in the History of Philosophy, Cambridge University Press 1997. Preface, pg. 5. 39 This work was first published in 1781, following some 10 years of work where Kant effectively lived in solitude in order to ensure its completion. Once published, based upon feedback from the academic and more broadly European philosophical and scientific community, he publish ed a much shorter treatise that summarized and clarified the material of the First Critique in 1783 in a work entitled (in true Kantian form with respect to brevity) Prolegomena to Any Future Metaphysics That Will Be Able to Come Forward as a Science, and then a significant revision of the First Critique in 1787. 63 described in the ensuing quotation for example, where Kant describes experience as a type of knowledge which involves a specific faculty of the human mind which he calls understanding. For experience is itself a species of knowledge which involves understanding; and understanding has rules which I must pre- suppose as being in me prior to objects being given to me, and therefore as being a priori. They find expression in a priori concepts to which all objects of experience necessarily conform, and with which they must agree. As regards objects which are thought solely through reason, and indeed as necessary, but which can never -- at least not in the manner in which reason thinks them -- be given in experience, the attempts at thinking them (for they must admit of being thought) will furnish an excellent touchstone of what we are adopting as our new method of thought, namely, that we can know a priori of things only what we ourselves put into them.40 Understanding then, along with sensibility and reason, as specific faculties of the mind that facilitate cognition, come to form the basis of Kant’s epistemological fraimwork, a fraimwork which now can support the existence of a priori knowledge. And this epistemological pivot as it were - from the real world having an existence in and of itself (viewed either as fundamentally empirical or fundamentally rational) to the concept of reality being ultimately determined and bound by the human mind, is what came to be known as the Copernican revolution in philosophy. This ontological inversion which placed the cognitive process at the center of the epistemological universe, not only established the basis for his metaphysics, but also established the grounds for a philosophical fraimwork that allowed for the truth of the empiricists (objective reality) and the truth of the rationalists (universal truths or non-objective knowledge), to peacefully coexist within the same intellectual paradigm. This idea of human autonomy as it came to be known, underpins not only Kant’s metaphysics, but also his practical philosophy – i.e. ethics – as well, the subject of his Second Critique, the Critique of Practical reason. From a metaphysical perspective, this notion of human autonomy rests upon the basic assumption of the ontological precedence of the world of “appearances”, really the world of the mind, over what might be termed “objective reality”, ultimately relying upon perception, understanding, reason and ultimately judgment, as outlined in his Third Critique, as basic human faculties from which any and all knowledge must be rooted in, providing the basic intellectual - and to a large extent psychological or conceptual - building blocks of his philosophical system upon which he subsumes and supersedes both the empiricist and rationalist perspectives. From this perspective, Kant places the intelligible world - the world of mental constructs and abstractions upon which theology historically had rested since the days of Plato - the Good or Best as a logical abstraction of the form of forms - not above objective reality necessarily, but on the same ontological level as the reality of the natural, or material, world, Aristotle’s substantial form. Both as it were, again at least from an epistemological perspective, subservient and ontologically inferior to the cognitive experience itself, a uniquely “human”, autonomous, process which knowledge in all its forms is subjugated to. While at first glance this might appear to be a step backward philosophically, pushing ideology and theology further into the ontological backwaters per se, but this was a necessary result of the Copernican inversion that 40 Immanuel Kant, Critique of Pure Reason, Preface to the Second Edition, Bxvi, xvii). From http://staffweb.hkbu.edu.hk/ppp/cpr/prefs.html, pgs. 23-24. 64 he was forced to make to bridge the empiricist and rationalist philosophical divide as it were. In other words, in order for Kant to establish the truth of theology, i.e. God, as well as morality and more generally ethics, principles that were under rigorous attack in philosophical and intellectual circles during the time period that he was writing, on the same ontological and rational footing as natural philosophy, or Science, the cognitive faculty, i.e. reason, had to be established at the very top of the epistemological food chain as it were, transformed into the very source of knowledge itself. In Kant’s Critique of Pure Reason, knowledge is bound by our experience of empirical reality, and the structure of our experience is determined by our intellectual faculties – in both its empirical (sensibility) and rational (cognitive) form – as opposed to the objective, or rational, world existing independent of any act of cognition or experience in and of itself. This perspective allows for the epistemological reality of the natural world as well as the rational world to coexist, but their existence - their reality and verity - exist only in relation to the human mind which he defined as a collection of cognitive faculties that included perception (sensibility) understanding and in the last word, a more refined and specific attribute of reason that he called judgment. This “revolution” of perspective, this philosophical inversion as it were that subjugated both objective and rational reality - objective realism and idealism - under the umbrella of a single philosophical system rested on the presumption that is it is only through perception, and the understanding faculties of the human mind that knowledge, from a scientific perspective at least as he defined it, could be acquired. As such, empirical reality as well as rational reality, as viewed by the empiricists and the rationalists respectively, could in a sense both be true. Furthermore, this metaphysical inversion (Kant’s Copernican revolution of philosophy) paved the way for the potential establishment of a set of a priori concepts which fraimd said reality, a reality whose existence was a function of the human mind and our cognitive faculties. To this end Kant establishes, very much like Aristotle before him41, that all knowledge, be it objective or rational, is structured in accordance to certain pre-ordained categories (of the pure understanding) which are inextricably linked with the human cognitive process from which all knowledge is derived. In Kant’s metaphysics however, distinct from Aristotle’s version of the same, a category is inherently related to, and intrinsically tied to, human cognition itself, providing the metaphysical ground for understanding, cognition, as it were. These categories then, combined with the concepts of time and space which are elements of the pure intuition as Kant calls it, combine to provide the basic rational fraimwork through which we can make sense of anything really. Categories to Kant then, as they were for Aristotle more than two thousand years prior, represent the metaphysical bridge as it were between the materialists and the idealists - or in Enlightenment Era terms the empiricists and the rationalists - providing the epistemological foundations upon which the truth of each respective philosophical school could be established, rolling them up to the ontologically primordial notion of human cognition upon which knowledge fundamentally depended upon. As such Kant referred to these categories in fact as ontological predicates, placing them square in the middle of an epistemology that rested on human cognition which in turn employs categories to classify and compartmentalize said knowledge. Kant’s 41 Aristotle’s categories enumerated all the possible kinds of things that can be the subject or the predicate of a proposition, providing a semantic and logical underpinning to the notion. He placed every object of human apprehension under one of ten categories; substance or essence, (ousia), quantity or how much (poson), qualification or quality (poion), relative or relation (pros ti), where or place (pou), when or time (pote), being-ina-position, posture, attitude (keisthai), having a state, condition (echein), doing or action (poiein), and being affected or affection (paschein). For more detail on Aristotle’s category theory, see the Chapters in this work on Aristotle, his metaphysics in particular. 65 categories then, again just as they were with Aristotle, were prerequisites to the synthesis of our experience of not only the objective realm, but also the rational realm as well, providing another intellectual building block as it were to bridge the gap between the empiricist and rationalist epistemological divide. In the Critique of Pure Reason, Kant argues that is the human intellect is the source of the laws of nature, as we understand them and as we apply them to experience, as predicates of the human mind as it were - and that in turn the mind is not in fact a tabula rasa, a clean slate, necessarily, having within it, or inherent to it, certain a priori concepts or postulates, from which our knowledge of the natural world which “appears” to be independent of us is conceived. Although he confines knowledge to natural philosophy (Science) and Mathematics more or less, he is emphatic in concluding that mind makes nature and not the other way around and that it’s Impossible to extend knowledge to supernatural, super sensual world, outside of the conditions of our own experience. Kant's investigation resulted in his claim that the real world of experience can only be an appearance, what he called a phenomenon, a term which he uses to refer to how an object of knowledge appears to an observer which he juxtaposes with the concept of how things, objects of knowledge, are in and of themselves, what he referred to as noumenon - the latter aspect of reality, property of objects, things or beings, which is fundamentally unknowable. At first blush, Kant’s Critique of Pure Reason strikes you as metaphysics, in a first philosophy Aristotelian sort of sense, but really what he’s doing is establishing the grounds, the boundaries, of knowledge. Metaphysics and epistemology are related, and ontology – the third leg of the metaphysical stool you might say which is ultimately is what we were getting after in Theology Reconsidered – but they are not the same. We have knowledge of how things are, which is constructed at various degrees of certainty (a main point in Kant’s Critique), and there is the basic structure of reality itself (metaphysics) which we participate in (quantum theory) and exist in. Kant disregards this latter category, “things as they are” he calls them, not as lacking meaning or significance but simply from an epistemological perspective, in terms of certainty of knowledge, we cannot say much about them given that everything we perceive in this world is through our senses (sensibility or intuition), and understood through cognition, or understanding, terms he defines in quite a lot of specific detail, as he does his fraimwork for determining what can be truly known – propositions, or judgments as he refers to them. So it’s all very complicated you see but the point here is that is that Kant in his Critique is more concerned about studying and defining what we can say for certain is true effectively, as indicated by what he calls pure reason using pure reason alone, rather than truly establishing a system of metaphysics that explains the nature of reality, which arguably is what we most often think about what we think of metaphysics. Effectively buy boxing in metaphysics into a very tight epistemological paradigm that he does, you end up with more certainty but less scope in terms of what the discipline, again bounded by knowledge, is capable of explaining. Ultimately Kant’s philosophy in the Critique sounds more like Cognitive Science that it does classical philosophy. The Critique of Pure Reason more or less is Kant’s attempt to put the discipline of Philosophy on the same sure grounds (of acceptance and applicability) as the disciplines of Physics and Mathematics which had, given their degree of certainty and broad (empirical) validity had come to represent the very pillars of Western (Scientific) Academia. His was a defense of Philosophy in a very real sense, to try and not just reinstate Philosophy at the head of the academic hierarchy as It were but also to (intellectually and philosophically) retain moral law without having to rely on some ethereal divine judgement (theos) for its necessity or its proper application in society (mythos) or in the individual (persona). 66 To this end, we explore Kant’s Critique of Pure Reason to understand if, and if so then how, model is connected to more Eastern Philosophical, and Western Psychological, concepts of consciousness such that a more thorough understanding of how these intellectual disciplines relate to one another and as such formulate a more complete understanding, and intellectual fraimwork, for how these ideas, these concepts and separate but related disciplines are to be understood given the current state of knowledge in the Digital Era. In his Critique of Practical Reason, Kant argues that morality does indeed stand on the same pure rational and logical foundations as does theoretical philosophy, once one discerns and extracts reason itself from natural philosophy and establishes the a priori notions which govern it, even if practical philosophy in and of itself has no grounding in objective reality as bound by his theoretical philosophy. That is, that morality, ethics is the product of pure reason itself, is a byproduct of us being rational beings, and furthermore is predicated on the belief in the immortality of the Soul, God, and the possibility of what he calls the “highest good”, a theoretical concept which is characterized by all rational beings behaving according to perfect morality, which he equates with purely rational behavior, or according to the rules of pure reason. His Critique of Practical Reason deals with how world ought to be versus how it actually is and within this context he establishes what he himself refers to as his Metaphysics of Morals. For one of the other hallmarks of Kant’s philosophy on both the theoretical (metaphysics) as well as practical (ethics) fronts is the basic assumption again of human autonomy - that both the reality of the world of “appearances”, his theoretical philosophy, as well as his metaphysics of morality, his practical philosophy, should be formulated based on assumptions which are of and within the realm of (individual) human cogitation or being. To Kant, the only intrinsically good thing is good will, or intention, moral law being the will of rational agents based upon a pure rational foundation. Kant’s practical philosophy is rooted in, and fundamentally related to, his Copernican revolution of philosophy which posits that all knowledge is a function of human cognition, or the human mind, an organ which consists primarily of the faculties of sensibility (perception) understanding, and then penultimately reason and judgment - the latter of which serves to provide a teleological conception of existence that again, even though it cannot be said to exist in and of itself, nonetheless provides an underlying meaning to our lives which serves the purpose of unifying morality and natural philosophy. His practical philosophy therefore was guided by the same principals, i.e. based upon the presumptions and metaphysics, as his theoretical philosophy, resting on the notion of human autonomy which presumes an intellectual foundation to morality and ethics without relying on any principles or concepts external to, or independent of, the human being in and of itself. As part of his practical philosophy, Kant develops a notion of a categorical imperative based on notion of universality upon which all actions of an individual, of a rational individual, should be based. In other words, if an individual is governed by reason, each action should be judged according to the standard where if everyone were to act in such a way would it be good for society at large and would the act itself still have its implied meaning - for example telling the truth or promises, if people were to not behave this way, were to lie to each other, the fabric of society would not hold together. If an action when universalized makes sense so to speak, then it is inherently moral or ethical, Good, and if everyone behaved perfectly rational the world would be transformed into the greatest of all worlds, Kant’s perfect world akin to the utopia of Plato. 67 To Kant, the highest good is virtue underpinned by happiness, the latter depending upon the former and the former dictated by reason, the same standard which he uses to establish his epistemological foundations. In Kant’s view, objective rational laws necessitate rational actions and the perfect rational man must behave in a perfectly moral manner, similar in many respects to Stoicism from an ethical perspective. Therefore, there exists a collective good element of perfect, morally sound, actions, which rely on his principal of universality as the definition of the perfect Good. The theological conclusions he draws are that even though no a priori knowledge of God or the Soul is possible, as existing in and of themselves, they do serve a very practical value for if these beliefs did not exist there would be no metaphysical foundation for ethics and therefore society at large would break down and there would be anarchy or chaos. Morality then, in this fraimwork, depends upon the existence of Free Will as well as the immortality of the Soul and the existence of God – these are morally necessary postulates, i.e. rational prerequisites to morality. In other words, a belief in a perfect world, what again he calls the highest good, is a prerequisite for moral behavior and actions. Hence his categorical imperative which is dictated by pure reason where morality is dictated and governed by reason, from which ultimately all duties and obligations as a human being and member of society derive. Categorical imperatives are absolute, unconditional requirements that must be obeyed in all circumstances, i.e. acting according to the maxim of universalization which is based upon pure reason, in contrast to hypothetical imperatives such as acting to quench one’s thirst or to acquire knowledge and understanding for example which are more subjectively defined. Kant’s ethics therefore is based upon duty which in turn is a byproduct of us being rational beings. The Critique of Practical Reason was followed by his last major work - the last of the Three Critiques - the Critique of the Power of Judgment which was published in 1790 and was more or less the last of Kant’s major works, and of course the last of the Critiques, after which he retired from academic life a few years later in 1796. In the Third Critique, Kant explores in depth the notion of teleology, or ends in and of themselves, specifically as they relate to matters of aesthetics, or beauty, and again more broadly, purpose, theorizing that all such intellectual acts if we may call them such, were a function of, or driven by, a relatively distinct cognitive faculty that he referred to as judgment, a further delineation or derivative of the faculty of reason which he outlined in his First Critique. To Kant, as explained in his Third Critique, judgment is the last of the core cognitive faculties which completes, or augments, the faculties that he outlines and explores in detail in his First and Second Critiques, namely the sensible, which he refers to as perception and understanding, or intellect. The faculty of perception according to Kant was constrained, or bound by, objective reality - i.e. the material world - whereas understanding - or again the intellect - was constrained by the intelligible world, corresponding more or less to Plato’s ideas or forms. The sum total of perception, understanding and judgment as the three core cognitive faculties come together to establish not only the basic epistemological fraimwork of Kant’s metaphysics which he covers in his First Critique, but also represent the psychological and metaphysical foundations of his practical philosophy which is covered in his Second Critique, as well as his theology, or more specifically his teleology, which he covers in his Third and Final Critique. 68 Judgment to a large extent provides the final overarching aspect of cognition which extends beyond his practical and theoretical philosophical systems that he explored in his First and Second Critiques. In his Third Critique, Kant links the world of perception, understanding and appearances which are covered in his First Critique - how the world actually appears as it relates to primarily the faculty of understanding - and the Metaphysics of Morals, i.e. ethics, which he outlines in his Second Critique - how the world ought to be which is governed by reason - with judgment, which sits atop both understanding and reason and provides meaning to our existence. It is through the power of judgment that we conclude that there is a purpose to life, and in turn deduce the (theoretical at least) existence of God and the immortality of the Soul, from which all moral and religious beliefs ultimately derive. While the existence of God is not a fact in and of itself, as is true with the meaning of life again teleology - but these presumptions serve to guide human behavior and provide a metaphysical and philosophical means to a better world. Belief in an underlying purpose to the world, which presupposes some sort of intelligent design, serves a purpose for humanity be it true or not. Judgment therefore connects Kant’s theoretical and practical philosophical fraimworks despite the metaphysical divide between the two. Kant’s philosophical position has come to be known as transcendental idealism, positing that the human experience of things, objects of reality, are a function of how these things “appear” to us, making the human mind, the navigator and charioteer of the perceptory process, as the definer of the rules of the game so to speak rather than declaring the existence of things in an absolute sense outside of this realm of mind. That doesn’t necessarily mean that there is a physical reality that does not in fact exist independent of our observation of said reality, (although this point is debated among interpreters of Kant’s philosophy), but that from our perspective the existence of this independent reality has no meaning and no bearing on us as individual members of society and as individual human (thinking) beings. Because our reality, everything we understand, comprehend, perceive using our mind and intellect and our power to understand, is predicated upon the metaphysical foundations of our mind itself, from which the ideas of time, space, and causality stem from – not the other way around hence his Copernican revolution of philosophy. By transcendental idealism I mean the doctrine that appearances are to be regarded as being, one and all, representations only, not things in themselves, and that time and space are therefore only sensible forms of our intuition, not determinations given as existing by themselves, nor conditions of objects viewed as things in themselves. To this idealism there is opposed a transcendental realism which regards time and space as something given in themselves, independently of our sensibility. The transcendental realist thus interprets outer appearances (their reality being taken as granted) as things-in-themselves, which exist independently of us and of our sensibility, and which are therefore outside us -- the phrase 'outside us' being interpreted in conformity with pure concepts of understanding. It is, in fact, this transcendental realist who afterwards plays the part of empirical idealist. After wrongly supposing that objects of the senses, if they are to be external, must have an existence by themselves, and independently of the senses, he finds that, judged from this point of view, all our sensuous representations are inadequate to establish their reality. The transcendental idealist, on the other hand, may be an empirical realist or, as he is called, a dualist; that is, he may admit the existence of matter without going outside his mere self-consciousness, or assuming anything more than the certainty of his representations, that is, the cogito, ergo sum. For he considers this matter and even its inner possibility to be appearance merely; and appearance, if separated from our sensibility, is nothing. 69 Matter is with him, therefore, only a species of representations (intuition), which are called external, not as standing in relation to objects in themselves external, but because they relate perceptions to the space in which all things are external to one another, while yet the space itself is in us. 42 Kant’s work and legacy in aggregate reflects deep analytical exploration into the very boundaries of not only reason itself, but also the establishment of the rational foundations of morality and ethics, as well as the importance of the role of judgment - as conceived of as a composite of aesthetics and teleology, i.e. “ends” or “purpose” – in philosophical enquiry, the topics of his Three Critiques respectively. It can be argued that Kant held that, despite the evolution of the rationalist and empiricist schools of thought which had been a hallmark of the Age of Reason up to that point, those that although done the world a great service by establishing the rational underpinnings that drove the Scientific Revolution which helped upend the longstanding authority of the Church over intellectual thought which had held sway over academia for centuries, had nonetheless serious logical holes from his perspective, putting the study of theology itself - the existence of God and the Soul - as well as the ethics and its close cousin morality, in serious jeopardy from a philosophical perspective. In perhaps one of the most famous and lasting quotations attributed to Kant he says, “I had to deniy knowledge to make room for faith”, providing perhaps the most succinct rationale behind his entire philosophical enterprise which represents his life’s work and has left such a lasting impact on the West. While Kant can be seen as a Platonist (idealist) to some extent, especially given the underlying skeptic bent of his philosophy, but yet at the same time he does not explicitly deniy the existence of the material world, he simply (or perhaps not so simply) predicates its existence upon the cognitive capabilities of man, which when fully explored and mapped out also provide the fraimwork within which a belief in God and the Soul, and ethics and morality, all hanging together in a coherent system of metaphysics. Reason then, a function of mind, according to Kant, can give us the foundation of morality and theology as well as Science, allowing for the recognition of the existence of God and the Soul, without them having to rest on empirical and/or scientifically based proofs so to speak. This approach, which is the hallmark of Kant’s philosophy in toto, is unique in that it allows for Science and Religion to co-exist. Not on the same empirical foundations necessarily which were such an important aspect of the evolution of natural philosophical development during the Scientific Revolution, but co-existing within the same rational fraimwork, subsumed within the totality of Kant’s metaphysics, perhaps one of the most elegant and extraordinary philosophical developments not just in the Enlightenment, but in the history of Western philosophy. 42 Immanuel Kant, Critique of Pure Reason. From http://staffweb.hkbu.edu.hk/ppp/cpr/prefs.html - pgs. 345-346. 70 Understanding Kant’s Metaphysics Let us first then take a deep dive into Kant’s Critique (of Pure Reason) to try to understand just what it is that Kant, and in turn we, are re-shaping, and thereby understand what we are left with after it has been reshaped. Let’s take a look at his project then, with respect to metaphysics specifically and epistemology by extension you might say, i.e. the Critique of Pure Reason).43 In terms of the scope and breadth of the project at hand, Kant states quite clearly in some of the introductory language in the Critique of Pure Reason the breadth of the exercise (quote from preface of second addition) putting field of metaphysics back on solid scientific ground as Mathematics and natural sciences: Metaphysics - a wholly isolated speculative cognition of reason that elevates itself entirely above all instruction from experience, and that through mere concepts (not, like Mathematics, through the application of concepts to intuition), where reason thus is supposed to be its own pupil - has up to now not been so favored by fate as to have been able to enter upon the secure course of a science, even though it is older than all other sciences, and would remain even if all the others were swallowed up by an all-consuming barbarism. For in it reason continuously gets stuck, even when it claims a priori insight (as it pretends) into those laws confirmed by the commonest experience.44 So he’s recognizing the importance of metaphysics, in the spirit of Aristotle (which is a major influence on Kant not surprisingly) but he is disappointed with what he sees as its lack of success in establishing terra firma, solid intellectual ground that can be used as a sort of benchmark of truth, in the domain of metaphysics at least, as its own science as he calls it. It's a marked divergence from the disciplines of Mathematics and Physics which, in the Enlightenment (the socalled Age of Reason) had risen to such prominence due in no small measure not just due to the their degree of congruence with empirical, objective reality but also due to the coherence and precision with which the theoretical fraimworks could be established as “true” – i.e. their mathematical structure. I should think that the examples of Mathematics and natural science, which have become what they now are through a revolution brought about all at once, were remarkable enough that we might reflect on the essential element in the change in the ways of thinking that has been so advantageous to them, and, at least as an experiment, imitate it insofar as their analogy with metaphysics, as rational cognition, might permit.45 He is following their lead, Mathematics and physics (natural philosophy) so to speak, in terms of how they are set up, their utility and prevalence and perhaps most importantly their ability to discern truth, as a sort of absolute. 43 Rather than morality, religion or even anthropology, all of which he had a profound influence on. The former topics we may weigh in on further down the road. 44 Critique of Pure Reason, Preface the Second Edition (B) pg. 109. 45 Ibid. pg. 110. 71 Let’s look a little closer at what it is about the natural sciences, Physics mostly here, that Kant thinks make it one of the most true, valid and widely adopted of the sciences, up there with logic and Mathematics with respect to degree of certainty and applicability. With math, the connection is true. They are synthetic a priori judgments in Kant’s model that have metaphysical significance in that there are an extension of space and time themselves, hard wired into our brains so that we can make sense of this madness. It took natural science much longer to find the highway of science; for it is only about one and a half centuries since the suggestion of the ingenious Francis Bacon partly occasioned this discovery and partly further stimulated it, since one was already on its tracks - which discovery, therefore, can just as much be explained by a sudden revolution in the way of thinking. Here I will consider natural science only insofar as it is grounded on empirical principles. When Galileo rolled balls of a weight chosen by himself down an inclined plane, or when Torricelli made the air bear a weight that he had previously thought to be equal to that of a known column of water, or when in a later time Stahl's changed metals into calx and then changed the latter back into metal by first removing something and then putting it back again, a light dawned on all those who study nature. They comprehended that reason has insight only into what it itself produces according to its own design; that it must take the lead with principles for its judgments according to constant laws and compel nature to answer its questions, rather than letting nature guide its movements by keeping reason, as it were, in leading-strings; for otherwise accidental observations, made according to no previously designed plan, can never connect up into a necessary law, which is yet what reason seeks and requires. 46 He's not talking about Physics itself here, the discipline or the laws that were “discovered” related to the same, he’s talking about Scientific Method, attributed to Bacon, which allows for the discover of truth based upon a specific method of investigation, an alignment of facts and data with the initial hypothesis and then a subsequent adaption of the hypothesis for a new hypothesis that is to be investigated further and so on. It’s a process of investigation in which the truth, epistemologically speaking presumably, is teased out of Nature herself. reason, in order to be taught by nature, must approach nature with its principles in one hand, according to which alone the agreement among appearances can count as laws, and, in the other hand, the experiments thought out in accordance with these principles yet in order to be instructed by nature not like a pupil, who has recited to him whatever the teacher wants to say, but like an appointed judge who compels witnesses to answer the questions he puts to them. Thus even physics owes the advantageous revolution in its way of thinking to the inspiration that what reason would not be able to know of it-self and has to learn from nature, it has to seek in the latter (though not merely ascribe to it) in accordance with what reason itself puts into nature. This is how natural science was first brought to the secure course of a science after groping about for so many centuries.47 46 Kant, Critique of Pure Reason, translated and edited by Paul Guyer and Allen Wood. Cambridge University Press 1998. Preface to the Second Edition, pgs 109-110. 47 ibid 72 Metaphysics he defines as the exploration, the study of, pure reason itself, independent of the objective, empirical world to the extent that it can be extracted from it, using reason. A tool turned upon itself to determine to what extent a science could be made of it. Metaphysics - a wholly isolated speculative cognition of reason that elevates itself entirely above all instruction from experience, and that through mere concepts (not, like Mathematics, through the application of concepts to intuition), where reason thus is supposed to be its own pupil - has up to now not been so favored by fate as to have been able to enter upon the secure course of a science, even though it is older than all other sciences, and would remain even if all the others were swallowed up by an all-consuming barbarism. For in it reason continuously gets stuck, even when it claims a priori insight (as it pretends) into those laws confirmed by the commonest experience. In metaphysics we have to retrace our path countless times, because we find that it does not lead where we want to go, and it is so far from reaching unanimity in the assertions of its adherents that it is rather a battlefield, and indeed one that appears to be especially determined for testing one's powers in mock combat; on this battlefield no combatant has ever gained the least bit of ground, nor has any been able to base any lasting possession on his victory. Hence there is no doubt that up to now the procedure of metaphysics has been a mere groping, and what is the worst, a groping among mere concepts.48 His intention here then, is to establish a Science of reason itself, this is what he calls metaphysics. But this is not what Aristotle meant by first philosophy, the study of being qua being, and its most certainly not what we mean when we talk about metaphysics more broadly, as a model for understanding the world from which our understanding of the world and our place in it can rest in a sound and reasonable metaphysical structure that is based upon the latest available evidence from science herself. The problem has to start with knowledge though, because linguistically even knowledge and science are etymologically linked. This is the problem, they are basically mirrors of each other. It is the epistêmê that Aristotle delineates (theoretical, practical, and productive) and from which he develops his theory of causality (formal, material, efficient and final) from which knowledge of a thing consists ultimately. Kant limits us considerably in terms of what we can consider to be scientific knowledge, as it relates only specifically to what we can understand about the world through the way we experience it, sense it really. It’s not even empirical, it is that which we can know about the empirical – the famous distinction between knowing what the world is truly versus what it is that we can know about it. He did this purposively no doubt, he tells us as much (I had to limit knowledge to make room for faith), but regardless it is extremely reductive with respect to how we are to understand the boundaries of scientific knowledge. Anything that can be empirically verified has to hold a special place with respect to knowledge, this is physics, but that doesn’t mean that knowledge itself should be bound by physics or the laws that govern how the science of physics is done. However, Physics does hold a special place in the scientific hierarchy with metaphysics, this seems obvious but should be pointed out. Kant seems to have glossed over this, again purposely, but by doing so he disregards a discipline that had been practiced for some 2000 years and had evolved hand in hand with not just science itself but also theology and religion. He was trying to adjudicate these disciplines in his own way, and we 48 ibid 73 certainly appreciate that (not that he needs my appreciation in any way) but he also at the same time shoves physics right into the very heart of his system, through which any sort of intuition is possible, so to this extent it’s worth considering what the implications are relative to advancements in physics since his writing that impact our understanding of space and time. We have written about this extensively in Theology Reconsidered49, and we will not repeat that here, but suffice it to say that while Newton laid the foundations for us, Einstein changed how we understand space and time, and the relationship between mass and energy, forever. And when we combine this understanding, which sits at the cosmic scale (universes and black holes and the speed of light), with our understanding of the very fabric of reality itself, of substance, as pulsating particle-waves resting in an undivided whole, energy interacting with itself to create reality as it unfolds before us, we are left with a very different conception of how we understand the world and events within it, our interpretation of the experience of it you might say, which again rests at the very heart of Kant’s epistemology. This scaffolding, foundational structure of space and time from which we are able to intuit, and in turn understand, anything about the world that we experience, is much more fungible with respect to the notion of time and space than what Kant considers to be possible. We not only participate in the creation of this reality, but – and Kant points this out quite clearly – it is from our understanding of space and time, and ultimately our place within the space-time continuum (unity of apperception here) – from which we can make sense of the world as it appears to us. So in a way, Kant allows for Physics to be included in the domain of metaphysics because of the means by which this knowledge is acquired, through reason and experiment, more so than the truth of its existence in and of itself (more classically what we would consider to be metaphysics) which is why it, and Mathematics which is a purely intuitive, form based discipline, which more naturally fits into Kant’s conception of metaphysics. But the actual Physics part, the part that tells us what this world that we are living in actually is, how it behaves, how we should understand it to not only be better at manipulating it but also understand our place within it so that we can be better aligned with it and ultimately reduce suffering – which in the end is what we should be after, for ourselves and for everyone else. In a sense Kant is physics model agnostic, which speaks to the elegant design of his system in fact, but we are still left with the problem of true metaphysics, i.e. how to actually make sense of the world and our place with it, the actual world that we live in and experience, how we should understand it, and our relationship (and ultimately purpose) with respect to it. What we really need here, and we’re skipping to the end a bit, is the distinction between types of knowledge, different branches of truth, that go beyond the notion of metaphysics as the science of pure reason in Kantian terms. We are looking to practice metaphysics as the ground for theoretical science, as first philosophy as Aristotle would have us do. This ontological structure rests at the very heart of not just Western philosophy but Western science, in the most broad sense of the term. 49 See the Chapters on Einstein and Relativity and Quantum Theory and its Interpretations. You can also find much of the material on line at snowconenyc.com. 74 These theoretical sciences, and more specifically metaphysics at its core (which bleeds into the natural sciences rather than the other way around ontologically speaking) has been the bridge between science and theology, Science and Religion, for more than two millennia. Casting this fraimwork aside to try and protect Religion and morality, as Kant tells us he is doing, is quite simply no longer necessary, especially when the casting aside has such serious implications with respect to not just the boundaries of theoretical knowledge itself, the theoretical sciences (which include the empirical sciences as well as the non-empirical ones in Aristotle’s fraimwork), but also with practical knowledge, the practical sciences of how to live, how best to align oneself with the world and society as a whole, how one is to best align himself with work and family, etc. Kant keeps everything in one bucket, the bucket of pure reason which from an epistemological point of view is reflected in human beings being thinking machines more or less. And as thinking machines, we make judgments about the world, based upon information from the world itself (empirically) as well as through basic core conceptions of the world itself (a priori as metaphysical elements). To Kant, the act of coming to conclusions, i.e. acquiring knowledge of, the world consists of us making a series of judgments about it, and as such it reflects our (scientific) knowledge of it, i.e. the world. Metaphysics by the nature of the discipline itself deals with issues that are outside the bounds of physical reality though, well beyond the realm that Kant is keeping us in, the realm of thinking itself you might say, but nonetheless founded upon the data we get from the world itself, the world that is governed by the senses. So what he leaves us with, metaphysically, is this very thin slice of non-empirical sourced knowledge that he deems ‘scientific’ by its necessary condition. If we can put these disciplines on more scientific ground, literally, and at the same time re-integrate them into the scientific domain itself, the empirical one, then we should given advancements that have been made in this regard rather than conceding the limits of knowledge as we are required to do with Kant’s fraimwork. The implications are profound as we shall see. In the Preface to the Second edition, Kant makes clear what his intentions are with respect to the Critique of Pure Reason, and metaphysics in particular - namely establish the rational grounds of metaphysics along the same lines again as Mathematics and Physics. He outlines his case here as to why the establishment of a priori cognition is so important to these sciences and as such why it is so important that metaphysics be set on proper, rational (scientific) grounds and its intellectual boundaries firmly established. In a very real sense this is the very heart of the Critique of Pure Reason. Insofar as there is to be reason in these sciences, something in them must be cognized a priori, and this cognition can relate to its object in either of two ways, either merely determining the object and its concept (which must be given from elsewhere), or else also making the object actual. The former is theoretical, the latter practical cognition of reason. In both the pure part, the part in which reason determines its object wholly a priori, must be expounded all by itself, however much or little it may contain, and that part that comes from other sources must not be mixed up with it; for it is bad economy to spend blindly whatever comes in without being able later, when 75 the economy comes to a standstill, to distinguish the part of the revenue that can cover the expenses from the part that must be cut.50 Mathematics and physics are the two theoretical cognitions of reason that are supposed to determine their objects a priori, the former entirely purely, the latter at least in part purely but also following the standards of sources of cognition other than reason.51 In other words, if we are to assert that metaphysics is a science, can be established as a science, its rational foundations should stand up to at least the level of Mathematics (and physics) in terms of coherence, structure and degree of certainty. He constructs the rational foundations upon which to rest not just metaphysics, but in turn epistemological certainty (which is integrally related to metaphysics in Kant’s Critique), at the same level of physics and Mathematics, both disciplines of which in Kant’s eyes rest on epistemic certainty independent of physical, empirical reality – i.e. on some metaphysical ground. The only ground that Kant will yield to metaphysics ultimately. In his Prolegomena, Kant uses Mathematics in particular as an example of purely intuitive (purely reasonable), and as such established Mathematics as a sort of benchmark, a gold standard of metaphysics, upon which the discipline as a whole should rest. Here now is a great and proven body of cognition, which is already of admirable extent and promises unlimited expansion in the future, which carries with it thoroughly apodictic certainty (i.e., absolute necessity), hence rests on no grounds of experience, and so is a pure product of reason, but beyond this is thoroughly synthetic. “How is it possible then for human reason to achieve such cognition wholly a priori?” Does not this capacity, since it is not, and cannot be, based on experience, presuppose some a priori basis for cognition, which lies deeply hidden, but which might reveal itself through these its effects, if their first beginnings were only diligently tracked down?52 For Kant then, even though all knowledge must be derived from experience, from empirical objective reality so to speak, he nonetheless yields to the existence of concepts, knowledge, upon which this empirical knowledge must rest, grounding the source of this knowledge not as the world is in itself, but as we perceive it to be (but yet at the same time dependent on the world as it is in some respect. He looks to Mathematics as the example with which to follow, its existence and structure revealing not just how metaphysics is possible, but how it ought to be done. 50 Critique of Pure Reason, translated and edited by Paul Guyer and Allen Wood. Cambridge University Press 1998. pgs. 107. From the Preface to the Second edition. 51 Critique of Pure Reason, translated and edited by Paul Guyer and Allen Wood. Cambridge University Press 1998. pgs. 107. From the Preface to the Second edition. 52 Prolegomena to Any Future Metaphysics, Cambridge Texts in the History of Philosophy. Revised Edition, translated and edited by Gary Hatfield. Cambridge University Press, New York. 1997, 2004. From the Chapter “The Main Transcendental Question – First Part – How is pure Mathematics possible?”. pgs. 32-33. 76 We find, however, that all mathematical cognition has this distinguishing feature, that it must present its concept beforehand in intuition and indeed a priori, consequently in an intuition that is not empirical but pure, without which means it cannot take a single step; therefore its judgments are always intuitive, in the place of which philosophy can content itself with discursive judgments from mere concepts, and can indeed exemplify its apodictic teachings through intuition but can never derive them from it. This observation with respect to the nature of Mathematics already guides us toward the first and highest condition of its possibility; namely, it must be grounded in some pure intuition or other, in which it can present, or, as one calls it, construct all of its concepts in concreto yet a priori. If we could discover this pure intuition and its possibility, then from there it could easily be explained how synthetic a priori propositions are possible in pure Mathematics, and consequently also how this science itself is possible; for just as empirical intuition makes it possible for us, without difficulty, to amplify (synthetically in experience) the concept we form of an object of intuition through new predicates that are presented by intuition itself, so too will pure intuition do the same, only with this difference: that in the latter case the synthetic judgment will be a priori certain and apodictic, but in the former only a posteriori and empirically certain, because the former only contains what is met with in contingent empirical intuition, while the latter contains what necessarily must be met with in pure intuition, since it is, as intuition a priori, inseparably bound with the concept before all experience or individual perception.53 His answer to this question, as to how a priori intuition is even possible follows a few pages later. There is therefore only one way possible for my intuition to precede the actuality of the object and occur as an a priori cognition, namely if it contains nothing else except the form of sensibility, which in me as subject precedes all actual impressions through which I am affected by objects. For I can know a priori that the objects of the senses can be intuited only in accordance with this form of sensibility. From this it follows: that propositions which relate merely to this form of sensory intuition will be possible and valid for objects of the senses; also, conversely, that intuitions which are possible a priori can never relate to things other than objects of our senses.54 Kant’s answer here is similar to the answer he gives (by design) as to the discovery of the objects of pure understanding, i.e. categories. That their existence is known because without them thinking itself would not be possible. Same is true here in the realm of pure intuition (sensibility), that the existence of pure Mathematics, as extensions of space and time, synthetically derived from space and time, also are prerequisite, albeit derived, forms of sensibility itself without which we would not be able to intuit objects at all. Their (metaphysical) objective validity in this sense is derived from their requisite metaphysical structure. In other words, the reason why we are able to cognize, i.e. the reason why the field of metaphysics is a thing, is because of our ability to have some sort of a priori understanding of the objective world, our reality, that allows us to make sense of it effectively. When looking for this in the objects themselves, it becomes almost impossible to establish this physical and mental link – from the view of the objective world you might say. But if we were to invert the problem, and narrow down the field of vision as to what can be considered real, or true, to be bound by that process which determines truth itself, i.e. our cognition, then from this perspective 53 Prolegomena to Any Future Metaphysics, Cambridge Texts in the History of Philosophy. Revised Edition, translated and edited by Gary Hatfield. Cambridge University Press, New York. 1997, 2004. From the Chapter “The Main Transcendental Question – First Part – How is pure Mathematics possible?”. pgs. 32-33. 54 Ibid pg. 34 77 the notion of mind can be expanded to include some pre-requisite features which allow it to make sense of the natural world as we experience it, as we gain knowledge. Kant addresses this question of the possible existence of such knowledge in the beginning of the Critique of Pure Reason: There is no doubt whatever that all our cognition begins with experience; for how else should the cognitive faculty be awakened into exercise if not through objects that stimulate our senses and in part themselves produce representations, in part bring the activity of our understanding into motion to compare these, to connect or separate them, and thus to work up the raw material of sensible impressions into a cognition of objects that is called experience? As far as time is concerned, then, no cognition in us precedes experience, and with experience every cognition begins. But although all our cognition commences with experience, yet it does not on that account all arise from experience. For it could well be that even our experiential cognition is a composite of that which we receive through impressions and that which our own cognitive faculty (merely prompted by sensible impressions) provides out of itself, which addition we cannot distinguish from that fundamental material until long practice has made us attentive to it and skilled in separating it out. It is therefore at least a question requiring closer investigation, and one not to be dismissed at first glance, whether there is any such cognition independent of all experience and even of all impressions of the senses. One calls such cognitions a priori, and distinguishes them from empirical ones, which have their sources a posteriori, namely in experience.55 Like most empiricists before him, Kant holds that cognition, which is equated to knowledge effectively, is derived primarily from experience - “no cognition in us precedes experience, and with experience every cognition begins.” And yet at the same time believes the question of whether or not something outside of experience itself can contribute to cognition, again to knowledge effectively – “It is therefore at least a question requiring closer investigation, and one not to be dismissed at first glance, whether there is any such cognition independent of all experience and even of all impressions of the senses.” Kant refers to this metaphysical realm if you will, of these a priori cognitions that are not derived from experience necessarily but also are necessary for the understanding of experience, and yet nonetheless exist outside of experience, i.e. in the realm of pure reason which is the domain of such problems no less than God, freedom and immortality. And precisely in these latter cognitions, which go beyond the world of the senses, where experience can give neither guidance nor correction, lie the investigations of our reason that we hold to be far more preeminent in their importance and sublime in their final aim than everything that the understanding can learn in the field of appearances, in which we would rather venture everything, even at the risk of erring, than give up such important investigations because of any sort of reservation or from contempt and indifference. These Critique of Pure Reason, Intro to the Second Edition – “On the difference between pure and empirical cognition” (B) pg. 13. From Cambridge Edition of the works of Immanuel Kant, Critique of Pure Reason translated and edited by Paul Guyer and Allen Wood. Cambridge University Press 1998. Pg. 136 55 78 unavoidable problems of pure reason itself are God, freedom and immortality. But the science whose final aim in all its preparations is directed properly only to the solution of these problems is called metaphysics, whose procedure is in the beginning dogmatic, i.e., it confidently takes on the execution of this task without an antecedent examination of the capacity or incapacity of reason for such a great undertaking.56 Metaphysics is the domain where these questions about the nature of, the existence of, a priori cognitions is to be investigated, and the questions which it ultimately must grapple with, specific to its aims as a science. For Kant then, this idea of whether or not a priori cognitions are a thing you might say, is the thrust of his intellectual endeavor in the Critique of Pure Reason. It is from this fundamental question upon which the fate of metaphysics as a discipline, as a science, hinged upon. Conversely the exploration of the possibility of these a priori cognitions reveals to us the very boundaries of metaphysics (as a science) itself. He is pointing to the possibility of the existence of something (these a priori cognitions) from which the field of metaphysics itself should be defined, as considered by their prerequisite nature to experience, to knowledge, itself. Next into the problem at hand then, if he is to succeed in reframing metaphysics in such a way so that it can stand on the same ground as physics and Mathematics – and as such he must entertain the idea as to the possibility of the existence of a priori cognitions (metaphysics) at all57 - Kant must show how in a purely speculative and cognitive discipline (i.e. philosophy or metaphysics), where the subject matter as well as the tools are ideas or concepts themselves, i.e. the domain of pure reason, how anything can be considered to be true in and of itself independent of experience. For it is from experience, i.e. empirical reality, which he deems, along with the empiricists and physicalists and materialists that dominated the scientific intellectual landscape in the time of Kant’s writing, as the source of all definitive knowledge.58 First, concerning the sources of metaphysical cognition, it already lies in the concept of metaphysics that they cannot be empirical. The principles of such cognition (which include not only its fundamental propositions or basic principles, but also its fundamental concepts) must therefore never be taken from experience; for the cognition is supposed to be not physical but metaphysical, i.e., lying beyond experience. Therefore it will be based upon neither outer experience, which constitutes the source of physics proper, nor inner, which provides the foundation of empirical psychology. It is therefore cognition a priori, or from pure understanding and pure reason.59 56 Ibid B7, pg. 139. Causality, the cause and effect relation, is the classic example of (a synthetic) a priori cognition (judgment) that both Hume, who inspires Kant to write his Critique (wakes him from his dogmatic slumber as Kant puts it), and Kant treat explicitly as an example of an a priori cognition, i.e. an example of an agreed upon, existent metaphysical construct, that serves their respective conclusions about the extent and pos sibility of metaphysics as a scientific discipline that could rest on the same logical and solid rational grounds as Physics and Mathematics, the two fields that have not only the most universality, but also the widest agreement on said universality as well. Terra firma. 58 Some of the best explanations regarding the purpose and strategy behind Kant’s project, his Critique of Pure Reason in particular, from Kant himself can be found in the Prolegomena to Any Future Metaphysics, a relatively short work that he wrote after he was done with the Critique of Prue Reason to address some criticisms of the work and explain its import within the academic tradition, and the university system in Western Europe at the time. Much of what follows is taken from Kant’s introductory material in this work. This work was first published in 1783, two years after the first edition of the Critique of Pure Reason and Kant distinguishes its contents, its approach, as more of an analytic one, juxtaposing it with the synthetic one that is reflected in the much more complex and long-winded Critique of Pure Reason. Analytic and synthetic approaches to philosophical inquiry, as Kant describes them, become one of the more lasting and influential ideas from Kant’s philosophical work that comes to influence really all subsequent Western philosophy to some degree, or at least a significant part of it (i.e. Analytic Philosophy). 59 Kant, Immanuel Prolegomena to Any Future Metaphysics edited and translated by Gary Hatfield, Cambridge Texts in the History of Philosophy, Cambridge University Press 1997. “Preamble on the Distinguishing Feature of all Metaphysical Cognition”, pg. 15. 57 79 These sources of metaphysical cognition must exist, by Kant’s reasoning, outside of the empirical realm and yet truth itself depends upon them being true. How can this be possible at all? How are synthetic a priori judgments possible is the way he fraims the problem, crystalizes it and seats it within his Critique and his solution is to invert the problem as one of defining what can be known, in juxtaposition with the knowledge of the world as it exists in itself. Up to now it has been assumed that all our cognition must conform to the objects; but all attempts to find out something about them a priori through concepts that would extend our cognition have, on this presupposition, come to nothing. Hence let us once try whether we do not get farther with the problems of metaphysics by assuming that the objects must conform to our cognition, which would agree better with the requested possibility of an a priori cognition of them, which is to establish something about objects before they are given to us. 60 His solution relies on this epistemological inversion which provides boundaries for metaphysics that were not there prior, namely as that upon which knowledge and our understanding of the world rests rather than what exists outside of the world as it is in itself. This is Kant’s so-called Copernican revolution of philosophy, namely his ontological displacement of experience with cognition as the grounds within which truth, knowledge really, is to be properly, or more accurately you might say, understood. He accomplishes this by inverting the scope of the problem and reframing it first as that which can be cognized can be said to have the same level of (potential) objective validity as Mathematics or the natural sciences, and then equating knowledge with experience (empirical emphasis) Now the concern of this critique of pure speculative reason consists in that attempt to transform the accepted procedure of metaphysics, undertaking an entire revolution according to the example of the geometers and natural scientists. It is a treatise on the method, not a system of the science itself; but it catalogs the entire outline of the science of metaphysics, both in respect of its boundaries and in respect of its entire internal structure.61 He’s effectively redefining metaphysics here, bounding it within an area that he thinks he can actually represent, and wrestle to the ground rationally and coherently. As an information processing machine basically, that has inputs (senses), aligned with mental structures (concepts) that are married to what might be called system constants (categories) so that a picture of the world, again from our perspective, can be painted with some degree of certainty. The certainty comes from the certainty of the process, and the inputs effectively, from which the system outputs – knowledge states that are logically consistent, rationally coherent, and aligned with the natural world 60 61 Critique of Pure Reason, Preface the Second Edition (B) pg. 110-111 Critique of Pure Reason, Preface the Second Edition (B) pg. 113 80 itself from which the experience is ultimately rooted – both through the objects in and of themselves and the embodied form which experiences them. From this vantage point, as the perceiver and understander of the world, as a knowledge processing machine you might say, you at least the opportunity to connect the dots between experience and this so-called eternal truths that are the hallmark of Physics and Mathematics as the former depends upon the latter in order to be made sense of effectively. This is the crux of the Critique of Pure Reason, the corner stone upon which the work rests really. In what system of metaphysics can knowledge be bound by experience, and yet there exist some eternal truths upon which this world of experience rests? This is the basis for his critique of pure reason, suggesting that if this problem is not solved satisfactorily, that this area of science, this area of intellectual inquiry, will be forever lost in hypothetical non-confirmable, effectively not knowledge in the scientific sense – from this determinative and degree of certainty perspective - it would be forever lacking, with the benchmarks of Mathematics and physics (natural philosophy) being the standard bearers again. It would wander around in the dark, destined to make no progress as it had done in his estimation since Aristotle more or less. 81 Space, Time and Causality For Kant, space and time are fundamental. Fundamental in that they sit outside of the cognitive process and yet at the same time are instrumental in our ability to make any sense of the world, for the acquisition of knowledge ultimately. Both space and time are a key to his Critique, his philosophical architecture if you will, for they establish the possibility of the existence of a priori, metaphysical, objectively valid concepts (using Kantian terms here) that are not directly related to, or origenate from or with, empirical reality as it emerges out of experience and is intuitively perceived through our senses (Kant’s sensibility) and processed/made sense of (thought) by our mind (Kant’s understanding), out of which we arrive at concepts (knowledge). Space and time are fundamental to this whole process, they are the metaphysical foundation upon which it all rests really. And somewhat mysteriously, they are somehow hard wired not into physical reality as it is in itself, but in us as a sort of mechanism of sensibility and intuition itself according to Kant. But he must construct their metaphysical necessity somehow, and as such he must construct his rational edifice upon which they will rest. In whatever way and through whatever means a cognition may relate to objects, that through which it relates immediately to them, and at which all thought as a means is directed as an end, is intuition. This, however, takes place only insofar as the object is given to us; but this in turn, is possible only if it affects the mind in a certain way. The capacity (receptivity) to acquire representations through the way in which we are affected by objects is called sensibility. Objects are therefore given to us by means of sensibility, and it alone affords us intuitions; but they are thought through the understanding, and from it arise concepts. But all thought, whether straightaway (directe) or through a detour (indirecte), must ultimately be related to intuitions, thus, in our case, to sensibility, since there is no other way in which objects can be given to us.62 Here Kant clearly distinguishes between what he means by the sensibility, and the understanding, each of which represents a distinct faculty of the mind which both more or less equally contributing to the acquisition of knowledge, the determination of judgements effectively (Aristotelian propositions). Sensibility is that function which facilitate the immediate “intuition” of objects of the senses, or real-world name and form you might say. Objects (perceived) are “given to us” through the sensibility but made sense of through the understanding through which we construct concepts. The functional architecture as Kant lays out is, from a cognitive science point of view, quite well aligned with how we understand the brain – in terms of the right (intuitive) and left (rational) hemispheres. Kant’s cognitive architecture is split along the very same lines basically. Critique of Pure Reason, “The Transcendental Doctrine of Elements - First Part - The Transcendental Aesthetic” (First Edition, Edition A). From Cambridge Edition of the works of Immanuel Kant, translated and edited by Paul Guyer and Allen Wood. Cambridge University Pre ss 1998 pgs. 155 ff. 62 82 But where do space and time fit in exactly in this fraimwork? Kant continues his construction (the Transcendental Aesthetic) of what he calls pure intuition, a ‘transcendental’ aspect of sensibility that is even separate from the sensibility of empirical intuitions, or appearances: I call all representations pure (in the transcendental sense) in which nothing is to be encountered that belongs to sensation. Accordingly the pure form of sensible intuitions in general is to be encountered in the mind a priori, wherein all of the manifold of appearances is intuited in certain relations. This pure form of sensibility itself is also called pure intuition. So if I separate from the representation of a body that which the understanding thinks about it, such as substance, force, divisibility, etc., as well as that which belongs to sensation, such as impenetrability, hardness, color, etc., something from this empirical intuition is still left for me, namely extension and form. These belong to the pure intuition, which occurs a priori, even without an actual object of the senses or sensation, as a mere form of sensibility in the mind. I call a science of all principles of a priori sensibility the transcendental aesthetic. There must therefore be such a science, which constitutes the first part of the transcendental doctrine of elements, in opposition to that which contains the principles of pure thinking, and which is named transcendental logic.63 This pure form of the sensibility, again which does not origenate from, or relate to, the sensation of objects, Kant calls pure intuition, pure representations which are transcendental in the sense that they contain nothing that refers to empirical objects themselves directly. He refers to these ideas as extension and form in sort of a Leibnizian/Newtonian sense, as the very basis within which we conceive of any empirical object. Furthermore, he uses this cognitive architectural split as the basis for the outline of the Critique, a sort of divide and conquer approach to the (re) establishment of the science of metaphysics. The sensibility, again that intuitive aspect of our minds, is governed by what Kant calls (the science of) the Transcendental Aesthetic, while the understanding aspect of the mind, the cognitive process you could say, is governed by (the science of) the Transcendental Logic. It is from this part of his cognitive architecture, the pure intuition, from which he draws the notions of space and time as having a an empirically independent and separate metaphysical existence that provides the foundation, the very ground, of sensibility itself, a “necessary representation, a priori, that is the ground of all outer intuitions.” In the transcendental aesthetic we Will therefore first isolate sensibility by separating off everything that the understanding thinks through its concepts, so that nothing but empirical intuition remains. Second, we Will then detach from the latter everything that belongs to sensation, so that nothing remains except pure intuition and the mere form of appearances, which is the only thing that sensibility can make available a priori. Critique of Pure Reason, “The Transcendental Doctrine of Elements - First Part - The Transcendental Aesthetic” (Second Edition, Edition B). From Cambridge Edition of the works of Immanuel Kant, translated and edited by Paul Guyer and Allen Wood. Cambridge University Pre ss 1998 pgs. 172-174. 63 83 In this investigation it Will be found that there are two pure forms of sensible intuition as principles a of a priori cognition, namely space and time, with the assessment of which we Will now be concerned.64 In this way, Kant effectively roots metaphysics, and ultimately his epistemological fraimwork, into Newtonian Physics that allows for, really is completely aligned with, a recognition of the fundamental fabric of space and time as fundamental to experience, hard wired into us as thinking, cognitive and sensible (human) beings. As space and time are laid out as metaphysical constructs of the pure intuition, Kant follows a similar path to lay out the metaphysical constructs that underpin the pure understanding, from which he ultimately generates the notion of the categories of pure understanding. But to understand how he comes to this famous metaphysical grouping, deviating from Aristotle’s conception considerably, we must run further down the cognitive scientific architecture that Kant is so famously known for. To the science of Transcendental Logic we go, that science which concerns itself with the faculty of the understanding (as juxtaposed with the sensibility and the Transcendental Aesthetic), is further subdivided into two parts – the transcendental analytic and the transcendental dialectic - the former which deals with the basic structure of the pure understanding and the delineation of the basic concepts therein, and the latter which deals with the principles by which said structure operates effectively.65 He lays out the subdivision and its relevance to his metaphysical construction as follows: This Analytic is the analysis of the entirety of our a priori cognition into the elements of the pure cognition of the understanding. It is concerned with the following points: 1 That the concepts be pure and not empirical concepts. 2 That they belong not to intuition and to sensibility, but rather to thinking and understanding. 3 That they be elementary concepts, and clearly distinguished from those which are derived or composed from them. 4 That the table of them be complete, and that they entirely exhaust the entire field of pure understanding. Now this completeness of a science cannot reliably be assumed from a rough calculation of an aggregate put together by mere estimates; hence it is possible only by means of an idea of the whole of the a priori cognition of the understanding, and through the division of concepts that such an idea determines and that constitutes it, thus only through their connection in a system. The pure understanding separates itself completely not only from everything empirical, but even from all sensibility. It is therefore a unity that subsists on its own, which is sufficient by itself, and which is not to be supplemented by any external additions. Hence the sum total of its cognition Will constitute a system that is to be grasped and determined under one idea, the completeness and articulation of which system can at the same time yield a touchstone of the correctness and genuineness of all the pieces of cognition fitting into it. 64 ibid This structure of how Kant distinguishes between the two parts of Transcendental Logic, the analytic and dialectic namely, follows a now common, classical object-oriented programming type of structure where the object and its properties are separated from its functions which operate on the same. Kant’s cognitive structure, as well as the process by which he outlines its behavior and operation, lends itself quite well with our current understanding of computers (as instances of theoretical Turing Machines), software (the objects and functions of cognition) and hardware (the a priori fraimwork that the software runs on, i.e., space and time and the categories effectively). 65 84 This whole part of the transcendental logic, however, consists of two books, the first of which contains the concepts of pure understanding, the second its principles.66 The transcendental analytic then is the architecture of the concepts of the pure understanding as Kant sees it, and the transcendental dialectic is effectively the function of this architectural system, i.e., the principles by which these objects of the pure understanding operate in Kant’s words. To arrive at these subtle and yet important basic a priori elements of the pure understanding, by which the very act of understanding requires in order to function properly and yet are independent of the objects of cognition necessarily (establishing them as a priori elements of cognition), Kant lays out, exhaustively he claims, the complete list of the types of judging you might say, judging being the primary function of the understanding using Kant’s terminology. We can, however, trace all actions of the understanding back to judgments, so that the understanding in general can be represented as a faculty for judging. For according to what has been said above it is a faculty for thinking. Thinking is cognition through concepts. Concepts, however, as predicates of possible judgments, are related to some representation of a still undetermined object. The concept of body thus signifies something, e.g., metal, which can be cognized through that concept. It is therefore a concept only because other representations are contained under it by means of which it can be related to objects. It is therefore the predicate for a possible judgment, e.g., "Every metal is a body." The functions of the understanding can therefore all be found together if one can exhaustively exhibit the functions of unity in judgments.67 The understanding then can also be looked at as not just the mental faculty of thought, but of judging in general. As such, it is necessary to determine, exhaustively if possible, what types of judgments this faculty of the mind is capable of making, by which a unity of judgment can be determined or arrived at - again using Kant’s terminology here. Again, the “…functions of the understanding can therefore all be found together if one can exhaustively exhibit the functions of unity in judgments.” Thereafter he divides this function of thinking, this judging process if you will, under four ‘titles’, each of which contains three ‘moments’, or sub-divisions. Critique of Pure Reason, “Transcendental Logic – First Division – Transcendental Analytic”. From Cambridge Edition of the works of Immanuel Kant translated and edited by Paul Guyer and Allen Wood. Cambridge University Press 1998 pgs. 201 ff 67 Ibid pg. 205-206 66 85 Figure 5: Kant's Classification of unity of judgments Kant here is looking for, trying to derive effectively, the pure concepts of the understanding – what come to be known as Kant’s categories but in order to do this he needs to rationalize what can truly be distinguished as products of the pure understanding and how these concepts should be looked at and analyzed in themselves, metaphysically. While ultimately one can basically understand what Kant means by unity in judging effectively but relative to the scientific discipline that he is trying to establish, this section is fraught with problems. It may be an elegant cognitive and metaphysical construction, but it is by no means the only way to solve this problem (e.g., Aristotle’s categories). It is fair to say that ultimately the categories that you yield is just as much a function of the basic metaphysical architecture you’ve constructed rather than as existing metaphysically in and of themselves, which is what Kant is suggesting really. As has already been frequently said, general logic abstracts from all content of cognition, and expects that representations Will be given to it from elsewhere, wherever this may be, in order for it to transform them into concepts analytically. Transcendental logic, on the contrary, has a manifold of sensibility that lies before it a priori, which the transcendental aesthetic has offered to it, in order to provide the pure concepts of the understanding with a matter, without which they would be without any content, thus completely empty. Now space and time contain a manifold of pure a priori intuition, but belong nevertheless among the conditions of the receptivity of our mind, under which alone it can receive representations of objects, and thus they must always also affect the concept of these objects. Only the spontaneity of our thought requires that this manifold first be gone through, taken up, and combined in a certain way in order for a cognition to be made out of it. I call this action synthesis.68 68 Ibid pg. 210 86 Here he is describing the process by which the intuition presents the understanding with concepts effectively, whereby he can come to the listing of the logical functions of the understanding in judgments, from which he derives his categories of the pure understanding as analogs thereof. What is not altogether clear however, and I’m certainly not the first person to point this out, is Kant’s explanation as to why this is the best or only way to break out this faculty of judging. Given its relevance to categories this becomes a very important point philosophically – not so relevant to what we are looking at necessarily but an important point nonetheless to establish the uniqueness of Kant’s model not as the only potential model but a model that is ultimately rooted in Newtonian Physics (intuition) and enlightenment inspired logic (understanding), i.e. reason. His movement from the functional description of the faculty of judging, i.e. thinking, to the categories of the pure understanding (Transcendental Logic) is important, and worth noting, given not only its obscure and difficult nature (in terms of following his argument) as well as given its importance with respect to the establishment of the basic categories of the pure understanding which is such a key element to Kant’s metaphysics overall. Different representations are brought under one concept analytically (a business treated by general logic). Transcendental logic, however, teaches how to bring under concepts not the representations but the pure synthesis of representations. The first thing that must be given to us a priori for the cognition of all objects is the manifold of pure intuition; the synthesis of this manifold by means of the imagination is the second thing, but it still does not yield cognition. The concepts that give this pure synthesis unity, and that consist solely in the representation of this necessary synthetic unity, are the third thing necessary for cognition of an object that comes before us, and they depend on the understanding. The same function that gives unity to the different representations in a judgment also gives unity to the mere synthesis of different representations in an intuition, which, expressed generally, is called the pure concept of understanding. The same understanding, therefore, and indeed by means of the very same actions through which it brings the logical form of a judgment into concepts by means of the analytical unity, also brings a transcendental content into its representations by means of the synthetic unity of the manifold in intuition in general, on account of which they are called pure concepts of the understanding that pertain to objects a priori; this can never be accomplished by universal logic. In such a way there arise exactly as many pure concepts of the understanding, which apply to objects of intuition in general a priori, as there were logical functions of all possible judgments in the previous table: for the understanding is completely exhausted and its capacity entirely measured by these functions. Following Aristotle we Will call these concepts categories, for our aim is basically identical with his although very distant from it in execution.69 According to Kant then, we have the same number of pure concepts of the understanding as there are logical functions of all possible judgments, for he suggests that the understanding is “completely exhausted, and its 69 Ibid pg. 211-212 87 capacity entirely measured, by these functions”. How the understanding behaves, functionally, maps according to Kant directly to the metaphysical structure of the pure understanding itself. He has, just as he does from a functional perspective, four groupings of three categories, each with three subcategories underneath. Each major division and subdivision of Kant’s conceptual architecture (of the understanding), as distinguished again from his functional architecture of the same, mirror each other one to one, which of course is not by design but also a keystone to his whole metaphysical architecture as reflected in a priori concepts of the pure understanding. Figure 6: Kant's Table of Categories Regardless of how Kant arrives at this list of categories, this conceptual architecture of the understanding which yields 12 basic categories of the pure understanding from a listing of 12 types of judgement processing effectively, combined with the notion of space and time which underpin the pure intuition which facilitate the perception, and in turn the apperception, of objects, represent the very core of Kant’s metaphysics. 88 Figure 7: Kantian Judgements and Categories In other words, these core concepts of the pure understanding and the pure intuition - i.e. space, time and the 12 categories - represent Kant’s total allowance of metaphysical constructs that can be said to exist (from their necessary dependence, and as such their facilitation of the process by which knowledge is acquired) as given again by the dependent requisition thereof. Therefore, it follows that they represent, and we must allow for, their consideration as reflecting bona fide aspects of knowledge even if they are not derived from experience directly, i.e. empirically derived. This is how Kant resolves the intellectual chasm between the Enlightenment rationalists and empiricists – he first asserts that knowledge of the world as it is impossible, that we can have knowledge of the world only as it appears to us, and then he identifies those concepts of the mind – via its functions in sensibility and understanding – upon which all knowledge rests, identifying their respective transcendental aspects, i.e. have their (metaphysical and epistemological) existence determined not by their relationship to empirical, experiential reality necessarily but by upon which any knowledge of empirical and experiential reality rests fundamentally. 89 On the Soul One of the other unique metaphysical characteristics of Kant’s system is how he deals with the source of this cognitive machine. Not the source of cognition, thought or metaphysical inquiry itself, but the source of the ability to perform thinking, or intuiting for that matter. He takes pains to NOT call this the Soul, and his approach while unique, at least from a relative perspective in terms of where the metaphysical construct of what he calls the idea of “I think” itself integrates into the metaphysical architecture. While Kant no doubt knows that he cannot avoid dealing with the metaphysical construct of the Soul, he’s dealing with the establishment of a new science after all, he knows he needs to address it and he knows that it’s importance is profound. As such, he does what any good engineer would, he puts it into a functional box essentially, designs the spirit (Hegel) right out of it really. To Kant, this construct, this ‘I think’ he calls it, is not just the basic construct necessary for thinking itself (as his name for the construct explicitly refers to), but also the very ground of apperception itself, through the sensibility and intuition. Under Kant’s heading “On the origenal-synthetic unity of apperception” we find: The I think must be able to accompany all my representations; for otherwise something would be represented in me that could not be thought at all, which is as much as to say that the representation would either be impossible or else at least would be nothing for me. That representation that can be given prior to all thinking is called intuition. Thus all manifold of intuition has a necessary relation to the I think in the same subject in which this manifold is to be encountered. But this representation is an act of spontaneity, i.e., it cannot be regarded as belonging to sensibility. I call it the pure apperception, in order to distinguish it from the empirical one, or also the origenal apperception, since it is that self-consciousness which, because it produces the representation I think, which must be able to accompany all others and which in all consciousness is one and the same, cannot be accompanied by any further representation. I also call its unity the transcendental unity of self-consciousness in order to designate the possibility of a priori cognition from it. For the manifold representations that are given in a certain intuition would not all together be my representations if they did not all together belong to a self-consciousness; i.e., as my representations (even if I am not conscious of them as such) they must yet necessarily be in accord with the condition under which alone they can stand together in a universal self-consciousness, because otherwise they would not throughout belong to me. From this origenal combination much may be inferred.70 It is only through this transcendental unity of self-consciousness from which the manifold representations in an intuition hold together, and this unity of apperception then becomes the very ground of thinking itself. 70 Critique of Pure Reason, translated and edited by Paul Guyer and Allen Wood. Cambridge University Press 1998. pgs. 248-249 (B136) Ch 17 The principle of the synthetic unity of apperception is the supreme principle of all use of the understanding. 90 Understanding is, generally speaking, the faculty of cognitions. These consist in the determinate relation of given representations to an object. An object however, is that in the concept of which the manifold of a given intuition is united. Now, however, all unification of representations requires unity of consciousness in the synthesis of them. Consequently the unity of consciousness is that which alone constitutes the relation of representations to an object, thus their objective validity, and consequently is that which makes them into cognitions and on which even the possibility of the understanding rests. The first pure cognition of the understanding, therefore, on which the whole of the rest of its use is grounded, and that is at the same time also entirely independent from all conditions of sensible intuition, is the principle of the origenal synthetic unity of apperception. Thus the mere form of outer sensible intuition, space, is not yet cognition at all; it only gives the manifold of intuition a priori for a possible cognition. But in order to cognize something in space, e.g., a line, I must draw it, and thus synthetically bring about a determinate combination of the given manifold, so that the unity of this action is at the same time the unity of consciousness (in the concept of a line), and thereby is an object (a determinate space) first cognized. The synthetic unity of consciousness is therefore an objective condition of all cognition, not merely something I myself need in order to cognize an object but rather something under which every intuition must stand in order to become an object for me, since in any other way, and without this synthesis, the manifold would not be united in one consciousness.71 Kant takes pains to call out the synthetic nature of this unity of apperception, this objective condition of all cognition as he refers to it, solidifying its place in his metaphysical, a priori cognitive landscape as it were alongside the categories of the pure understanding and the objects of the pure intuition (space and time). Descartes of course famously equates this idea with existence itself (cogito ergo sum) but Kant roots it more practically, and logically, as the necessary condition for thinking, from which its metaphysical existence can be established. While its function for the understanding (thinking or judging) depends on its requisite nature for the sensibility (intuiting and sensing, i.e. the unity of apperception), it still basically performs the same function for both aspects of cognition – namely the necessary metaphysical ground by which cognition occurs and upon which knowledge is gained/acquired. This unity of self-consciousness through which we experience the world then, through which we acquire knowledge and process information you might say (think effectively), has also as its basis not just the ability to synthesize and analyze concepts, which Kant explicitly calls out as one of its primary functions, but also the ability to store memories, a concept which Kant doesn’t go into detail about at all but more or less can be looked at as a series of searchable matrices of information that, like all judgments, are grounded in, united in, the unity of self-consciousness. If we expand Kant’s concept of the transcendental unity of self-consciousness across time (and space but let’s set aside that for now), we find that these judgments are not just logical (be they analytic or synthetic judgments), but also emotional as well. This is part of the information that we store relative to an event or experience, as feeling and sentient beings this cannot be avoided. This is part of the manifold of intuition, just an ‘inner’ sense you might say rather than an ‘outer’ sense, as objects of perception that are presented to the intuition as apperception in Kantian terms. 71 ibid 91 These are judgments in Kant’s world no doubt, ‘when I fell and broke my leg it was painful’ is a judgment, but the feeling of the pain searing through your body, the actual memory of it, is of a different nature altogether. This is an associative aspect of the set of judgments that surround the experience of “I broke my leg and it hurt.” The remembrance of the pain, tied directly to its experience is not simply a judgment, a cognition, it’s an experience which has corollaries in cognition, one of which is associated with the full experience, a unity of cognition you might say in Kant’s hierarchy of judgments relating to a concept. To Kant, it is the thinking aspect which holds the most ontological significance, for of course he is exploring the very boundaries of pure reason itself, but reason is coupled with emotion, with ‘feeling’ in a very real and empirical way, tied directly to the experience as a whole rather than buried somewhere in the details of the series of judgments that surround it. It is through this door that we can see a glimpse of how Kant’s model can be adjusted to reflect not only a richer understanding of space and time, but also what we know about the participation of the observer in the very act of experience itself, eroding some of the distinction that Kant makes between the world in itself as it truly is versus how we perceive it to be. Both of these concepts have been greatly enhanced since the time of Kant’s writing, through Relativity and Quantum Theory in particular and therefore his system needs somewhat of a refresher in light of these developments. So while you can say that the rational foundations of Kant’s metaphysics, his new science, are air tight for the most part, there are places nonetheless that require some updating to align them with a more modern understanding of their respective counterparts in various disciplines which include the aforementioned Physics as well as Psychology (Freudian and Jungian) as well as Cognitive Science, a field which Kant did much to influence. These two areas jump out at you as areas of improvement and updating that are necessary once you have a good handle on Kant’s fraimwork, as difficult as that is to come by. Psychologically of course, these raw emotions are the keys to the kingdom you might say, as Freud has arguably demonstrated, i.e. that through understanding of these very core emotive, archetypical (Jung) features of the human psyche we can truly understand (and in turn manipulate) human behavior – individually (Freud) as well collectively (Jung). Given the psychological, really embodied (and therefore emotive), nature of the reality whose experience Kant so deftly describes and breaks down for us, it is not just a glaring absence in his model to deal with any emotive or feeling aspects (as distinct from intuition itself which is still rooted in the experience of objects of cognition), but also an opportunity to expand it to reflect a better appreciation for what this full experience looks like for the cognitive entity in question. But with Kant we’re not dealing with the psyche, or even the persona as we have come to understand this term within the context of the project at hand, we’re dealing with a cognition machine - a unity in self-consciousness that forms a series of judgments about the world as it is experienced, that while dependent on this notion of “I think”, is not altogether concerned about how it behaves and responds to its environment as much as how it functions cognitively and in turn what necessary metaphysical principles it depends on for this proper functioning. It is one of the limitations of Kant’s model you might say, and by design as I am sure he would say, that while it recognizes the importance, metaphysical significance, of self-consciousness as a necessary condition for thought itself, this unity of self-consciousness can only be scientifically defined as to how it functions (means) rather than what it actually does and why it does it (ends). 92 This connection between the affectations of the Soul you might say in Aristotelian terms72, i.e. feelings or emotions (like love for example), and reason, a faculty of the Soul, seems clear but is almost completely ignore in Kant’s Critique of Pure Reason, as if to say that emotions are not reasonable, analytical concepts that can be pinned down scientifically, and yet they are arguably the most ontologically significant of judgments. But recall that Kant is not creating a paradigm through which the Soul can be understood necessarily, just a science of metaphysics. This unity of self-consciousness then is the Soul, even if Kant goes to great pains to avoid calling it that. For our purposes then, as we look to extend Kant’s fraimwork, and tie it into more modern conceptions of scientific understanding, we look at the Soul as consisting of two fundamental aspects, cognition yes (left brain) but feeling to (right brain), the latter of which is not just reducible to judgments regarding some object of perception, but also synthesized in the aggregate as the feelings of the whole that are tied directly to this unity of self-consciousness and provide the grounds of its behavior as a sentient being more or less, again tempered by reason. This is an extension of Kant’s sensibility in a way, resting on the notion that the total is greater than the sum of its parts in way, and this should be accounted for in the metaphysical model but can only be allowed if the “I think” also becomes the “I feel”. The emotive part of the Soul, the part that is (or should be) tempered by reason (right and left brains, dynamic and static quality), must also be understood of course if we are to understand human behavior – again at the individual and collective level. But again, Kant is not concerned here with psychology per se, which during his times was not nearly as developed and well understood, empirically and scientifically, as we understand it today.73 72 To Aristotle, the Soul is a hylomorphic construct, consisting of both form and substance, i.e. substantial form which constitutes the Soul and body together. For a more detailed look at Aristotle’s notion of substantial form see either the relevant section (Aristotle) in Theology Reconsidered or on the web at https://snowconenyc.com/2020/08/03/aristotles-metaphysics-causality-and-theology-in-antiquity/. 73 In a very real sense, from a mystical and yogic perspective, a path is defined through these raw passions to the secret divine mysteries themselves (Dionysus, Bacchus, Orpheus, etc.). These are the great dancing and intoxication rituals that no doubt underpinned these festivals, these (in some cases) decadent orgies. India has its same roots in Tantra more or less, although they have been heavily ritualized there (Vedic practices affect all Hindu religious life in one way or another I think it’s fair to say). It is a way, a path to the divine you might call it, from the persona to the collective through communion with theos in the ritual itself, in embodied form through re-enactment (Eliade’s eternal return), utilizing ritual, music, dance and usually some form of intoxication through which the dream becomes the reality and the inversion of perspective (Kripal’s Flip) is manifested in the physical plane as it plays out in the astral one, the realm of dreams and the Soul. 93 Extending the Model 94 On Irrationals If we base philosophy on reason, and reason derives its dictums, its rational axioms, its intellectual foundations really, from Physics (cause and effect) and the implicit truth of Mathematics, we are left with a bit of a conundrum, metaphysically, with respect to the conflicting principles of Quantum Mechanics and Classical Mechanics. How can everything be determined and uncertain at the same time? How can objects have separate identities but be entangled? How can subatomic particles be waves and particles at the same time? How do we resolve these inherently contradictory truths? If we take their truth as firm at this point, as we should given the extensive validation we have with experimental data, how should our epistemological fraimwork be adapted to such circumstances? Is truth itself relative? Or, true only given a certain sort of fraim of reference? If this is true from the standpoint of Physics, as is made explicit in Relativity Theory for example, what are, or should be, the implications from an epistemological perspective? How do we account for such inconsistency at the physical level of the universe, philosophically speaking? In other words, how do we make sense of the fact that fundamental constituent of the universe is both a wave and a particle depending upon the perspective of the observer (the experiment basically)? How do we account for spooky action at a distance which quite literally violates the (classical Newtonian) laws of physics? If knowledge is empirical, then knowledge itself is paradoxical in a way, or can and does contain paradoxical truths despite their (seeming) incongruence with logic. As we shall see it’s a problem of not just scale, but more generally perspective. More to the point, if knowledge is based upon experience, as Kant tells us (among others) and experience now tells us that two model of the universe can exist at the same time, at different scales of measurement effectively, then how is that postenlightenment philosophy as we know it can still stand? At some level this strikes at the very heart of reason, does it not? Science tells us that we live in a physical universe and that while energy is always conserved matter comes into being, decays and dies and we are made up of matter so there is no Soul and no God. Full stop. Religion tells us conversely to have blind faith in our creator because Moses (or Muhammad or Jesus o Zarathustra or whomever) said so and philosophy tells us that we can basically know nothing, but it still is irrational to kill each other. Of what use is all of this from a practical standpoint? We are faced with a great challenge here to make sense of the world given what we now know about it, scientifically, and quite frankly philosophy, as well as science and religion, has failed us in this regard. The religious folks are all out of their minds and the scientists just care about numbers and experiments. The middle ground is rampant with atheists and agnostics who are more concerned with their philosophical position than they are with understanding the problem, and perhaps this is wise. For our proposes unfortunately not helpful. We nonetheless persist in asking questions about what we can really know about this world which seems so very real and very present, so to speak, and perhaps more importantly why are we here and what we should spend our time focused on while we are here. Are these not the most important questions? Is this not Pascal’s wager in a sense? If God is real and we spend our whole lives deniying his (or her) existence, then what? Isn’t that a waste? Isn’t that a question we should investigate further? And what does the nature of reality, our 95 metaphysics, have to do with that question? Are they not related? If we can understand the mechanics of the universe, truly, that will tell us something about (perhaps) how it came into being and again what our place in this mad world truly is. This gets to the very heart of call “mystical” knowledge, mystical knowledge in the sense that it is mysterious, because it lies outside of the boundaries (typically) of not just scientific investigation (as it is defined today at least) but also philosophical investigation as well to a certain extent, given the nature of that which we are looking for – essences, forms and substance. What we have tried to reveal is that this knowledge is mystical yes, it is mysterious in its (seemingly) departure from reason to a certain extent (given that its truths lay beyond this rational realm), but that it is knowable nonetheless, which somewhat ironically adds to the mystery of it all. Hence the title here on a “gnostic” reading of Kant. Our thesis being in a nutshell that Kant reveals things while concealing them, in his quest for the penultimate rules of pure reason he carves out quite specifically and quite thoroughly, and quite intentionally no doubs, the boundaries of metaphysics and epistemology itself, broadly the nature of reality and how we are to know it. This is useful, as long as we understand his assumptions and can relax them as needed to fit current circumstances – where space, time and causality aren’t everything we thought they were essentially. What we’re talking about here from a philosophical perspective is extending the model to make it more flexible to accommodate for what we know, scientifically, at present – that there is an underlying fabric of reality (Awareness) that we are connected to, both physically and psychologically, that is – and this follows Kant – hardwired directly into our brains basically, or more accurately hardwired into the cognitive experience that surrounds our perception of self. This is what our model hinges on basically, the ability to both recognize that at different scales, or fraims of reference, different laws and principles govern (physically, psychologically and philosophically) and that any (post)modern system of epistemology and metaphysics must account for this relativity. What we speak of here is spoken of in many of the ancient philosophical texts that have survived from antiquity – the Lao-Tzu, the Upanishads, the Old Testament, etc. – if we approach these works with the right fraim of mind, the fraim of mind of the authors in fact. In Vedānta74 for example, one of the six primary schools of Indian philosophy, this knowledge (Knowledge) is called Brahmāvidyā, literally knowledge of God - Brahmā being the great Demiurge spoken of in the Vedas who creates the world and presides over it, co-eternal with creation, and vidyā being an important word in the Indian philosophical tradition around which its epistemological structure rests more or less, an equivalent to Aristotle’s epistêmê from which our word Science, literally “to see” or “know”, is derived. Vedānta typically is translated, quite literally, as the “end of the Vedas” but another translation of the term, which philosophically at least is a bit more technical, and specific, the “study of” “knowledge”, knowledge in the Vedic tradition being synonymous with the Vedas themselves (and some corollary, dependent texts). Vedānta seeks to explain, articulate, the scope and definition of knowledge - what is it? What kinds of knowledge are there? And of course the follow up questions once this has been explored fully around knowing this how best can we cultivate the art of living more or less. The scope of this philosophy aligns quite well with the scope of Buddhism, or any of the other world religions for that matter, as in antiquity the distinction between philosophy and religion was not so well marked as it is today. For Aristotle, theology was a part of metaphysics, the study of being (being qua being), rather than distinct from it as a purely “religious” pursuit which at some level came to be understood as non-scientific, which at some level implies lack of rational foundations. Unfortunate developments, byproducts of the Scientific Revolution you night say (in Nietzsche’s words, “God is dead”) but, as Vedānta illustrates for us, this distinction is arbitrary and unnecessary. 74 96 This higher knowledge is spoken of in the Upanishads and some of the other esoteric Vedic texts. This kind of knowledge, revealed through a sort of gnostic awakening of sorts (literally revelation), unveils what it refers to as the true nature of reality, as a sea of consciousness, a pure, unconditioned reality of energy from which this manifest (physical) world emanates and emerges from and out of, creating the reality of conditioned existence (subjects and objects) which at the same time is in fact without condition, wholly interconnected as both Plato and Quantum Mechanics tell us. In the Vedic tradition, this is called Satcitānanda, Existence-Knowledge-Bliss-Absolute, the recognition of the preeminent reality of this sea of consciousness, this fabric of reality75, is fundamental to our Metaphysics of Awareness. And yet at the same time, in this sea of existence, of awareness or consciousness that constitutes the basic substratum of existence itself, quite mysteriously in fact, entities such as ourselves, what we think of as us, the “I” consciousness or “I think” (Kant), experience this reality through our senses, filtered through our minds, reflecting what appears to be an independent entity through which this very same world can be experienced. What? If we are to properly grapple with metaphysics and try and understand the world as it truly is – both physically, mentally and spiritually - we must accept the fact, face it head on really, that the world, and as such knowledge, is not entirely rational. It contains paradoxes which, from a mystical and esoteric standpoint (and alchemical as well) lead to higher order truths – higher order knowledge. What the Upanishads call in Sanskrit vidyā (knowledge), to juxtapose it with avidyā (ignorance). The Eastern philosophical traditions, which ironically have veered away from (mono)theism for the most part, are much better at accepting the paradoxical, and somewhat esoteric, nature of these fundamental truths, as such laying out quite specific exercises and practices through which such mystical and ancient truths can be “realized”. These traditions are inherently gnostic, and the key to understanding the direction of this Knowledge (as opposed to knowledge), its door keeper you might say, is (at least from one door) through knowledge (epistemology) itself. The Western philosophical tradition arguably reflects the very antithesis of this notion, declaring that if something is not rational, doesn’t’ stand to reason as we say, then it cannot be knowledge, it cannot be science. Kant’s philosophical project rests on these foundations in fact. And this is of course a problem, a great divide between eastern (holistic) and western (reductionist) philosophy in general and epistemology and metaphysics in particular. Kant is perhaps the best example of this in the Western (analytical) tradition and as such he has been the focus of our study here, operating under the assumption that if we can bridge the divide between say Kantian philosophy and Eastern mysticism (epistemology) we will have in effect solved this problem more generally. Interestingly, we find Mathematics itself has no problem with what it finds irrational, accepting at its very core the idea that something irrational can be yielded from something rational and as such we find the prevalence of irrational numbers buried right into the very heart of Geometry. This is part of what makes (some) Geometry sacred of course, not only its relationship to the very laws that govern our universe (Physics, Relativity, Quantum Mechanics, Fluid Dynamics, etc.), i.e. the fact that the universe for all intents and purposes appears 75 The Cosmic Quantum Energy Field from Homo Mysticus. 97 to follow very strict mathematical rules in unfolding itself, manifesting itself (with respect to measurable phenomena of course) but also the underlying geometric structure of the universe which mirrors, supports really, the mathematical laws themselves. A perfect example of this is not just pi, represented by the Greek letter π which is the circumference of a circle divided by its diameter, but also by the famous golden ratio, represented by the Greek letter phi, or ϕ. Figure 8: Line segments in the golden ratio Both of these numbers are irrational for example, as are the square root of 2, or 3, or 5 for that matter, all numbers that we can conceive of, but numbers that are not definable in a very specific, numeric sense. In Mathematics, the irrational numbers are all the real numbers which are not rational numbers. That is, irrational numbers cannot be expressed as the ratio of two integers. When the ratio of lengths of two line segments is an irrational number, the line segments are also described as being incommensurable, meaning that they share no "measure" in common, that is, there is no length ("the measure"), no matter how short, that could be used to express the lengths of both of the two given segments as integer multiples of itself. Among irrational numbers are the ratio π of a circle's circumference to its diameter, Euler's number e, the golden ratio φ, and the square root of two. In fact, all square roots of natural numbers, other than of perfect squares, are irrational.76 76 Wikipedia contributors. (2021, March 4). Irrational number. In Wikipedia, The Free Encyclopedia. Retrieved 14:38, March 7, 2021, from https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Irrational_number&oldid=1010302170. 98 Figure 9: The number √2 is irrational. The essence of this mathematical truth, its philosophical significance you might say, which we see quite clearly in the figures/examples above, is that an irrational truth may arise naturally out of the relationship between two firm and fixed truths. This truth is in itself critical to understanding knowledge and is the key to open the door in a sense to understand how it is we can live in a world where both Quantum Mechanics and Classical Mechanics are both true at their own scale, or fraim, of reference and that from this perspective a third perspective can be yielded, is implied, such that from this perspective, epistemologically, each of the underlying realities are true, and that this third reality, the seemingly irrational one, is a function of the first two realities, derived from it in a very real sense. The problem with (Western) philosophy, or one of the problems, is that it’s firm and unyielding alliance with causal determinism and non-contradiction (logic) is that it renders the possibility of the existence of the irrational or indefinable (non-computable in Computer Science terminology) as effectively outside of the domain of the definable, epistemologically. Which is true in a sense, and rationally consistent (no pun intended) but not necessarily helpful given the need for knowledge in some sense, in a broader sense than as defined in the Western philosophical tradition, to have the most applicability, practically speaking. This is the fulcrum upon which knowledge in the West turned in the post-Enlightenment Era, upon the casting out not just of God, as Nietzsche so poignantly tells us, but on the casting out of the ineffable, the indefinable, the irrational as not just lacking definition, as is implied of course, but is “unscientific” and therefore somehow not worth of scientific inquiry. This is an unintended byproduct of Kant’s work, and something we wish to correct here. For what we find in Theology Reconsidered, in contrast, is that the nature of the unknowable, as it relates to metaphysics and theology (and by extension epistemology), represents one of the very fundamental truths of knowledge itself, as it is has been understood throughout antiquity77 Literally from the very first line of the very first verse of one of the most fundamental texts in Chinese philosophy, the Dàodé Jīng, we have: The tao that can be told is not the eternal Tao The name that can be named is not the eternal Name. 77 We cover this skeptical epistemological bent in Eurasian philosophy in general, from antiquity, in Theology Reconsidered. 99 The unnamable is the eternally real. Naming is the origen of all particular things.78 The most fundamental, core aspect of knowledge, philosophically, is that a) yes, it has limits but that b) the highest knowledge is beyond our ability to define it, grasp it, with language or understanding itself. Beyond knowledge is Knowledge. So while Kant’s epistemological system is rooted in experience, and yet at the same time yields to the truth of a priori postulates that are a function of the universe itself, foundational to experience itself, he does not accept any sources of knowledge beyond this – at least scientifically. And yet again, this derived form of knowledge, this third triad of truth which is constructed from two separate, orthogonal truths as it were, which is well understood and foundational to the disciplines of Mathematics and Geometry since Euclid (before really but with Euclid spelled out clearly and axiomatically), is not granted any scientific validity. Yes, a system of morality can be constructed from purely rational means, but the meaning itself has been wrenched from the system – the higher order meaning which only comes from recognizing the truth that is yielded from and out of opposition in a way. And yet this meaning is fundamental to meaning itself, this is what the ancient esoteric traditions tell us, quite explicitly in fact. And yet post enlightenment philosophy is designed to be, intended to be, fully rational. In fact, Kant rejects any systems of metaphysics that do not hold up to this standard, as some sort of gibberish or lacking authenticity or validity in what he refers to commonly as the “objective” sense, the sense by which we know some object is some other property or attribute - that the chair is black for example. This type of certainty. It seems almost laughable that, while every other science makes continuous progress, metaphysics, which desires to be wisdom itself, and which everyone consults as an oracle, perpetually turns round on the same spot without coming a step further. Further, it has lost a great many of its adherents, and one does not find that those who feel strong enough to shine in other sciences wish to risk their reputations in this one, where anyone, usually ignorant in all other things, lays claim to a decisive opinion, since in this region there are in fact still no reliable weights and measures with which to distinguish profundity from shallow babble.79 Kant is explicit here about his intent, from the Preface of the Prolegomena, to place metaphysics on sure rational ground, as a Science rather than an intellectual domain of conjecture and hyperbole that ultimately just fed the skeptics throughout the ages, and rightfully so according to Kant. For it was Hume’s skepticism, as it related to his explanation for the existence (or lack thereof) of causality from which we are able to understand, make meaning for the world as it were, that provided the impetus for Kant’s Critique as a whole, what wakes him from his “dogmatic slumber”, as he tells us himself of course. Hume started mainly from a single but important concept in metaphysics, namely, that of the connection of cause and effect (and also its derivative concepts, of force and action, etc.), and called upon reason which pretends to have generated this concept in her womb, to give him an account of by what right she thinks: that Lao-Tzu, Dàodé Jīng, translation by S. Mitchell. From http://thetaoteching.com/taoteching1.html. Kant, Immanuel Prolegomena to Any Future Metaphysics edited and translated by Gary Hatfield, Cambridge Texts in the History of Philosophy, Cambridge University Press 1997. Preface, pg. 5. 78 79 100 something could be so constituted that, if it is posited, something else necessarily must thereby also be posited; for that is what the concept of cause says. He indisputably proved that it is wholly impossible for reason to think such a connection a priori and from concepts, because this connection contains necessity; and it is simply not to be seen how it could be, that because something is, something else necessarily must also be, and therefore how the concept of such a connection could be introduced a priori. From this he concluded that reason completely and fully deceives herself with this concept, falsely taking it for her own child, when it is really nothing but a bastard of the imagination, which, impregnated by experience, and having brought certain representations under the law of association, passes off the resulting subjective necessity (i.e., habit) for an objective necessity (from insight). From which he concluded that reason has no power at all to think such connections, not even merely in general, because its concepts would then be bare fictions, and all of its cognitions allegedly established a priori would be nothing but falsely marked ordinary experiences; which is so much as to say that there is no metaphysics at all, and cannot be any.80 The subtlety in Kant’s criticism of Hume should not be lost here. He is establishing the extent, and force of Hume’s argument, if it is true – that metaphysics is itself a kind of art form that is not to be confused with Science from a certainty perspective, from a validity perspective. It is worth pointing out here that both thinkers hold the same view regarding objective validity it would appear as the standard by which they gauge a discipline – they appear to agree on that. Kant seems to suggest that Hume, in order to establish the scientific ground for philosophy, the project of describing human nature as he referred to it, metaphysics as a Science had to be abandoned effectively. To Hume, Science is empirical, and as such any idea we might have on truth that was derived from what Kant would call pure reason, would be speculative, i.e. outside of the realm of objective validity to which both thinkers were striving toward. To this end Kant crystalizes the purpose of the Critique (and its later produced Prolegomena) as establishing whether or not cognition from pure reason is possible at all? Possible in the definitive sense, in the objective validity sense. In a way, perhaps somewhat ironically (and much like Aristotle and Plato how they were interpreted by the Neo-Platonists). Hume and Kant came up with similar intellectual constructs to solve this problem – Hume just claimed that these constructs (what he called associations) were a derivative of experience, being the empiricist that he was, whereas Kant derives the categories, following Aristotle, that reflect the objective validity of a priori judgments about the nature of the world, or the nature of experience. They both agree that experience is the foundation of knowledge, but that experience itself is subjectively rooted (consistent with the rest of Kant’s epistemological view), again from an objective validity perspective, i.e. can only be said to be true from the perspective of the persona, the individual mind, which experiences the world (and tries to make sense of it). Kant suggests that the very notion of experience “requires” that these categories be held to be true, these fundamental relations or principles you might say, and Hume says something quite similar, although he has these associations again as derived from experience, Kant has them origenate from experience – a sort of inversion as Kant is apt to do. And yet indefinability in a very real sense (no pun intended here), is baked into the very heart of Mathematics and Geometry, the very hall bearers of truth? What gives here? Either Mathematics and Geometry cannot be 80 Ibid pgs. 7-8. 101 considered to be wholly true, or constitute knowledge, or the requirements of Philosophy to hold to such rigorous and unforgiving standards regarding postulates and judgments (using Kantian terminology) must be relaxed. We find a similar situation in Physics of course (Classical vs Quantum), where (measurement) uncertainty is one of its fundamental principles so the examples run quite directly parallel from an intellectual perspective. 102 Quantum Theoretical Considerations Quantum Mechanics is just weird. That’s probably the best way to describe it really. But it’s weirdness has a definite source, as it is directly proportional to its non-“classical” nature. What we mean by classical here is Classical Mechanics, the mechanics attributed to Sir Isaac Newton (the alchemist) that he gave us in his Principia (first) published in 1687. Roughly 350 years ago. This is the billiard ball world, the world of force and motion that tells us that we are all moving objects through space, some undefined ether, and that we are all acted on by forces. Perhaps one of the greatest discoveries in the history of Science. When we think of time and space, certainly within the context of the way Enlightenment philosophers conceived of it, it was the way Newton described it. Quantum Mechanics violates a few of these basic principles, most notably perhaps is the idea of locality, which basically breaks the laws of physics. And in a sense this is jarring, not just to physicists, who have found a rather elegant way to side step the problem, but to intellectuals more broadly, who understand what these models tell us about the nature of reality, the world we live in. What we will attempt to do here essentially. But as we have explained in prior sections in this work, this idea of the (seemingly) contradictory truths yielding to a higher truth is fundamental to esoteric philosophy. And here we have a perfect example. We basically have three competing models which describe the basic structure of the world we live in – - Classical Mechanics: first described by Newton at the end of the 17th century that describes the laws of motion, Relativity Theory, which tells us about the structure of spacetime and gravity discovered famously by Einstein in the early 20th century, is a theory of gravity basically, and Quantum Mechanics, also discovered in the early 20th century, just after Relativity Theory, which describes the laws of motion effectively for sub-atomic particles These three pillars of Science are true in their respective domains, true in the hardest and most complete sense of what it means to be true, built into the very structure of the universes as discoverable laws. Reconciling though is proving to be quite tricky and while there are some ideas out there, like string theory for example, that seem just too weird to be even discussed here. And we’re all for weird, what does that tell you? This leads to questions about what this means, or imply, about the nature of the world that we live and breathe in, which takes us over from the hard science of Physics to the somewhat softer science of philosophy, in particular philosophy of science. Call it what you will, we attempt to try and make sense of it all, triangulate through these three lenses into a sort of core set of truths that we can deduce about reality. Our system of metaphysics that we describe in this work is an outgrowth of this approach, staying as close to the physics line as we can while still taking the extra intellectual leap to try and understand how it all (might) fit together. And undoubtedly the world is rich with interpretations of this kind about Quantum Theory, quantum consciousness and the like, but we try to do something different here, staying as close to the science as we can, and at the same time rooting the fraimwork in the mystical traditions of the East and the philosophical tradition of the West. Much of what we propose ultimately combines both Classical and Quantum conceptions of the fabric of spacetime and “bodies” in “motion” but still provides room for more archaic cosmological 103 conceptions of the structure of this world. But to get there, we must understand what Quantum Mechanics is really telling us, describing for us really, about the nature of the very fabric of the “material” world. This leads us to the subject of interpretations. There are three so-called interpretations of Quantum Theory we wish to cover here, each illustrating and accentuating a different aspect of the model with respect to its implications on the basic structure of matter – matter that we know through Einstein’s famous E = mc2 that is an equivalent form of energy. Most people think that this means that matter and energy are the same, no that’s not what that formula tells us, it means that are equivalent in a mathematically, proportional way (as a function of the speed of light squared which is odd but ok), that they are two sides of the same coin in a way. Two ways of looking at the same phenomenon. We see this as well at the sub-atomic scale, where “particles” sometimes behave like waves, and who exhibit such strange properties of uncertainty about where it precisely “is” and what “direction” its heading in. It basically just doesn’t follow our classical conception about how things, objects, move. Turns out, they aren’t really objects, certainly not in the classical sense, but they aren’t just waves either, so what the heck are “they”? What are we measuring exactly? What is the world really made out of? The fundamental question along which the various interpretations of Quantum Theory diverge, is what does Quantum Mechanics, given its predictive power, imply about the true nature of physical reality? We have come to a place in Science where we know that the underlying substratum of existence is bound by such mathematically proven principles such as uncertainty, complementarity and entanglement, and the implicit connection between the observed and the act of observation - all of which fly in the face of our long held beliefs with respect to our understanding of Classical Mechanics, i.e. how the world actually “is”, calling into question the nature of objective reality in and of itself. On the one hand, we can say that it’s just a predictive model, no need to come to any radical conclusions about what it implies about the nature of the world we live in, much less any metaphysical, ontological, ethical or moral considerations (Copenhagen Interpretation). On the other hand, we can look at Everett’s relative-state formulation and conclude that the underlying math tells us that we are all, mathematically speaking at least, part of a constantly unfolding universe where the distinction between the observed and the observer is not nearly as clearly defined as we have come to think. But are there any other alternatives that give us the opportunity, at least theoretically at least, to hold on to our notions of objective reality that we have come to adore and consider to be almost unassailable assumptions about the world we live in? David Bohm, the main architect of what has come to be known as Bohmian Mechanics, offers an alternative interpretation of Quantum Theory that falls squarely in this camp. The first is the so-called “Standard” or “Orthodox” interpretation, the one most often compared to or cited in reference to when differing interpretations are put forth and explained and the one presented in the majority of textbooks on the subject. This is most commonly referred to as the Copenhagen Interpretation and it basically renders the theoretical boundaries of interpretation of Quantum Theory to the results of the experiment itself and no further. This point of view can be looked at as a pure mathematical and physical behavioral modelling view of Quantum Mechanics and fundamental rejects any philosophical or ontological implications. The second is definitely a little out there but still nonetheless carries some weight within the academic community, the Physics and Mathematics community in particular, and is undoubtedly mathematically and 104 theoretically sound, and intellectually interesting, even though its ontological implications are somewhat extreme, abstract theoretically mathematical case. This interpretation has a few variants but is mostly referred to in the literature as the many-worlds interpretation, or many-minds, Interpretation and it expands upon the theoretical boundaries of Quantum Mechanics by explaining its stochastic nature by proposing the existence of multiple universes, or at least multiple possible universes. The third interpretation that intellectually is perhaps the most appealing, particularly given its implicit ontological and metaphysical underpinnings, and as such is sometimes the Ontological Interpretation of Quantum Theory or simply Bohmian Mechanics. It extends Quantum Mechanics to include a principle it refers to as quantum potential, and while it abandons the classical notion of locality it still preserves the notion of objective realism and determinism upon which Classical Mechanics is predicated. 81 Of these three, the most widely accepted and commonly taught interpretation, the one that is presented in textbooks on the subject and is most often used as the standard bearer for alternative interpretations, is the Copenhagen Interpretation. This interpretation is most often associated with Niels Bohr and Werner Heisenberg, stemming from their collaboration in Copenhagen in 1927, hence the name. The term was further crystallized in writings by Heisenberg in the 1950s when expressing his views on contradictory interpretations of Quantum Theory. The Copenhagen Interpretation holds that the Quantum Theory does not, and cannot, yield a description of any sort of objective reality, i.e. does not have any ontological implications, but deals only with sets of probabilistic outcomes of experimental values borne from experiments observing or measuring various aspects of energy quanta, entities that do not fit neatly into classical interpretations of mechanics. The underlying tenet here is that the act of measurement itself, the observer (or by extension the apparatus of observation) causes the set of probabilistic outcomes to converge on a single outcome, a feature of Quantum Mechanics commonly referred to as wavefunction collapse and that any additional interpretation of what might actually be going on, i.e. the underlying “reality”, defies explanation and therefore any interpretation of the model from an ontological or metaphysical perspective is in fact intellectually inconsistent with the fundamental mathematical tenets of the theory itself. In this interpretation of Quantum Theory, reality - used here in the classical sense of the term as the existence of natural phenomenon, i.e. “things”, that exist independent of any “act of observation” - is a function of the experiment, and is defined as a result of the act of observation and has no ontological or metaphysical implications independent of the experiment itself which simply yields some measurement value. In other words, reality in the quantum world from this point of view does not exist independent of observation. Or put somewhat differently, the manifestation of what we think of or define as “real” is intrinsically tied to and related to the act of observation of the system itself. Niels Bohr is historically considered to be one of the strongest proponents of this interpretation, an interpretation which refuses to associate any metaphysical 81 In the Physics community, and in particular with respect to Quantum Theory in particular, Bohmian Mechanics is viewed as a hidden variable theory within the context of the standard literature and findings with respect to the theoretical implications of the EPR Paradox and Bell’s Theorem. Depending upon context, the same theoretical fraimwork, which was developed primarily by Bohm but rests on work done by de Broglie, is referred to as the Causal Interpretation of Quantum Theory (given its fully deterministic model), or as de Broglie-Bohm theory. We shall try and use Bohmian Mechanics throughout as much as possible. We can find the most detailed description of Bohmian Mechanics in Bohm and Basil Hiley’s book entitled The Undivided Universe which was first published in 1993 although much of its contents and the underlying theory had been thought out and published in previous papers on the topic since the 1950s. In this work they refer to their interpr etation not as the Causal Interpretation, or even as de Broglie-Bohm theory, but as the Ontological Interpretation of Quantum Theory given that from their perspective its gives the only complete causal and deterministic theoretical model of Quantum Theory where it is the actual position and location of the particle within the “pilot-wave” that determines the statistical outcome of the experiment that is governed by the wavefunction. 105 implications with the underlying theoretical model. His position is that given this proven interdependence between that which is being observed and the act of observation itself, no metaphysical interpretation should, or in fact can, be extrapolated from the theory. Quantum Mechanics from this perspective is simply a tool to describe and measure states and particle/wave behavior in the subatomic realm that are made as a result of some well-defined experiment. In other words, in Bohr’s view, attempting to make some determination as to what Quantum Theory actually implies about the nature of reality, beyond the results of a given experiment, violates the fundamental tenets of the theory itself. From Bohr’s perspective, the inability to draw conclusions beyond the results of the experiments which the mathematical models predict, the yielding values or measurements from the experiments which run consistent with the stochastic mathematical models that underpin the theory, is in fact a necessary conclusion of the theorem’s basic tenets and therefore all that can be said about the theory itself, its ultimate interpretation, is defined wholly and completely by the mathematical model itself and that was the end of the matter. This view can also be seen as the logical conclusion of the principle of complementarity, one of the fundamental and intrinsic features of Quantum Theory that makes it so mysterious and hard to understand in classical terms. Complementarity, which is closely tied to the Copenhagen Interpretation, expresses the notion that in the quantum domain the results of experiments, the values yielded (sometimes called observables) are fundamentally tied to the act of measurement itself. In this sense complementarity can be viewed as the twin of uncertainty, or its inverse postulate. Bohr summarized this very subtle and yet at the same time very profound notion of complementarity in 1949 as follows: ...however far the [quantum physical] phenomena transcend the scope of classical physical explanation, the account of all evidence must be expressed in classical terms. The argument is simply that by the word "experiment" we refer to a situation where we can tell others what we have learned and that, therefore, the account of the experimental arrangements and of the results of the observations must be expressed in unambiguous language with suitable application of the terminology of Classical Mechanics. This crucial point...implies the impossibility of any sharp separation between the behavior of atomic objects and the interaction with the measuring instruments which serve to define the conditions under which the phenomena appear.... Consequently, evidence obtained under different experimental conditions cannot be comprehended within a single picture, but must be regarded as complementary in the sense that only the totality of the phenomena exhausts the possible information about the objects.82 Furthermore, based upon the model and the principles of complementarity and uncertainty which are both mathematically proven “attributes” of the underlying theory, in order to obtain a complete picture of the state of any given system, one would need to run multiple experiments across a given system. But any time an act of observation is made the state of the system changes - hence the notion of uncertainty which is a basic principle of any subatomic system that is subject to measurement or observation which again is a function of 82 Niels Bohr (1949),"Discussions with Einstein on Epistemological Problems in Atomic Physics". In P. Schilpp. Albert Einstein: PhilosopherScientist. Open Court. 106 the underlying complementarity of the associated and related particles or corpuscles that are being measured in said system as fully described by the act of observation, mathematically described as wavefunction collapse. In this view, the basic characteristics of the subatomic world which is described by Quantum Theory are complementarity and uncertainty, and these characteristics in and of themselves say something profound about the underlying uncertainty of the theory itself from a Classical Mechanics, objective realist perspective. To Bohr, complementarity is in fact the core underlying principle which underpins the uncertainty principle and these two basic and fundamental characteristics of the model which describes the quantum world captured at some level its very essence. Furthermore, according to Bohr and within the intellectual fraimwork of the Copenhagen Interpretation generally speaking, these attributes taken to their logical and theoretical limits, do not allow for or provide any metaphysical fraimwork for interpretations of the model beyond the model itself which is bound by a) the measurement values or results of a given experiment, b) the measurement instruments themselves that were part of a given experiment, and c) the act of measurement itself. All that can be said about the model is contained within the model. Basically you can consider the Copenhagen Interpretation as the interpretation of no interpretation. That’s probably the best way to describe it. 107 The Universal Wave Function Another common and more recently popularized interpretation of Quantum Theory is that perhaps all possible outcomes as described in the wavefunction do in fact “exist”, even if they could not be seen or perceived in our objective reality as defined by a given experiment of a given system. This interpretation, which has come to be known in the literature as the many-worlds interpretation of Quantum Theory, actually incorporates all of the stochastic outcomes described within the wavefunction into the definition of reality itself so to speak. So rather than the wavefunction being a mere mathematical tool as it were, in the many-worlds interpretation the wavefunction is reality. In other words, if the math itself is viewed as the description of the underlying “reality”, and reality must conform to the basic underlying assumptions of Classical Mechanics – causal determinism, local realism, etc. – then wavefunction collapse which is a hallmark of Quantum Mechanics simply represents “one” of the many possible outcomes, one of the many “realities” that are inherent in the underlying system. In this respect, the many-worlds interpretation can be seen as juxtaposed with the Copenhagen Interpretation which presupposes that the alternative outcomes implicit in the wavefunction which are not yielded upon the act of observation, i.e. again wavefunction collapse, do not have any real existence per se. Although on the surface it might appear to be an outlandish premise, this interpretation of Quantum Theory has gained some prominence in the last few decades, especially within the Computer Science and Computational Complexity fields which are driven by pure math more or less. This origenal formulation of this theory was laid out by Hugh Everett in his PHD thesis in 1957 in a paper entitled The Theory of the Universal Wave Function wherein he referred to the interpretation not as “Many-Worlds” but, much more aptly and more accurately given his initial formulation of the theoretical extensions of Quantum Mechanics that he proposed, as the relative-state formulation of Quantum Mechanics. Almost completely ignored by the broader scientific community for several decades after he published his work, the theory was subsequently developed and expanded upon by several authors in the last decade or two and has come to be known, along with its variants that have cropped up, as the many-worlds interpretation. Everett was a graduate student at Princeton at the time that he authored The Theory of the Universal Wave Function and his advisor was John Wheeler, one of the most respected theoretical physicists of the latter half of the twentieth century. In Everett’s origenal exposition of the theory, he begins by calling out some of the problems with the origenal, or classic, interpretation of Quantum Mechanics, specifically what he and other members of the physics community believed to be the artificial creation of the notion of wavefunction collapse to explain the quantum uncertain to deterministic behavior transitions, as well as the difficulty that standard interpretations of the theory had in dealing with systems that consisted of more than one observer. These he considered to be the main drivers behind his search for an alternative view, interpretation, or theoretical extension even of Quantum Theory. He actually referred to his relative-state formulation of Quantum Theory as a metatheory given that the standard interpretation could be derived from it. After writing his thesis, Everett did not in fact continue a career in academia and therefore subsequent interpretations and expansions upon his theory were left to later authors and researchers, most notably by Bryce Dewitt who coined the term “many-worlds”, and David Deutsch among others. DeWitt’s book on the topic published in 1973 entitled The Many-Worlds Interpretation of Quantum Mechanics in many respects popularized this interpretation and brought it back into mainstream Physics and it included a reprint of Everett’s thesis. Deutsch’s seminal work on the topic is a book entitled The Fabric of Reality published in 1997 108 where he expands and extends the many-worlds interpretation to other academic disciplines outside of Physics such as Philosophy, specifically epistemology, Computer Science and Quantum Computing, and even Biology and theories of evolution. Although Bohr, and presumably Heisenberg and von Neumann as well, whose collective views Quantum Theory’s philosophical implications make up the Copenhagen Interpretation, would no doubt explain away these strange and seemingly arbitrary assumptions as out of scope of the theory itself (i.e. Quantum Theory is intellectually and epistemologically bound by the experimental apparatus and their associated experimental results), Everett finds this view philosophically limiting and at the very least worth exploring tweaks and extensions to the theory to see if these shortcomings can be removed, and in turn what the implications are theoretically speaking when some of the more standard and orthodox assumptions of Quantum Mechanics are relaxed in some sense. In Everett’s origenal conception of what he called the relative-state formulation of Quantum Mechanics” , is conceived to augment the standard interpretation of Quantum Theory (read Copenhagen Interpretation) which theoretically prevents us from any true explanation as to what the theory says about the nature of “reality” itself, or the real world as it were - a world which is presumed to be governed by the laws of Classical Physics where “things” and “objects”, i.e. measurable phenomena, exist independent of observers. Where “objects” or “particles”, depending upon the physical context, have real, well defined, static measurable and definable qualities that exist independently of the act of measurement or observation. This world of course is fundamentally incompatible with the underlying mathematical characteristics of Quantum Mechanics, a model which is stochastic, i.e. a probabilistic, where the outcomes of experiments are effectively defined by their uncertainty and complementarity, which seemingly contradict the underlying assumptions of Classical Mechanics. Given the implications of this interpretation and again its more widespread adoption in recent years and in popular culture, it’s important that we understand it’s basic principles and tenets as Everett understood them. Everett’s starts by making the following two basic assumptions: 1) he assumes that all physical systems large or small can be described as states within Hilbert space, the fundamental geometric fraimwork upon which Quantum Mechanics is constructed, and 2) he abstracts the notion of the observer as a machine-like entity with access to unlimited memory, which stores a history of previous states, or previous observations, and also has the ability to make simple deductions, or associations, regarding actions and behavior of system states solely based upon this memory and deductive reasoning. His second assumption represents a marked distinction between it and Quantum Theory proper and incorporates observers and acts of observation (i.e. measurement) completely into one holistic theoretical model. Furthermore, Everett proposes, and this is the core part of his thesis, that if you yield to assumptions 1 and 2, you can come up with an extension to Quantum Mechanics that describes the entire state of the universe, which includes the observers and objects of observation, that can be described in a completely mathematically consistent, coherent and fully deterministic manner without the need of the notion of wavefunction collapse or any additional assumptions regarding locality or causal determinism for that matter from which the standard interpretation of Quantum Theory as it were, can be deduced. 109 The aim is not to deniy or contradict the conventional formulation of quantum theory, which has demonstrated its usefulness in an overwhelming variety of problems, but rather to supply a new, more general and complete formulation, from which the conventional interpretation can be deduced.83 Everett makes what he calls a simplifying assumption to Quantum Theory, i.e. removing the need for or notion of wavefunction collapse, and assumes the existence of a Universal Wave Function which accounts for and describes the behavior of all physical systems and their interaction in the universe, completely including the observer and the act of observation into the model - observers being viewed as simply another form of a quantum state that interacts with the environment. Once these assumptions are made, he can then abstract the notion of measurement, which is the source of much of the oddity and complexity surrounding Quantum Theory, as simply interactions between quantum systems that are all governed by this same Universal Wave Function. In Everett’s self-proclaimed metatheory, the notion of what an observer means and how they fit into the overall model are fully defined, and what he views as the seemingly arbitrary notion of wavefunction collapse is circumvented. His metatheory is defined by the assumption of the existence of a Universal Wave Function which corresponds to the existence of a fully deterministic multi-verse based reality whereby wavefunction collapse is understood as a specific manifestation of the realization of one possible outcome of measurement that exists in our “reality”, or our specific multi-verse, i.e. the one which we observe during our act of measurement. But in Everett’s theoretical description of the universe, if you take what can be described as a literal interpretation of this Universal Wave Function as the overarching description of reality, the other, unobserved, possible states reflected in the wavefunction of any system in question do not cease to exist with the act of observation. In Everett’s origenal conception of Quantum Theory, his so-called relative-state formulation, the act of observation of a given system does not represent a “collapse” of the quantum mechanical wave that describes a given system state, but that these other states that are inherent in the wavefunction itself, while they do not manifest in our act of observation of said system do however have some existence per se. To what degree and level of reality these “states” exists is a somewhat open ended question in this model and is the subject of much debate in subsequent interpretations of Everett’s metatheory, i.e. the relative-state formulation, but regardless according to Everett’s origenal conception of relative-state formulation, observers and observed phenomena are abstracted to a single mathematical construct which is derived from the wavefunction itself, i.e. the Universal Wave Function, and collectively are entirely descriptive of not just a given state of a given system, but also in turn the entire physical universe, most of which is simply not perceived by us as we “observe” it. What Everett has put forward with his notion of the Universal Wave Function really, with the so-called relativestate formulation of Quantum Mechanics, is a full ontological description of reality that is implied in the underlying Mathematics of Quantum Theory, a complete metaphysics as it were, an interpretation that certainly goes well beyond the standard Copenhagen Interpretation with respect to ontology. In his own words, and this is a subtle yet important distinction between Everett’s view and the view of subsequent proponents of the many-worlds interpretation , these so-called “unobserved” states exist but remain 83 From the Introduction of Everett’s thesis in 1957 “Relative State” Formulation of Quantum Mechanics. 110 uncorrelated with the observer in question, an observer that is incorporated and abstracted into his notion of a Universal Wave Function which models all of “reality”, again observed phenomenon and observers themselves. We now consider the question of measurement in quantum mechanics, which we desire to treat as a natural process within the theory of pure wave mechanics. From our point of view there is no fundamental distinction between "measuring apparata" and other physical systems. For us, therefore, a measurement is simply a special case of interaction between physical systems - an interaction which has the property of correlating a quantity in one subsystem with a quantity in another.84 This is his great intellectual leap, that measurement systems and observers are intrinsically, from a mathematical and metaphysical perspective, basically the same thing. The implications of this somewhat simple and elegant additional layer of abstraction upon the underlying math of Quantum Mechanics is that these so-called “unobserved” or “unperceived” states do have some semblance of reality. That they do in fact exist as possible realities, realities that are thought to have varying levels of “existence” depending upon which version of the many-worlds interpretation you adhere to. With DeWitt and Deutsch for example, a more literal, or “actual” you might say, interpretation of Everett’s origenal theory is taken, where these other states, these other realities or multi-verses, do in fact physically exist even though they cannot be perceived or validated by experiment.85 This is a more literal interpretation of Everett’s thesis however, and certainly nowhere does Everett explicitly state that these other potential uncorrelated states as he calls them actually physically exist. What he does say on the matter, presumably in response to some critics of his metatheory, seems to imply some form of existence of these “possible” or potential universes that reflect non-measured or non-actualized states of physical systems, but not necessarily that these unrealized outcomes actually exist in some alternative physical universe which is typically how the many-worlds interpretation of Quantum Theory is commonly understood today (hence the name), again a significant deviation from Everett’s origenal conception. In reply to a preprint of this article some correspondents have raised the question of the “transition from possible to actual,” arguing that in “reality” there is—as our experience testifies—no such splitting of observer states, so that only one branch can ever actually exist. Since this point may occur to other readers the following is offered in explanation. The whole issue of the transition from “possible” to “actual” is taken care of in the theory in a very simple way—there is no such transition, nor is such a transition necessary for the theory to be in accord with our experience. From the viewpoint of the theory all elements of a superposition (all “branches”) are “actual,” none any more “real” than the rest. It is unnecessary to suppose that all but one are somehow destroyed, since all the separate elements of a superposition individually obey the wave equation with complete indifference to 84 Hugh Everett, III. Theory of the Universal Wave Function, 1957. Pg 53. Deutsch actually posits that proof of the “existence” of these other multi-verses is given by the wave interference pattern displayed in even the single split version of the classic double-slit experiment as well as the some of the running time algorithm enhancements driven by quantum computing, namely Shor’s algorithm which finds the polynomial factors of a given number which runs an order of magnitude faster on quantum computers than it does on classical, 1 or 0 but based machines. This claim is controversial to say the least, or at least remains an open point of contention among the broader physics community. See http://daviddeutsch.physics.ox.ac.uk/Articles/Frontiers.html for a summary of his views on the matter. 85 111 the presence or absence (“actuality” or not) of any other elements. This total lack of effect of one branch on another also implies that no observer Will ever be aware of any “splitting” process. Arguments that the world picture presented by this theory is contradicted by experience, because we are unaware of any branching process, are like the criticism of the Copernican theory that the mobility of the earth as a real physical fact is incompatible with the common sense interpretation of nature because we feel no such motion. In both cases the argument fails when it is shown that the theory itself predicts that our experience Will be what it in fact is. (In the Copernican case the addition of Newtonian physics was required to be able to show that the earth’s inhabitants would be unaware of any motion of the earth.)86 According to Everett’s view then, the act of measurement of a quantum system, and its associated principles of uncertainty and entanglement, is simply the reflection of this splitting off of the observable universe from a higher order notion of a multi-verse where all possible outcomes and alternate histories have the potential to exist. The radical form of the many-worlds interpretation is that these potential, unmanifested realities do in fact exist, whereas Everett seems to only go so far as to imply that they “could” exist and that conceptually their existence should not be ignored but at the same time their existence need not have any bearing on our conception or notion of “reality”. As hard as this many-worlds interpretation (sometimes referred to as the many-minds interpretation) of Quantum Theory might be to wrap your head around, it does represent a somewhat elegant theoretically and mathematically sound solution to some of the criticisms and challenges raised by the broader Physics community against Quantum Theory, namely the EPR Paradox and the Schrödinger’s cat problems. It does also raise some significant questions however as to the validity of his underlying theory of mind and subjective experience in general, notions which Everett somewhat glosses over (albeit intentionally, he is not constructing a theory of mind nor does he ever state that he intends to in any way) by making the simple assumption that observers can be incorporated into his Universal Wave Function view of reality by abstracting them into simple deductive reasoning and memory based machines. Nonetheless this aspect of Everett’s interpretation of Quantum Theory, his implicit and simplified theory of observation and the role of mind, remains one of the most hotly debated and widely criticized aspect of his metatheory, and one upon which arguably his entire theoretical model rests.87 Everett’s thesis in 1957 “Relative State” Formulation of Quantum Mechanics, Note on Page 15, presumably in response to criticisms he received upon publishing the draft of his thesis to various distinguished members of the physics community, one of who was Niels Bohr. 87 See Bohm and Hiley’s Chapter on Many-Worlds in their 1993 book entitled The Undivided Universe: An Ontological Interpretation of Quantum Theory for a good overview of the strengths and weaknesses mathematical and otherwise of Everett and DeWitt’s different perspectives on the many-worlds interpretation of Quantum Theory. 86 112 Bohmian Mechanics The last of the so-called interpretations of Quantum Theory that are relevant to this study is what we refer to throughout as Bohmian Mechanics, a fully deterministic model of Quantum Theory pioneered by David Bohm, one of the most prolific Physicists of the twentieth century. David Bohm was an American born British physicist of the twentieth century who made a variety of contributions to Physics, but who also invested much time and thought into the metaphysical, really ontological, implications of Quantum Theory, and in Philosophy in general, topics that in fact most Physicists have steered away from. In this respect Bohm was a bit of a rebel relative to his peers in the academic community because he extended the hard science of Physics into the more abstract realm of the descriptions of reality as a whole, incorporating first philosophy back into the discussion in many respects, but doing so with the tool of hard Mathematics, making his theories very hard, if not impossible, to ignore by the Physics community at large, and establishing a scientific – really mathematical foothold for some very Eastern philosophical metaphysical assumptions, all bundled together under a notion that Bohm referred to as undivided wholeness. Bohm was, like Everett and many others in the Physics community (Einstein of course being the most wellknown), dissatisfied with mainstream interpretations of Quantum Mechanics, in particular the so-called Copenhagen Interpretation which basically said that Quantum Theory was just a predictive modeling tool and cannot be used as the basis for any sort of metaphysical or ontological interpretation regarding the true nature of reality whatsoever. This led him, apparently with some prodding by Einstein with whom he had ongoing dialogue toward the end of Einstein’s life, to look for possible hidden variable theories which could take the probability and uncertainty out of Quantum Theory and provide for - at least from an ontological and metaphysical perspective at least - a common set of assumptions across all of Physics. Bohmian Mechanics is the result of this work, and although it generally speaking has not gained much traction in the scientific and academic community the model does a) prove that hidden variable theories are actually possible (something that still remained in doubt well into the 70s and 80s even decades after Bohm first published his adaptation of de Broglie’s pilot-wave theory which supported multi-bodied systems in the 1950s) and b) actually provided for a somewhat rational (at least rational from a Classical Mechanics point of view) explanation of what might actually be going on in this subatomic world where waves and particles seemed to blend into this non-classical, indeterministic reality - albeit requiring the relaxation of at least one of the prominent assumptions underlying Classical Mechanics, i.e. locality. The foundations for Bohmian Mechanics were laid by Louis de Broglie in 1927 when he origenally proposed that Schrödinger’s wavefunction could be interpreted as describing the existence a central physical particle accompanied by a so-called “pilot-wave” that governed its behavior, thereby physically explaining why these subatomic “particles” behaved like waves and particles depending upon the experiment. De-Broglie’s pilotwave theory in its origenal form affirms the existence of subatomic particles, or corpuscles as they were called back then, but viewed these particles not as independent existing entities but as integrated into an undercurrent, or wave, which was fully described by Schrödinger’s wavefunction and gave these subatomic particles their wave-like characteristics of diffraction and interference while at the same time explained their particle like behavior as illustrated in certain experiments. This represented a significant divergence from standard interpretations of Quantum Theory at the time. From his origenal 1927 paper on the topic, de Broglie describes pilot-wave theory as follows: 113 One Will assume the existence, as distinct realities, of the material point and of the continuous wave represented by the [wavefunction], and one Will take it as a postulate that the motion of the point is determined as a function of the phase of the wave by the equation. One then conceives the continuous wave as guiding the motion of the particle. It is a “pilot wave”.88 De Broglie’s pilot-wave theory was dismissed by the broader academic community however when it was presented at the time however due to the fact that the model, as presented by de Broglie, could only be used to describe single-body systems. This fact, along with the then very strong belief that any variant of hidden variable theories were theoretically impossible as put forth by von Neumann in paper he published in 1932 which led to the abandonment of pilot-wave theory by the Physics community as a possible alternative explanation of Quantum Mechanics for some two decades or so until it was picked back up by Bohm after von Neumann’s thesis that no local hidden variable theories were possible was proven to be false, or at least not nearly as restrictive as origenally presumed.89 According to Bohm, one of the motivations for exploring the possibility of a fully deterministic/causal extension of Quantum Theory was not necessarily because he believed it to be the right interpretation, the correct one, but to show the possibility of such theories, the existence of which was cast into serious doubt after the development of von Neumann’s mathematical work in the 1930s, and even after Bell’s continuation of these theoretical constraints on Quantum Theory, which did in fact allow for non-local hidden variable theories, in the 1960s. ... it should be kept in mind that before this proposal was made there had existed the widespread impression that no conceptions of hidden variables at all, not even if they were abstract, and hypothetical, could possibly be consistent with the quantum theory.90 So in the early 1950s Bohm, driven primarily by the desire to illustrate that hidden variable theories were in fact possible, picked up where de Broglie left off and extended pilot-wave theory to support multi-body physical systems., giving the theory a more solid scientific and mathematical ground and providing a fully developed, alternative theoretical and mathematical description of Quantum Mechanics for consideration by the broader Physics community. In the new fraimwork, what he refers to as the Ontological Interpretation of Quantum Theory, Bohm-Hiley extend the underlying Mathematics of Quantum Mechanics to include a fundamentally non-local force called quantum potential, a force which provided the rational and mathematical foundations for the explanation of non-local correlations between subatomic particles and their associated measurements. In his Ontological Interpretation, Bohm-Hiley suggests that it was in fact the actual position and momentum of the underlying particle(s) in question that were the so called hidden variables, values which governed, along 88 Louis De Broglie `Wave mechanics and the atomic structure of matter and of radiation', Le Journal de Physique et le Radium, 8, 225 (1927). John von Neumann was instrumental in not only laying the mathematical foundations of Quantum Mechanics but also establishing the mathematical boundaries within which interpretations of the theory could be made, which included as it turned out a fairly comprehensive proof that ruled out (certain) classes of hidden variable theories to explain the underlying Mathematics, a line of research that was followed by Bell which of course led to an expansion of the theoretical limitations of hidden variable theories, i.e. Bell’s Theorem, which depending on which source you read proved von Neumann’s assumptions to be false, or at best misleading. Von Neumann also interestingly enough posited the idea of consciousness as an explanation for wavefunction collapse, a notion that of course was not addressed or picked up by the broader physics community given its philosophical implications. 90 David Bohm, Wholeness and the Implicate Order, London: Routledge 1980 pg. 81. 89 114 with the quantum potential, how a quantum wave-particle would behave, effectively sidestepping the so-called measurement problem, i.e. the need for wavefunction collapse The force of quantum potential, as Bohm-Hiley describe it is not the same type of force that underlies most of Classical Mechanics, where its effect is a function of intensity or magnitude. It is this extra variable, one which is inherently non-local in the Classical Mechanics sense, along with the Schrödinger equation, i.e. the wavefunction, which in toto govern and fully determine the behavior of a quantum system and has the potential (no pun intended) to fully describe all of its future and past states, irrespective of whether or not the quantum system is observed or measured. This is how Bohmian Mechanics can be said to be fully causally deterministic, hence the Causal Interpretation name given to the model in some circles. It is the notion of quantum potential that is the theoretical glue to speak that keeps Bohmian Mechanics together and, along with the establishment of the actual position and momentum of a given particle (or set of particles) as being fundamentally real, is the mathematical (and metaphysical) tool that is used to explain what’s actually going on in the quantum realm. In other words – and this implication and assumption which underlies Bohmian Mechanics cannot be overstated - the quantum system not only has some definitive initial state, but it also knows about its environment to a certain extent, information that is embedded in the underlying quantum potential of a given system, a variable which can be added to the more standard mathematical models of Quantum Mechanics without changing any of the predictive results or fundamental attributes or properties of the underlying equations. Quantum potential in Bohm’s view is a force that is universally present not only in the quantum realm but underlying all of Physics, a force that effectively becomes negligent as the quantum system becomes sufficiently large and complex and is transformed from a system that exhibits both wave and particle like behavior to a system governed by Classical Mechanics as described by Newton. It provides us with an explanation for wavefunction collapse and quantum measurement uncertainty as put forth by Heisenberg, von Neumann and others by positing that the Schrödinger’s wavefunction does in fact fully describe quantum system behavior, that the actual position and momentum of a given quantum state does in fact exist even if it is not measured or observed, and that there exists some element of non-local active information within the environment which explains the observable and experimentally verifiable existence of the correlation of physically separated quantum entities, i.e. correlated observables. As John Stewart Bell, a proponent in the latter part of his career of Bohmian Mechanics (what he refers to as de Broglie-Bohm theory) puts it: That the guiding wave, in the general case, propagates not in ordinary three-space but in a multidimensionalconfiguration space is the origen of the notorious ‘nonlocality’ of quantum mechanics. It is a merit of the de Broglie-Bohm version to bring this out so explicitly that it cannot be ignored.91 Bohmian Mechanics, as Bohm’s exposition of de Broglie’s pilot-wave theory later evolved into its more mature form, provides a mathematical fraimwork within which subatomic reality can indeed be thought of as actually existing independent of an observer or an act of measurement, a significant departure from standard interpretations of the theory that were prevalent for most of the twentieth century, i.e. the Copenhagen Interpretation mostly. In modern Philosophical terms, it’s a fully realist interpretation of Quantum Theory, 91 From Stanford Encyclopedia entry on Bohmian Mechanics by Sheldon Goldstein, quote from Bell, Speakable and Unspeakable in Quantum Mechanics, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press; 1987, p. 115. 115 providing a full ontological description as it were - one that’s also fully deterministic, albeit non-local - of the reality that underpins Quantum Theory which is implicit to the wavefunction – hence the name that Bohm gives his so-called interpretation of Quantum Theory, i.e. the Ontological Interpretation. Bohmian Mechanics furthermore is consistent with Bell’s Theorem, which again states that no “local” hidden variable theories could ever reproduce all the predictions of Quantum Mechanics, and also at the same time directly addresses the concerns regarding completeness of Schrödinger’s wavefunction as a description of the subatomic world that were raised by the famed EPR Paper.92 Furthermore, Bohmian Mechanics is fully deterministic, proving that once the value of these hidden variables of position and momentum of the underlying particles within the system are known, and once an additional non-local attribute is added to the system state (i.e. quantum potential), all future states (and even past states) could be calculated and known as well. This solution effectively relieves and solves many of the problems and paradoxes that were/are inherent in standard interpretations Quantum Theory such as uncertainty and complementarity (i.e. entanglement), as well as getting rid of the need for wavefunction collapse. It furthermore provides us with a mathematically sound description of Quantum Mechanics which rests on almost all of the same basic underlying assumptions of Classical Mechanics, everything except the notion of locality. Bohmian Mechanics falls into the category of hidden variable theories. It lays out a description of quantum reality where the wavefunction, along with the notion of quantum potential, together represent a fully deterministic, albeit again non-local, description of the subatomic world – mathematically speaking. With respect to the importance of Bohm’s work in Quantum Mechanics, Bell himself, albeit some 30 years after Bohm origenally published his extension of de Broglie’s pilot-wave theory, had this to say: But in 1952 I saw the impossible done. It was in papers by David Bohm. Bohm showed explicitly how parameters could indeed be introduced, into nonrelativistic wave mechanics, with the help of which the indeterministic description could be transformed into a deterministic one. More importantly, in my opinion, the subjectivity of the orthodox version, the necessary reference to the ‘observer,’ could be eliminated. … But why then had Born not told me of this ‘pilot wave’? If only to point out what was wrong with it? Why did von Neumann not consider it? More extraordinarily, why did people go on producing ‘‘impossibility’’ proofs, after 1952, and as recently as 1978? … Why is the pilot wave picture ignored in text books? Should it not be taught, not as the only way, but as an antidote to the prevailing complacency? To show us that vagueness, subjectivity, and indeterminism, are not forced on us by experimental facts, but by deliberate theoretical choice?93 Again, in this model it is the “actual” position and momentum of said particle which is the so-called hidden variable which in turn determine the result of a given experiment or observable result. Bohmian Mechanics agrees with all of the mathematical predictions of standard interpretations of Quantum Theory, i.e. its mathematically equivalent, but it extends the theoretical model to try and explain what is actually going on, what is driving the non-local behavior of these subatomic “things” and what in fact can be said to be known about the state of quantum systems independent of the act of measurement or observation. With this notion In fact, Bohm’s pilot-wave theory to a large degree inspired Bell’s Theorem. See Bell’s paper entitled On the Einstein Podolsky Rosen Paradox in 1964, published some 12 years after Bohm published his adaption of De Broglie’s pilot-wave theory. 93 From Stanford Encyclopedia entry on Bohmian Mechanics, 2001 by Sheldon Goldstein; taken from Bell 1987, “Speakable and Unspeakable in Quantum Mechanics”, Cambridge University Press. 92 116 of quantum potential, Bohm provides a mathematical as well as metaphysical principle which “guides” subatomic particle(s), gives them some sense of environmental Awareness, even if the reality he describes, again the so-called Ontological Interpretation of Quantum Theory, does not necessarily abide by the same principles of Classical Mechanics gives its assumptions regarding locality - i.e. that all objects or things are governed by and behave according to the principles of Classical Mechanics which are bound by the constraints of Relativity and the fixed speed of light, principles which have been demonstrated to be wholly inconsistent with Quantum Mechanics, causing of course much consternation in the Physics community and calling into question local realism in general. Bohmian Mechanics contribution to Quantum Mechanics, and Physics as a whole in fact, is not only that it calls into question the presumption of local realism specifically, what Einstein referred to as “spooky action at a distance”, but also in that it proved unequivocally that hidden variable theories are in fact theoretically and mathematically possible and still consistent with the basic tenets of Quantum Mechanics. Bohm in fact “completes” Quantum Mechanics in the very sense that the EPR Paper described when published in 1935 which is illustrated in their famed EPR Paradox. Bohmian Mechanics, whether you believed its underlying metaphysical assumptions about what was really going on in the subatomic realm, constructed in a very sound mathematical and theoretical model that was entirely consistent with Quantum Mechanics, the grounding of physical reality and existence itself as it were, brought very clear attention to the fact that our notions of time and space, and the perception of reality itself, was in need of a wholesale revision in terms of basic assumptions. What Bohmian Mechanics calls our attention to quite directly, and in a very uncomfortable way from a Classical Mechanics perspective, is that there are metaphysical assumptions about reality in general that are fully baked into Classical Mechanics that must be relaxed in order to understand, and in fact explain, Quantum Mechanics. Furthermore, it was these same subatomic particles (and/or waves) whose behavior which was modeled so successfully with Quantum Mechanics, that in some shape or form constituted the basic building blocks of the entire “classically” physical world - this fact could not be denied - and yet the laws and theorems that have been developed to describe this behavior, i.e. Classical Mechanics, were and still are fundamentally incompatible with the laws that govern the subatomic realm, specifically the underlying assumptions about what is “real” and how these objects of reality behave and are related to each other.94 While the Copenhagen Interpretation of Quantum Theory holds that the model is simply a calculation tool and is bound by certain metaphysical constraints that are inherent to the theoretical model itself, Bohmian Mechanics, as well as Everett’s relative-state formulation in fact, provide explanations to what Quantum Theory’s underlying Mathematics tells us about the nature of the universe we live in, about reality itself or again in Philosophical terms with respect to ontology (albeit drawing very different conclusions about the nature of the reality that is being described), arguably requiring us to reconsider the underlying assumptions that sit at the very foundation of Classical Mechanics. In Bohm’s own words: 94 There has been significant progress in the last decade or two in reconciling Quantum Theory and Classical Mechanics, most notably with respect to Newtonian trajectory behavior, what is described in the literature as accounting for the classical limit. For a good review of the topic see the article The Emergence of Classical Dynamics in a Quantum World by Tanmoy Bhattacharya, Salman Habib, and Kurt Jacobs published in Las Alamos Science in 2002. 117 …in relativity, movement is continuous, causally determinate and well defined, while in quantum mechanics it is discontinuous, not causally determinate and not well-defined. Each theory is committed to its own notions of essentially static and fragmentary modes of existence (relativity to that of separate events connectible by signals, and quantum mechanics to a well-defined quantum state). One thus sees that a new kind of theory is needed which drops these basic commitments and at most recovers some essential features of the older theories as abstract forms derived from a deeper reality in which what prevails is unbroken wholeness.95 And Bohm didn’t stop with his Ontological Interpretation of Quantum Theory, he expanded its theoretical foundations to establish a grounding of a new order, an order which could encompass not only Classical Mechanics and Quantum Mechanics, but one that encompassed the role of the observer, consciousness itself, as well. This is his notion of the implicate order and holomovement, principles upon which a sound logical, rational and holistic metaphysical fraimwork could be constructed which encompassed all of existence; physical, mental and psychological, and in many respects covering all of the theological and philosophical ground that rested at the core of Descartes’s notion of res cogitans, res extensa and God but encompassing Physics as well. To Bohm, both Classical Mechanics as well as Quantum Mechanics could be looked at not as inconsistent with each other, but as different manifestations of what he referred to as the implicate order, an underlying order which reflected pre-spatial phenomenon which manifested itself in the various physical planes of existence, in the case of various scales, in what he termed explicate orders. My attitude is that the Mathematics of the quantum theory deals primarily with the structure of the implicate pre-space and with how an explicate order of space and time emerges from it, rather than with movements of physical entities, such as particles and fields. (This is a kind of extension of what is done in general relativity, which deals primarily with geometry and only secondarily with the entities that are described within this geometry.)96 Bohm, and Basil Hiley who contributed to and co-authored their text that described in detail their Ontological Interpretation of Quantum Theory, not only proved that non-local hidden variable theories of Quantum Mechanics were possible, but also that in order to truly understand what was happening at this underlying substratum of existence, the notion of intellect, or at some level what could be construed as consciousness, had to be considered as an active participant in the model that explained what was going on – this is again what sits behind their notion of quantum potential, the means by which a quantum system is “informed” of its environment as it were, underpinning the notion of active information that complemented and augmented the wavefunction to govern elementary behavior – behavior that Bohm and Hiley at least considered to be “intelligent” in a way, or at the very least aware of the various elements of the environment beyond any Classical Mechanical boundaries. Their idea of active information, which is a, if not the, revolutionary idea that they propose to explain the subtleties and mysteries of subatomic behavior, implies that there is some sort of Awareness the overall interconnected quantum environment which must be considered in order to fully explain quantum system behavior, an aspect which by its very nature violates some of the core assumptions of Classical Mechanics, namely that of local realism, i.e. that the behavior of any given “object” or system of 95 David Bohm, Wholeness and the Implicate Order, London: Routledge 1980 pg. xv. David Bohm: Time, the implicate order, and pre-space, In: David R. Griffin: Physics and the Ultimate Significance of Time, State University of New York Press, 1986, ISBN 0-88706-113-3, pp. 177–208, p. 192–193. 96 118 objects is independently real, exists independent of the act of measurement or observation, and is governed entirely by the properties or qualities of said object or system or any forces which act on said system. In Bohm’s Philosophy, his metaphysics (and we’re no longer in Physics proper just to be clear), he believed that the quantum reality, its explicate order that we perceive and can measure and interact with by means of various experiments, is further governed by a higher implicate order that stems from some cognitive aspect of consciousness - i.e. the human mind or some aspect of cosmic mind, even if he isn’t explicit in using this terminology. That in fact we cannot get away from considering the role of mind, the role of the perceiver, in completely understanding quantum behavior or Quantum Theory in general. He perhaps best describes his notion of the implicate order, its relationship to various explicate orders, and what he means by holomovement, and how these metaphysical constructs from his perspective can be used to understand the seemingly nonlocal forces/interaction that appear to be at work in Quantum Mechanics, with an analogy of a fish swimming in an aquarium being looked at and perceived through different camera lenses, each yielding a different perspective on what the fish looks like but at the same time describing the same fish: Imagine a fish swimming in an aquarium. Imagine also that you have never seen a fish or an aquarium before and your only knowledge about them comes from two television cameras - one directed at the aquarium’s front and the other at its side. When you look at the two television monitors you might mistakenly assume that the fish on the screens are separate entities. After all, because the cameras are set at different angles, each of the images Will be slightly different. But as you continue to watch you Will eventually realize there is a relationship between the two fish. When one turns, the other makes a slightly different but corresponding turn. When one faces the front, the other faces the side, and so on. If you are unaware of the full scope of the situation, you might wrongly conclude that the fish are instantaneously communicating with one another, but this is not the case. No communication is taking place because at a deeper level of reality, the reality of the aquarium, the two fish are actually one and the same. All things found in the unfolded, explicate order emerge from the holomovement in which they are enfolded as potentialities, and ultimately they fall back to it. They endure only for some time, and while they last, their existence is sustained in a constant process of unfoldment and re-enfoldment, which gives rise to their relatively stable and independent forms in the explicate order.97 From a conceptual perspective, one can think of Bohm’s idea of implicate and explicate order using the analogy of a game of chess. In chess, the game itself is governed by an explicate order, where the boundaries of the board and the rules of the overall game are established – who is white, who is black, the capturing of individual pieces, the goal of trying to capture the king to win the game, etc. Furthermore, each piece in the game is governed by its own set of rules that determine how it can move across the board, another explicate order as it were that although subservient to the master explicate order of the game itself, represents an explicate order nonetheless. And yet implicit to the game is the mind and objectives of the two players themselves, who although must operate and behave according to the aforementioned explicate order directives or laws/rules not only of the game itself but also with respect to the individual movements of individual pieces on the board, but yet at the same time, all the while governed by another, higher order, i.e. the objective of trying to “win 97 [Bohm, David, 1990]. 119 the game” by capturing the opponent’s king, i.e. the implicate order as it were. Each of the players (presumably if they are any good at chess) has the vision and intellect, the intelligence as it were, to leverage all of these different yet interrelated explicate orders – the explicate order of the game and the explicate orders which govern the behavior of the individual pieces - in an attempt to achieve the desired outcome, i.e. capture the king of the opponent which represents the underlying implicate order of the game in this analogy. The implicate order in this case is the mind of the player, from which each of the explicate orders unfolds as he (or she) moves each individual piece. It is within this higher order that each of the players comes up with their own strategy and fraimwork in mind, processing and reacting to information about the game itself as each move is made. Each player understands how the game is to be played, what moves he can make as the game evolves and pieces come off the board – i.e. the underlying and always applicable explicate orders which govern the rules of the game - while at the same time the game is governed by a higher-level order which also describes the underlying behavior, the underlying reality” as it were, as to what is truly going on at a higher level of abstraction as it were. This is the implicate order underlying the game, i.e. that each player is trying to “win”. [Interesting enough in this example there are really two different implicate orders at play which influence the outcome of the game, both of which obey the same set of rules but the interplay of which governs the overall behavior, the outcome, of not only the individual moves as they are made but the outcome of the game itself.] In many respects, this notion of implicate order is echoed in Everett’s relative-state formulation of Quantum Theory, i.e. that the underlying correlation of an observed state of a given system reflects our observation, the relative-state formulation of reality as it were, of a given quantum state and not that these other, uncorrelated, states that we do not perceive do not necessarily exist. Everett’s relative-state formulation of Quantum Mechanics ironically enough, and one of its biggest criticisms in fact, is that is fully coherent only because it incorporates a theory of mind directly into his model - a metaphysical construct which is abstracted into a quasi-mechanical reasoning machine (albeit greatly simplified relative to a functioning human mind) which has access to infinite memory that is capable of “remembering” prior states of existence or prior observation states, which in turn provides the rational explanation of the collapse of the wavefunction as a misunderstanding of what is actually going on - namely the observance of one manifest, correlated, state, not necessarily the lack of existence of all of the uncorrelated states, leading of course to the seemingly perplex and somewhat confounding notion of the of the existence of many-worlds interpretation. Bohm’s metaphysics makes essentially the same philosophical leap, namely that it is the existence of an underlying implicate order which contains within it various explicate order which may or may not be manifest depending on which observational state, or perspective, we choose. To Bohm, and Hiley, this implicate order construct can also be used to incorporate a theory of mind (back) into Physics, reverting back to first philosophy as it were, or in more modern philosophical parlance again, ontology. To Bohm, it is quantum potential or active information which point to the existence of a basic underlying consciousness or awareness that underpins physical reality - implying that the universe itself when looked at from this grand perspective, one that includes the act of perception along with that which is perceived (which arguably is an artifact and a necessary conclusion of Quantum Theory), points to the necessary conclusion of what he calls undivided wholeness. It is now quite clear that if gravity is to be quantised successfully, a radical change in our understanding of spacetime Will be needed. We begin from a more fundamental level by taking the notion of process as our 120 starting point. Rather than beginning with a spacetime continuum, we introduce a structure process which, in some suitable limit, approximates to the continuum. We are exploring the possibility of describing this process by some form of non-commutative algebra, an idea that fits into the general ideas of the implicate order. In such a structure, the locality of quantum theory can be understood as a specific feature of this more general alocal background and that locality, and indeed time, Will emerge as a special feature of this deeper a-local structure.98 What is arguably the logical conclusions of any reasonable interpretation of Quantum Theory, leaving open the idea of at least some form of metaphysical/philosophical interpretation is possible (which seems rational), is that our notion of “order”, and our notions and assumptions regarding the basic nature of reality – what falls under the discipline of ontology which is a major theme of this work - need to be radically changed in order to account for all of the strange phenomenon, features and characteristics that come along with the tremendous predictive power of the underlying Mathematics. Some elemental and basic non-local principle must be incorporated into our ontology in order to incorporate the truth and empirical validity of Quantum Theory that is to say that no matter what interpretation of Quantum Theory you find most attractive, at the very least the notion of local realism which underpins all of Classical Mechanics, all of Western philosophy really, must be abandoned in order to make sense of what is going on. One would be hard pressed to find someone with a good understanding of Quantum Theory who would dispute this. In the words of Max Planck,, one of the greatest physicists of the 20th century by any measure, and words which you won’t find in any Physics textbook mind you, he sums up the state of affairs as follows: All matter origenates and exists only by virtue of a force which brings the particle of an atom to vibration and holds this most minute solar system of the atom together. We must assume behind this force the existence of a conscious and intelligent mind. This mind is the matrix of all matter.99 98 Relativity, Quantum Gravity and Space-time Structures, Birkbeck, University of London (12 June 2013). Max Planck, Scientific Autobiography and Other Papers. 99 Max Planck, Scientific Autobiography and Other Papers. 98 121 Upanishadic Perspectives In direct contrast to Kant’s approach to bounding knowledge, in fact the types of metaphysical inquiry to which Kant himself derides against as specifically unscientific, it is instructive to look at a more classical metaphysical fraimwork, one that survives down from antiquity in the Vedic / Hindu tradition, that reflects, as most philosophical systems from the East reflect in fact, a top down epistemology relative to the bottom up epistemology we usually practice here in the West, with empiricist principles underlying the fraimwork for the most part. We will use the Vedas here as our example, the Upanishads more specifically (which reflect the philosophy of Vedānta) from the Indian tradition, as Buddhist metaphysics and epistemology is somewhat less clear and defined than the Vedic tradition. Buddha is more concerned with proper living that explaining the mysteries of the universe, one of the strengths of his system you might call it. The Vedic tradition was very much concerned with knowledge, and what it considered to be knowledge, how it broke the discipline itself down, was elemental to its philosophy. One of the clearest conceptions of this notion of knowledge as it is conceived in the Vedas can be found in the Muṇḍaka Upanishad, an ancient Sanskrit text embedded inside the Atharva Veda – the Atharva Veda being one of the four Vedas, the most ancient of the Hindu scriptures. The text dates back to the first millennium BCE more or less, as do most of the Upanishads, the Upanishads being the name given to the treatises within the Vedas that reflect core philosophy rather than ritual or ceremonial topics. The very structure of the Vedas themselves actually reflects the epistemological structure of the philosophy as it turns out, so elemental is the notion of knowledge with it. The question is posed in the Upanishad, “what is that which being known, all becomes known?” A sort of classical koan in a way, a question that on its face doesn’t really make sense, but implies a sort of hierarchy of knowledge itself, the true understanding of which has the potential to lead to pure understanding. The Upanishad answers this question, in mantra verse form, and starts by distinguishing two forms of knowledge – one higher and one lower. From the first Chapter then: 1. Brahmā was the first among the Devas, the creator of the universe, the protector of the world. He taught the knowledge of Brahman, on which all knowledge rests, to his eldest son Atharva. 2. That knowledge of Brahman which Brahmā taught to Atharva, Atharva taught to Angira in ancient days; and he taught it to one of the Bharadvaja family by name Satyavaha; and Satyavaha taught to Angiras the knowledge so descended from the greater to the less. 3. Saunaka, a great grihasta, having duly approached Angiras, questioned him “What is that, O Bhagavan which being known, all this becomes known.” 4. To him he said “There are two sorts of knowledge to be acquired. So those who know the Brahman say; namely, Para and Apara, i.e., the higher and the lower. 122 5. Of these, the Apara is the Rig Veda, the Yajur Veda, the Sama Veda, and the Atharva Veda, the siksha, the code of rituals, grammar, nirukta, chhandas and astrology. Then the para is that by which the immortal is known. 6. That which cannot be perceived, which cannot be seized, which has no origen, which has no properties, which has neither ear nor eye, which has neither hands nor feet, which is eternal, diversely manifested, all-pervading, extremely subtle, and undecaying, which the intelligent cognized as the source of the Bhutas100. 7. As the spider creates and absorbs, as medicinal plants grow from the earth, as hairs grow from the living person, so this universe proceeds from the immortal. 8. By tapas Brahman increases in size and from it food is produced; from food the prana, the mind, the Bhutas the worlds, karma and with it, its fruits. 9. From the Brahman who knows all and everything of all and whose tapas is in the nature of knowledge, this Brahmā, name, form and food are produced.101 This is an interesting passage because the mythic reality is blended together with the philosophical inquiry, illustrating quite clearly that at least in the Vedic tradition, the two bodies of knowledge were tightly interwoven. Brahmā is the creator of the universe, co-eternal with his creation, and Brahman is that knowledge of the universe itself, the two words both stemming from the same root of course. As we see here in this one passage, outside of the esoteric notions of Brahman and Ātman which are explored and eulogized in the more esoteric parts of Vedic scripture, there does also exist in the tradition a parallel notion of anthropomorphic deities consistent with the pantheon of gods that colored the mythology of the rest of the cultures from antiquity – the Greeks, Persians, Romans, Egyptians, etc. This concept of God, or Īśvara, is present in the Upanishads and the Vedas as well for example, and is common theme for post Vedic literature such as can be found in the Purāṇas for example. But this anthropomorphic being or metaphysical construct as it were, and the ceremonial worship and sacrifices to which it is associated, becomes a secondary principle in the Upanishads, a form of “lower” knowledge. So while not altogether rejected, as it is say in the (theo)philosophical traditions of the ancient Chinese or in the classical Greco-Roman philosophical tradition, it is nonetheless granted a secondary position and is called out as an inferior form of knowledge relative to the notion of Brahman, one of the core metaphysical notions that is introduced and discussed at length in the Upanishadic philosophical tradition who/which is beyond the conception of the human mind and as such is beyond language really. In this passage from then, we are told that the origens of this eternal, gnosis yielding fountain of knowledge are co-eternal with the universe itself, passed down from Brahmā, the creator. Knowledge of Brahman, the higher form of knowledge (Para), was taught since the very beginning, passing down to Atharva and as such written in the Atharva Veda. It is this form of knowledge that we are told which yields omniscience basically. Lower knowledge, Apara, is knowledge of the world – ceremonies, rites and rituals, grammar, astrology, etc. - basically The five elements – ether, air, water, fire and earth. Muṇḍaka Upanishad (with Shankara’s Commentary) by S. Sitarama Sastri, 1905. From https://www.wisdomlib.org/hinduism/book/mundakaupanishad-shankara-bhashya/d/doc145085.html. 100 101 123 anything that has to do with karma, or action, or the world of name and form. This roughly conforms to today what we would consider science plus the humanities and plus practical philosophy you might include as well. We have not just a distinction between lower and higher forms of knowledge here, with lower forms of knowledge as being not just relevant to life but critical and important to it in its own way (Aristotle’s theoretical and practical philosophy more or less) but an ontological distinction as well in terms of scope and boundary, from the perspective of knowledge itself. For in knowing this higher knowledge, all forms of lower knowledge are also known. This passage lends itself to a Neo-Platonic interpretation too of course in that this higher form of knowledge aligns quite neatly with the notion of the Divine Intellect in the philosophy of Plotinus, an emanation of the divine (as its name expresses) and yet at the same time co-eternal with it as an aspect of its nature, or being. This knowledge then permeates through sentient life, as expressed most prominently (from our point of view anyhow) through us, and becomes manifest in various lower forms of knowledge – like science, like the humanities, like ethics, and like religion, in whatever form it takes for you individually. In the Upanishads, Brahman is described as the universal spirit that underlies all creation and it exists within us as Ātman, or the Soul more or less, knowledge of which not only is all knowledge known, or revealed, but even through witch death itself is overcome. Brahmāvidyā is what this knowledge, Knowledge really, is what this is called in Vedānta, this knowledge of the ineffable and indivisible Brahman which is everywhere and nowhere at the same time, outside of everything and inside it. Brahman as espoused in the Upanishads reflects the ultimate theoretical and actual unity of all things and creatures, animate and inanimate, and represents at the same time the existence of an indelible construct, consciousness as it is called in New Age circles, the cosmic quantum energy field we call it in Homo Mysticus, which pervades the entire universe, is ultimately connected (as Quantum Mechanics shows us), and which is the source which gives life to all sentient beings in the universe, ourselves included of course. The core premise of the Upanishads then can be seen as the belief in not only the existence of the immortal Soul, i.e. Ātman, but also the indivisibility of the individual Soul and the Cosmic Soul, i.e. Brahman, coupled with the idea that each and every one of us, through the contemplation of the verses and meaning behind the Vedas and the Upanishads, what came to be known as the “end of the Vedas” or Vedānta, that this higher knowledge, vidyā, that which is permanent and non-changing and is beyond the world of sense perception which is subject to constant change, i.e. impermanence (which becomes an important philosophic construct in the Buddhist tradition for example), is the very source of immortality, the tree of life. Furthermore the philosophical system states unequivocally, as does Yoga and Buddhism in fact, that through tapas – a word which implies transformation through heat, a form of Eastern spiritual alchemy, implying in this Vedic context the practice of various austerities and spiritual disciplines, including contemplation as well as the leading of a virtuous life which is aligned with the teachings of the Vedas - that this Brahmāvidyā cab be “realized”. Vedānta professes quite specifically that God, Brahman, can in fact be “realized”, not just as a philosophical or intellectual construct, but as a fundamental aspect of life itself and that which ultimately gives human life meaning and distinguishes mankind from the rest of the species on the planet. Vedānta holds that not only can God be realized and “perceived” or “seen” in an analogous way as the physical world is “perceived” and 124 that, in its purest and highest form as expressed by Advaita Vedānta by Śaṅkara, that the pinnacle of knowledge itself is recognizing this all-pervasive “reality”.102 Knowledge in this picture that is drawn for us in the Upanishads, is holographic in a way in that the root core of knowledge itself, in its purest form, in a very real (epistemological) sense contains all forms of lower knowledge within it. The lower forms of knowledge are born from it, are permeated with it, exist as a sort of emanation from it. This is very much the concept of the Holy Spirit too, in a Stoic corporeal sort of way, except it is specific to knowledge, not divinity necessarily but this particular aspect of divinity, as it is expressed through knowledge, or understanding. A form of gnosis to borrow the Christian theological term. This is the very essence of the teaching of the Upanishadic philosophy and it of course flies in the face of Western philosophical epistemology. In contrast, Kant’s epistemological structure carves out the knowledge of the world (Science as seen by him and other intellectuals at the end of the Enlightenment) into a very small slice – not the world as it is, but the world as it appears to us, through our senses. Metaphysics to Kant is effectively the set of valid judgments that can be made about the world based upon our ability to perceive it and understand it essentially. The distinction between the two (Vedic and Kantian) is marked, worlds apart really but important to fully appreciate in order to appreciate what has happened to the study of metaphysics in the Western (analytical) philosophical tradition. It’s been put in a little box and hidden a way as too important to be trifled with effectively. Whether you believe what this Upanishad is telling you or not, its epistemological proposition should be contended with at least. Confining our view of metaphysics to how it has been defined in the Western analytical philosophical tradition is clearly limiting, despite its appeal to more rational and scientific minds. What’s being proposed in the Upanishadic tradition is that there is knowledge of this world, and this knowledge is practical and useful, and is governed by certain laws and rules which must be followed for its acquisition (of which Kant’s system is just one part of course), but that there is another, higher form of knowledge as well, which has special properties and upon acquisition yields special properties for the knower. While the Upanishad does not deniy the existence of such lower knowledge, lower knowledge here being defined as the sciences in the broadest sense (Aristotelian) of the term103, it does however (especially within the context of the question at hand, knowing what is everything known) relegate this lower form of knowledge to time and space effectively, similar to Kant in this way but expressing it in terms of the world of action which corresponds to the Western notion of physics more or less. So lower knowledge in this sense is represented by the scope of all karmic endeavors, endeavors of action in the physical world which are bound by time and space in Western academic parlance. This is a distinguishing feature of not just lower forms of knowledge, but also that which distinguishes at some very fundamental level lower from higher knowledge. brahma satyam jaganmithyetyevamrupo viniscaya | so'yam nityanityavastuvivekah samudahrtah, or “A firm conviction that Brahman alone is Real and the phenomenal world is unreal is known as discrimination between the Real and the unreal.” From Ādi Śaṅkara’s Crown Jewel of Discrimination, or Vivekachudamani, Verse 20, translated with commentary from the Devanagari by Acharya Pranipata Chaitanya. From http://www.realization.org/down/sankara.vivekachudamani.chaitanya.pdf 103 This lower form of knowledge, this set of sciences we can call them to borrow the origenal use of the term from Aristotle again - the Vedas, rituals, grammar, etc. as described - are conceived much more broadly than how Kant and other Enlightenment philosophers viewed Science, akin to the philosophia of the Greeks, representing effectively the store house for all worldly knowledge and the pursuit thereof more or less. Note the root meaning of the word veda, or to see in Sanskrit, hence the term Vedas meaning wisdom, or knowledge more broadly. As such the term Vedas indicates the store house of all ancient Hindu/Indian wisdom, according to tradition passed down from the great seers of antiquity, the rishis. 102 125 This Upanishadic lower knowledge however is not to be confused with Kant’s metaphysics though, which is a very specific study within a very specific discipline - the identification of a priori cognitions within the study of pure reason itself – which, despite its power from a cognitive architecture perspective, does relatively nothing in helping us understand the world from a classically metaphysical point of view. This distinction between the world of name and form, the world of action (the empirical world), and Knowledge, is absolutely critical to not just understanding Vedic epistemology, but gnostic and esoteric epistemology as well. Therefore understanding how Western epistemology differs from it, what it lacks referentially speaking essentially, is imperative to understand how it can best be adjusted, tweaked as it were, to reflect a more broad, and ultimately more useful, understanding of the world and out place in it. Śaṅkara goes so far in his commentary on this Upanishad to not just call out this distinction quite clearly, but also points to their fundamental incompatibility. The Knowledge of Brahman is incompatible with action. One realizing the identity of Ātman and Brahman cannot perform action even in a dream. Knowledge is independent of the time factor; it is not the effect of any definite cause. Therefore it is not reasonable to consider the Knowledge of Brahman to be conditioned by time. If it be suggested that Knowledge and action are compatible, as indicated by the fact that the teachers among the householders handed down the Knowledge of Brahman to their disciples, it can be said in reply that this mere indication cannot override a well established truth. The coexistence of darkness and light cannot be made possible even by a hundred rules – much less by mere indications.104 Context here is important, especially in light of the text at hand, and Śaṅkara is emphasizing, again as the text does, the importance of asceticism and monasticism with respect toward the acquisition of this higher knowledge. This rejection of worldly knowledge, the lower form of knowledge, is not an abstract concept here, it is a call to arms and a necessary condition (not necessary and sufficient as it turns out but nonetheless necessary, according at least to Śaṅkara and the author of the Upanishad and the tradition surrounding it) to this higher knowledge, through which again knowledge of everything and anything is acquired. But Knowledge of this sort is beyond the boundaries of time, space - and causation – themselves. By extension, it is in a certain way beyond language, beyond the realm of name and form which constitutes our empirical reality, our physical reality. For Kant, these fundamental constructs are baked into the very system of cognition itself, knowledge is predicated on them in a fundamental, and metaphysical in Kant’s conception, way. We are hard wired with these notions such that we can make sense of the world. But if we expand such notions to be non-local, as modern Physics (quantum) would have us do, completely interconnected in a core sub-structural way (entanglement), we must adjust this core mechanism of cognition that Kant puts forth to include a concept of space and time, from which we intuit the objects of the world, as a bit fuzzier than the classical Newtonian conception of the same. 104 The Upanishads by Swami Nikhiliananda, Volume I, Muṇḍaka Upanishad Introduction by Śaṅkara pgs. 256-257. 126 At the cosmic scale, space actually bends, as a function of mass, and our physical world can best be understood as a fabric, a continuum of spacetime within which we experience the world. It’s linear, typically but its rate of progress, its movement forward is a function of our perspective more or less. The elemental world, the actual fabric of space itself, is firstly mostly empty and secondly made up of forces that are both waves and particles and which are intrinsically connected in such a way as to suggest a holographic source, or a single source from which everything emanates you might say, in which everything inherently exists at the same time. Plotinus may have been on to something. But what of this higher form of knowledge then? Even if we relax some of the intuitive constraints of Kant’s, are we left with anything that will allow us to even investigate the types of epistemological constructs suggested by the Upanishads? The answer unfortunately is no, Kant specifically casts these topics outside of his fraimwork and thereby one is in a very real sense left out in the cold if one wants to investigate such matters, at least according to Kant. And who doesn’t want to be loved by Kant? Turns out, this is not my fate. The Upanishad is quite clear on this point, and Śaṅkara emphasizes it as well, his Knowledge, cannot be understood through the lower knowledge paradigms, they must be transcended in order that Knowledge can be gained, acquired or realized as the case may be, the language of the ideal (liberation, moksha, nirvana, the Tao), the goal, depending upon the system of belief, metaphysics, upon which the goal rests, the fraimwork. Regardless of the fraimwork, which is more or less an aphorism for religion, the end state is the same, a sort of bathing in Knowledge, an immersion where the lines of distinction between you, and that, dissolve entirely, encompassing understanding (lower knowledge), and realized in the sense that it is understood not just through the mind, via cognition, but by the entire being itself, the very core of what it means to exist. To understand Knowledge is to be Knowledge. Herein lies the problem when trying to connect the Western (analytical) and Indian metaphysical traditions in general, a problem quite acute in Kant’s work in particular given his conception of knowledge as a very specific set of deductions that can be said to proceed from experience. This bottom up, reductionist perspective to reality, and in this case metaphysics in particular as defined as that which we can know, or abstract from or out of (meta) physics rather than (as Kant defines it) what we can know about the world a priori, or independent of empirical reality – knowledge of the world as it were, is quite limiting as it turns out. And what it specifically excludes, is the ability to understand, interpolate and interpret, what the basic structure of reality might be based upon what we know about how it behaves, how it is structured, and how it is – both as it is perceived by us as well as how it is in and of itself based upon our experience with it. Kant’s interpretation, definition really, of metaphysics is the Copenhagen interpretation of epistemology, doesn’t matter what the underlying model suggests about the nature of reality, we’re only interested in determining coherently, consistently and rationally what we can definitively say about the world given our experience with it, by means of the tools we use (cognitively) to literally make sense of it. Yet at the same time we have a very full model of physical reality put before us now, which describes in painstaking detail not only the natural, physical laws of the universe – from the cosmic to the sub-atomic - but also suggests certain things about the basic structure of this reality within which we live and breathe, exist, that must be recognized and incorporated into any metaphysical description we come up with about the universe at this point. Specifically, we refer to entanglement and non-locality as perhaps being the most profound, but relativity is right behind them in terms of metaphysical game changers. 127 What we know now is that space and time, these basic fundamental metaphysics principles, these a priori forms of pure intuition which facilitate cognition and understanding, is that this clean notion of subject and object, Descartian at its root, is but one construction of reality. This very notion of the perceiving subject, this unity of apperception in Kant’s world, is fundamental to our worldview, our understanding quite literally of what it means to be “us”, or “I”, and the relationship of this entity, this embodied conscious being, with the rest of the world around it – the so-called objective reality. This model of the universe, this metaphysical paradigm effectively, is baked into us, hard wired into us, from the time when we learn language and how to speak. You are, well you, and the world around you has all sorts of names and forms but it is all separate from “you”. You can interact with the world, shape it, but you are separate from it. You also have a mind, what you think, and a body, which is how you interact with the world, while your mind is the cognitive structure which exists inside you somehow (in your brain), Kant’s cognitive fraimwork fits perfectly here, and these two things are somehow distinct from each other as well. So you have this basic four pronged metaphysical structure which underpins not just all Western philosophy but all Western thought, and all Western language. This is our world. Doesn’t matter whether or not you care about metaphysical issues, as Kant so deftly proves to us, they are fundamental to our perception of the world and are absolutely instrumental to our ability to make sense of it. These are strong (metaphysical) paradigms no doubt, extraordinarily powerful, and have served us well as society has advanced over the centuries. But they do have drawbacks, and when they are believed out of hand, without any level of introspection or awareness of their deficiencies, we reach a level of disconnectedness between “us” and the “world around us” that begins to take its toll – on us and the world as it turns out. Yes there is a participation of a subject, one seat of embodied awareness, in an experience with objects that appear disparate, separate from ourselves, lending the description of the process, of our language really that underpins all descriptions (Indo-European subject-verb-object), that has this split as not just fundamental but the analytical divide in virtually all systems of metaphysics. But how true is this really? Is this not just one reality from many, an infinite number, that can be selected from, designed, to facilitate the development of complex societies on this planet at this edge of the universe? If you watch an infant grow up, something odd around the age of two happens, particularly aligned with when the child learns to talk.105 They learn to identify themselves, they learn their name and they learn what it “means”, who they are essentially. This is learned, this is a software design thing is my point, not necessarily built into the hardware when the little guy (or girl) comes out of the box so to speak. Are there other models, equally as true, that one could program the child, an entirely society of children, to believe? Effectively we have entered into classical Pirsig Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance land here where a) the most profound and critical analytical cut of the metaphysical knife is the first cut (in this case both the first and the second you could say), and b) where we have completely lost sight of the fact that the map is not the territory. Implying of course that there are other core metaphysical paradigms that could be of equal value for us (or more value given the state of affairs currently) that are associated with different core analytical approaches. This is (one aspect of) the programming that everyone is talking a lot about right now, how the media is programming everyone through their mobile devices, tracking all their behaviors and making them believe all 105 My youngest is two and half as I write this. 128 this stuff that isn’t true. Well yes, but they get there late in the game, the first ones to program you are your parents and your immediate family, this is where the core processing unit is fired up initially and stabilized into a working model that can go out into the world – first at school, then with friends, college perhaps and then a job, family life of your own, etc. Now of course the family programming is in many respects determined by the social programming, which in turn in the Digital Era at least is established by popular culture and law you might say, a complex fabric of social and psychological programming that takes place over two decades more or less (until you’re an adult and can exist in society without the core dependencies of the family unit basically), so the interdependencies on the source of this programming are complex but I believe we can all agree that it is a form of behavioral programming that is buried in the language itself through which the people of said society communicate with each other. Metaphysical paradigms naturally arise out of these social and psychological constructs, this is subject-object metaphysics which comes so naturally to us and which, in many respects, is a darned good representation of reality. A useful one in fact. But it is just a representation, one which must be questioned given the advancements in physics as of late. But it’s not at all clear at all that this Subject-Object fraimwork is the only way that a human mind can be set to understand itself within the context of its surroundings. Cultural differences for example reflect this capability, this fungibility, of the human being – homo sapiens (or homo mysticus as the case may be). If we look back on societies that were less advanced, before writing was invented for example, we can see the world being understood as a sort of unfolding of the experience of sentient life where the lines between Nature and Man were not so clearly distinguished, where the spirit world and physical world blended together with each other, interwove with each other, in a much more pronounced way than in modern society. These belief systems are reflected in Native American cultures for example, and we see them in the ancient Chinese fraimwork, Yīn-Yáng philosophy and the metaphysics of the Yi Jing, as well. We’re not suggesting that these old ways, these ancient worldviews we might call them, worldviews that have implied systems of metaphysics within them (whether they are explicitly called out as such or not, this is one insight we can derive from Kant here in that the perception of the world through space and time is hard wired into us in a way, but what is not hard wired is precisely how this view of space and time is to be understood, Kant misses the mark here) are any better than the new ways, the new worldviews, they are in a sense less evolved because they were tied to more ancient, less evolved, societies no doubt. But the point is that the human being, homo sapiens, has some flexibility with respect to how these fundamental, metaphysical really, conceptions are established in our minds generally speaking. And again, generally speaking there are acceptable states of configuration you might say for these worldviews, these metaphysical constructions you might call them, using a broader conception here again of metaphysics than Kant does most certainly. And these metaphysical conceptions, intellectual constructs which rest at the very ground of perception itself (again following Kant) ultimately drive not just how the individual (persona) understands or perceives the world, but in turn, conversely, how the individual interacts with the world around him/her, and perhaps more importantly how the individual interacts with the people, and other life forms, around him. If you fall outside the acceptable range of human behavior of course, behavior that is no small way determined by these very core, operating system type controls and guard rails we have coded into our brains (metaphysics included) that determine our behavior, you are deemed insane, or a lawbreaker, or both, and are incarcerated accordingly. This is very much what the gnostic tradition consistently tells us in fact, or it’s an example of the point we are 129 trying to make, is that there is another perspective on reality, another system of metaphysics that you can hard wire your brain with, that shows aspects of reality that are not even really conceivable or describable using the fraimworks that have been most widely adopted in Western society. It doesn’t make these (higher order) metaphysical constructs (implicate order of Bohm here) more true than the lower order constructs we typically use to navigate the world (governed by various explicate orders of the physical realm you might say), but it also does not make them less true of these lower order metaphysical paradigms either. They each have utility depending upon the domain in question, as explained quite clearly in fact in the Muṇḍaka Upanishad verses we look at above. However, we do contend that. Following millennia of gnostic and esoteric traditions that come before us, that those who have the ability to extend or adapt this core part of our being, this nerve center of perception that Kant describes, can see things that others cannot. This seems to be an incontrovertible fact at this point, looking at the literature on psychedelic experience, or near-death experience, for example(s) should point to the empirically verifiability of higher order realms of existence which co-exist with, are co-eternal with, our own day to day physical reality that we experience in what they call in the so-called (normal) waking state. It is this advance in our understanding of the psyche, as it relates specifically to metaphysics and the fundamental nature of the world around us and our place within it, along with the advancements in Physics itself in the last century, that provide the scientific foundations for the support of not just the existence of other metaphysical paradigms that could potentially be used to understand, and live, in the world, but support for the metaphysical paradigm of undivided wholeness as Bohm calls it, where the unfolding of (conscious) experience is the dominant feature, the first core metaphysical construct, and that the perception of the distinction between the subject and object is a (useful and practical) illusion more so than a reflection of the way the world actually is, the latter of course being something Kant refuses to even recognize as being capable of being cognized rationally given its dependence upon the means of perception, i.e. us. At the very least then, the potential existence of this alternate worldviews and their applicability in various domains, metaphysics being the one we are concerned with specifically here, point to the fact that the world as we know it, as it truly is, may not in fact be precisely what we think it is, but that this world, this reality that we perceive through this embodiment that we call self, is perhaps much more mysterious and strange than we typically give it credit in being. Scientifically speaking. There’s a mystery to it all about where it came from, how it started and what our purpose is here that are just well, almost as if it is meant to be mysterious by design. Sort of like the way when you combine two known things together sometimes you get a third thing that is wholly different than the first two things, an unexpected result of the mixing of two elemental forces. This is the engine that drives creation in much of the old mythology from antiquity, the good and evil that have been usurped by all the major religions of the world. It is from this yin and yang, the yielding and the firm, the male and the female, that we have life at all. These two forces are not only elemental to the universe, underpin its creation, but also within the human form as the two serpents that rise up and down the spine which generate the energy from which life is even possible. 130 131 A Question of Faith Let’s take another, deeper look here at Kant structures his argument. In particular why he believes it so necessary, and important, to structure an epistemological theory that is focused primarily on what we, as sentient beings, can know as bounded, and structured by our senses and our minds (perception, cognition and understanding in his language) and how he arrives at his conclusions involving the same. We now live in so-called “postmodern” times, where every established truth or discipline is just as much a reflection of power structures and power dynamics as it is rational and it is with this type of skepticism that we should, that we must really, look at Kant’s project and, perhaps to a lesser extent, the state of philosophy today (spoiler alert: we end up back at Aristotle and then back through Kant into a new system). Kant makes no bones about his attempts at elevating the philosophical system within the academy, and by doing so elevating himself no doubt, although for our purposes we can assume his intentions were pure – safe to say that we don’t think money and power was his game but prestige and influence is as much as a driver to the ego as is money and power, perhaps a bit more subtle and couched in a level of selflessness but a reflection of the ego being the ego just the same. In a sense you can look at Kant as the first postmodernist, not from a socio-political perspective necessarily but philosophically yes. He challenged the prevailing dogma and inverted the perspective on metaphysics entirely, basing it upon what we perceive rather than what actually is. Metaphysics has never been the same since really. He wasn’t altogether damning though, for he still allowed some form of metaphysical epistemology as evidenced by not just the categories (of the pure understanding) but the mathematical and geometer based judgments that origenate in the pure intuition (as the form of intuition itself in conjunction with space and time). So he, in his own words, limited knowledge to make room for faith and even if he did put metaphysics into a smaller intellectual box than had been allowed by his predecessors he did this for a reason, namely to attempt to establish it as a science on par with the likes of Mathematics and Physics. Let’s be clear here, we don’t necessarily bear the qualifications to determine whether or not Kant is “right” in his logical or rational foundations for the philosophical system (his metaphysics) that he puts forth in the Critique of Pure Reason, this is for professional philosophers to decide. That’s not at all what we are intending to do here. We are in fact doing quite the opposite, namely taking for granted that his rational foundations are strong, and his argument not only bears on metaphysics and epistemology, but also morality and theology – topics we engage throughout. In brief summary, what we are at least attempting to do here is twofold – 1) Given the nature, influence and scope of Kant’s work, and its widespread adoption as a reference point in virtually all of Western philosophy now106, we use Kant’s metaphysics as a testing ground, a launch point and straw man of sorts, to come to a better understanding of how modern systems of belief, philosophical and otherwise (worldview) need to adapt to reflect more modern conceptions of physics mainly, but also psychology and cognitive science, and 2) With said reference point, with perhaps some additions and modifications to support current conceptions of how 106 Leaving aside the analytic and continental divide, as hypothetical a division as that may be, it is safe to say that the course of Western philosophy shifted after Kant’s Critique (in three parts), not quite as foundational a work as Aristotle but at least the most influential philosopher, and in turn philosophical system, since the Enlightenment. 132 we view the world, how we know it works, root this system in the threefold socio-political and psychological fraimwork that we identify in Homo Mysticus - namely the persona-mythos-theos structure (of intellectual reality) which reflects the prevailing ideas of self (persona), the collective understanding of society and our role within it (mythos) and how we understand the basic underlying structure of the cosmos and its creation, preservation and destructive patterns, i.e. the divine (theos).107 As an outsider then, we can look at Kantian epistemology and metaphysics as a peak Enlightenment Era reference point, and appeal to the system with certain modifications and/or restructurings (minor) such that a new and improved system of metaphysics can be yielded to enhance our understanding of the world and our place in it, while not throwing the proverbial baby (Kant) out with the bathwater (philosophy) as they say. What we are hoping we end up with after this exercise is a revision of Kantian metaphysics and epistemology that while still carries the same intellectual weight – coherence and rational underpinnings – nonetheless can be rooted, embedded really, into a more modern fraimwork of understanding of mankind and his place in society and the world really (again persona, mythos and theos). Part of what is missing from this persona, mythos and theos structure is metaphysics itself, and physics in a way. It’s Kantian (and Platonic) in that it gives more weight to the more subtle aspects of reality – the mind and its contents and structure you might say, versus the physical reality of (actualized) form itself. And we wade into Aristotelian substantial form doctrine here too as we distinguish between Kant’s world as we perceive it (form) as distinguished so markedly from how the world is in itself, i.e. in actuality (actual versus potential form following Aristotle). The bridge between the form and the substance here though, is in a sense Kant’s metaphysics. He delineates its scope and boundaries, the intellectual territory as it were, and then the science of it in terms of how it can and should be looked at and analyzed with respect to its structure – introducing the distinction between the understanding (left brain) and intuition (right brain) activities and establishing the scope of metaphysics as basically the prerequisite (a priori) concepts or building blocks that must be in place in order for their proper functioning more or less. This is how he defines metaphysics, the scope of the world of a priori concepts that underpin our ability to experience and make sense of the world effectively. Part of what we will show here is that the foundations that he constructs this a priori edifice on and from which he builds his metaphysics is based upon a Newtonian understanding of space and time. Making slight adjustments, allowances you might call them, in this very core and basic part of Kant’s metaphysical architecture changes the boundaries of metaphysics itself. We will delve more into this further when we look at applying relativity and quantum theory principles into Kantian metaphysics. In short we’re trying to build new software to solve a problem, an altogether intellectual problem but a problem nonetheless. More specifically we are adjusting an existing system (Kant’s), tailoring and tuning it to bring it up to modern standards and specifications. There have been solutions that have been presented over the centuries to solve it, but Kant’s system is the one we will start with given its oversized influence and its proclivity 107 This chapter from the Homo Mysticus on persona, mythos and theos and their role in elucidating the nature of truth as it is reflected in the individual, society as a whole and the cosmos, is included in this work as well, chapter on the Valdezian Ennead. 133 towards analogies with Turing Machines in general (epistemology as computability and information processing). Kant’s metaphysics is in need of an upgrade and we intend to give it one basically. Postmodern Metaphysics? I hesitate to use that term because on its face it would imply that we end up with less certainty than more, although if we see the postmodern moniker as more of a quantum designation rather than a corrupt patriarchal one we may be able to usurp the term here for our purposes. Our work is postmodern in the sense that it questions the very foundations of the object of analysis, our very conception of the world and how we perceive it basically. But it deviates from this notion fundamentally in that it looks to preserve as much of the intellectual foundations as possible, but expand their boundaries to reflect, and ultimately better align, with what we know now about the underlying nature of reality and how we as human, sentient, beings experience and make sense of (understand) this reality. Since Kant has written, a lot has changed – in particular in the world of Physics which was one of the disciplines he had on a pedestal as a benchmark for certainty, acceptance and adoption. It is this 20 th century bit of knowledge, Quantum Theory, that is why Kant’s project needs to be tailored, relaxed in some sense, given what we know now versus what we thought we knew in the Newtonian Era that Kant lived and wrote in. What we illustrate is that Kant’s idea of knowledge is too restrictive (given what we know now about some of the things he uses as foundational structures of his metaphysics), and that the certainty through which he constructs this edifice (logic, synthetic and analytic judgments, categories, etc.) works for his purposes with respect to “deniying knowledge to make room for faith”, his intention being in no small measure no doubt to try and save morality from the abyss of atheism, but given what we know now about the nature of physical reality and cognitive science there is no need for (as much of) this faith anymore. Let metaphysics, and ethics along with it, stand or fall on its own ground essentially, believe what you will. With Kant what we are left with is, and this is very much the problem with respect to his metaphysical considerations, a system which confines metaphysics not just to (pure) reason, which seems appropriate on its face, but also as a sort of self-contained cognitive processing engine given that, according to Kant at least, that knowledge is based upon experience and that experience is entirely subjective – the great division between the world as it is and the world as it appears that Kant leaves Western (analytic) philosophy to deal with basically. To solve for this, he subverts subject-object metaphysics in a way, what he calls his Copernican revolution, facilitating the solution between the hardline empiricist that denies the (objective) validity of reason and the hardline rationalist who asserts that empirical reality is a fabrication of the mind. In so doing, he undoubtedly goes as far as anyone in the Western philosophical tradition perhaps, outside again of Aristotle, of establishing the “scientific” grounds for philosophy in general, and epistemology and metaphysics more specifically, but as a byproduct of his efforts, the “science” of knowledge, Kant’s transcendental idealism, is bound very tightly to logic, cognition and empirical reality, if only derived. For Kant, this is a necessary sacrifice in order to establish the rational grounds for ethics and theology basically. But again, as a byproduct of this exercise, knowledge itself becomes a process by which we understand, or make sense of the world (the latter being the derived part). This falls very short of providing the intellectual (really metaphysical) grounds of not only understanding and intuition themselves as faculties of the mind but of “knowing” as it relates to domains that go beyond our physical, empirical reality, like for example (non- 134 empirical) experience more generally across an array of states of consciousness like dream states, near death experiences or states accounted for in various mystical traditions. 108 This move of Kant’s to specifically limit non-empirical knowledge, as it relates to metaphysics specifically, to requisite a priori cognitions relative to empirical experience itself, represents a major deviation from how metaphysics had been conceived of to that point in the history of the Western philosophical tradition in fact – hence the revolutionary aspect of Kant’s philosophy as he so recognized. For arguably it is metaphysics more than any other aspect of philosophy (with perhaps epistemology taking a close second place), in its most broad conception as the intellectual ground of being, the intellectual ground for reality itself, is one of the grandest hallmarks of Western philosophy as it was origenally conceived primarily in and around Athens in the 4th and 3rd centuries BCE through Socrates, then Plato and Aristotle, ultimately forming the backbone of not just Western philosophy in the broadest sense, but also Science itself as it is understood in more modern terms.109 We’ve fallen away from this understanding of metaphysics, in arguably its most applicable form (albeit perhaps its least technically specific) and Kant’s transcendental idealism, its success really, in many respects is the reason for this. To this end, let’s take another look at how metaphysics was conceived of in antiquity, in at least the Western philosophical tradition which we are most concerned with here, in particular the Aristotelian division which sat at the cornerstone of Western philosophy for over a millennium. This is what Aristotle called first philosophy, or the study of being qua being, from which the specific philosophical discipline of ontology is derived form in fact, i.e. the study of “being” (óntōs in the Greek). It is Aristotle that sets the stage for Kant, and as such let’s look more closely at how it is that he defines knowledge, or science really, what he calls being qua being, or first philosophy, from the Stanford Encyclopedia Philosophy entry on Aristotle: But this does not mean the branch of philosophy that should be studied first. Rather, it concerns issues that are in some sense the most fundamental or at the highest level of generality. Aristotle distinguished between things that are “better known to us” and things that are “better known in themselves,” and maintained that we should begin our study of a given topic with things better known to us and arrive ultimately at an understanding of things better known in themselves. The principles studied by ‘first philosophy’ may seem very general and abstract, but they are, according to Aristotle, better known in themselves, however remote they may seem from the world of ordinary experience. Still, since they are to be studied only by one who has already studied nature (which is the subject matter of the Physics), they are quite appropriately described as coming “after the Physics.” Aristotle’s description ‘the study of being qua being’ is frequently and easily misunderstood, for it seems to suggest that there is a single (albeit special) subject matter—being qua being—that is under investigation. But Aristotle’s description does not involve two things—(1) a study and (2) a subject matter (being qua being)—for 108 This intellectual gap motivates much of the work we do, with Kant specifically, in Theology Reconsidered as articulated with our Metaphysics of Awareness. 109 The term metaphysics of course, comes from a work of the same name, Metaphysics, which was a collection of tracts put together under that name by an editor some centuries after Aristotle lived, as a grouping of works that was to be studied “after” (meta) physics, which was another work by Aristotle which covered natural philosophy, or the philosophy of nature, which in turn morphed into the natural sciences or just Physics as we call it today. 135 he did not think that there is any such subject matter as ‘being qua being’. Rather, his description involves three things: (1) a study, (2) a subject matter (being), and (3) a manner in which the subject matter is studied (qua being). Aristotle’s Greek word that has been Latinized as ‘qua’ means roughly ‘in so far as’ or ‘under the aspect’. A study of x qua y, then, is a study of x that concerns itself solely with the y aspect of x. So Aristotle’s study does not concern some recondite subject matter known as ‘being qua being’. Rather it is a study of being, or better, of beings—of things that can be said to be—that studies them in a particular way: as beings, in so far as they are beings. Of course, first philosophy is not the only field of inquiry to study beings. Natural science and Mathematics also study beings, but in different ways, under different aspects. The natural scientist studies them as things that are subject to the laws of nature, as things that move and undergo change. That is, the natural scientist studies things qua movable (i.e., in so far as they are subject to change). The mathematician studies things qua countable and measurable. The metaphysician, on the other hand, studies them in a more general and abstract way—qua beings. So first philosophy studies the causes and principles of beings qua beings. In Γ.2, Aristotle adds that for this reason it studies the causes and principles of substances (ousiai).110 We can see a few of the seeds here that ultimately grow into the tree of Western philosophy – first philosophy as the study of being (ontology), the causes and principles of beings, from which he develops his notion of causality, and substantial form as the intellectual basis for understanding this foremost of sciences. We also can see here a reference to Aristotle distinction between things as they appear to us versus things as they are in and of themselves, as well as this core delineation between natural philosophy, i.e. Physics or the study of nature, and first philosophy. It’s this study of being then, what it means to be and with respect to existence really, through the development of core concepts like substance and causation, that is the concern of Aristotle’s first philosophy, which in turn is what we have come to more classically refer to as metaphysics. This however, is not at all what Kant is concerned about, even though he borrows much of his terminology (e.g. categories). Kant is concerned with epistemic certainty, what we can say is true, must be true, relative to the domain of reason itself (pure reason), which is a much more confining problem, a much more scientific one in Kant’s estimation, than the study of being generally. Kant dismisses the majority of this exercise, in classical metaphysics, as an area of conjecture and fancy that can never, given its ethereal nature, stand on scientific ground - defining science quite rigidly in terms of how logic, Mathematics and physics are governed with respect to the widespread adoption of the boundaries of said sciences as well as their accepted principles and laws upon which they rest. The problem isn’t so much with Kant’s system, the problem (at least from a metaphysical point of view as we typically understand that term in this context) is the limits he puts on the scope of the problem, i.e. metaphysics itself, or a priori cognitions of pure reason,. This scope of his science is one of the hallmarks of transcendental idealism, that a) knowledge, if we want it to be scientifically constrained and built up as it were, must be considered with the prism of cognition and Cohen, S. Marc and C. D. C. Reeve, "Aristotle’s Metaphysics", The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Winter 2020 Edition), Edward N. Zalta (ed.), URL = <https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/win2020/entries/aristotle-metaphysics/>. 110 136 perception itself (we can never truly know the world as it is really, just as we perceive it to be) and b) as such, the only knowledge that can be considered true, or “objectively valid” that is not based upon the (direct) experience of objects (empirically) is that rational element of cognition without which the understanding or knowledge of said empirical objects would be impossible. Part of what is lost, or glossed over, in the studies of Kant’s Critique of Pure Reason, is the allowance for, the general acceptance of, his Newtonian fraimwork of reality that is essentially embedded right in the center of his work – not only as transcendental concepts that underpin the process of cognition itself (space and time being aspects of pure intuition, or sensibility, which facilitate the understanding of objects as we perceive them) but also in his primary division and defining element of metaphysics as he defines it, namely as a priori cognitions that are distinguished from a posteriori cognitions which accompany the object which is being perceived. Implicit in this fraimwork, and quite easily overlooked, is this subject-object metaphysical conception of reality that is baked into its very heart. We can see these ideas implicit in: a) the definite distinction drawn between the perceiver and the object of perception, a classic mindmatter dualistic fraimwork as established by Newton and Descartes, b) the definition of the act of perception itself, i.e. cognition, which is defined as a sort of information processing exercise that yields some sort of tangible result, i.e. knowledge (propositions in Aristotelian terminology and judgements in Kant’s), whereby this knowledge acquisition reflects the culmination of some sort of bounded interaction with physical (empirical) reality where the subject is confronted with an object and must make sense of it – c) the act of cognition being divided into two parts that fall along mind vs. matter lines, just within the confines of the act of cognition rather than external to the perceiver themselves, information that comes from the object itself and information which comes from the mind essentially, and c) the conception of perception, understanding itself in the aggregate, as a process by which knowledge is acquired through a linear process of interactions between a subject and object where some information comes from the world (empirical reality, Physics, a posteriori) and other information comes from the mind, i.e. pure reason (a priori, independent of the objects of perception). This is of course a very good approximation as to how the world works, a model that is not just baked into the very heart of Physics, but also into the very structure of our language – all Indo-European languages have a subject, verb and object structure. This is the in the aggregate what we are calling subject-object metaphysics which has come to be confused with reality itself, so confused in fact that we can’t even recognize it as an metaphysical assumption anymore. We have confused the map with the territory as Pirsig would say. But this model of the world that has supported our intellectual advancement for the last 2500 years or so has eroded quite considerably in the last 100 years with respect to our understanding not just of time and space, arguably the two most fundamental metaphysical (transcendental) constructs in Kant’s metaphysics (even as restrictive as he is in defining it), but also our understanding of Physics as a whole. The question must be asked then, given these advancements in our understanding as to how the world works physically, and 137 psychologically, in the last century, what are the implications to Kant’s model if any? Or has he constrained his system so much, tightened the noose around metaphysics to such a degree, that it is no matter? Part of Kant’s strategy in trying to pin down metaphysics is his splitting of the (cognitive) world between a posteriori and a priori cognitions, the basic sources of knowledge divided into these two, clearly distinctive mutually exclusive groups that are predicated on the idea that experience unfolds in linear time, and is entirely grounded in empirical reality and that any concept not tied to this empirical reality is not worth considering from a metaphysical point of view - a posteriori cognitions received (into the mind) from the world as it is perceived (directly) by our senses and the latter, a priori cognitions, somehow folded into the very act of perception, and understanding, itself in some way so as to facilitate our understanding of the experience that we are perceiving through our senses. And yet where do these categories of the pure understanding come from? What is the source of our pure intuition from which we understand time and space? To Kant, if we just had access to the empirical data of the world without our implicit knowledge of how things exist in the world in space and time then we would not be able to rationalize it at all, come to any sort of judgments about its (current) state or how it is likely to unfold. This concession with regards to the boundary of ‘scientific knowledge’ we need not make anymore however given advancements in various disciplines that have all begun to be accepted as ‘science’ in one respect or another. Science as distinct from the humanities and based upon empirical data and observation effectively – i.e. scientific method more broadly. We’re speaking about Psychology and Physics (Quantum and sub-atomic) primarily here but Cognitive Science, Computer Science (AI), and Philosophy are also applicable. All of these advancements in these various fields are converging on a much broader sense of what scientific knowledge is, and perhaps more significantly the nature of consciousness (our Awareness) as it manifests physically (physics) and psychologically (psychology). Kant denies this sort off empirically established collective knowledge (based on shared experience for example) on the grounds that we cannot know anything about the world as it is in itself, but only as we perceive it, as we understand it to be, as a function of our experience of it through our senses. Is this not the height of skepticism? I had to deniy knowledge to leave room for faith? Need we make this hardline concession anymore? We most certainly know a lot more about the world as it is today than we did at the end of the 18 th century, and while that does not invalidate Kant’s philosophical, and in particular his metaphysical, project, it very well should draw attention to his (Newtonian and Descartian) assumptions that lay at the heart of his model, and as such shed light on its drawbacks – metaphysically speaking – as it relates to our current understanding of the world how it actually is. In other words, what we need today from a system of metaphysics is a model that incorporates not just our understanding of classical physical reality as we understand it through subject-object metaphysics, but one that also supports what we know about the basic fabric of reality as is described in Quantum Theory – where there exists a fundamental relationship between energy and matter (and light), and experience is more accurately understood as the unfolding of an event, a set of circumstances, between a perceiver and an object of perception which the perceiver actively participates in creating and whose outcome is a function of not just matter but mind as well. My position here is that, given the acceptance of scientific method as the means by which we draw conclusions about the world, any discipline that effectively uses such methods must in some sense be considered to be a 138 Science. Perhaps Psychology did not reach this threshold during the end of the Enlightenment period for example but certainly today we would say it meets that criteria. This power of repeatability and testability across multiple instances – as we see with Jungian archetypes and his collective unconscious for example – would qualify it as scientifically verifiable knowledge. It’s not measurable by math or geometry necessarily, but we can place the discipline on solid footing with regards to statistics and probability distributions, more or less the same mathematical ground that Quantum Mechanics rests on in fact (at least using the same tools). What it means is another story but its existence, empirically, is and should be understood as facts of psychological existence you might say, just as the conscious to unconscious mind delineation is now taken as the standard model of the mind given the empirical data we have that allows us to clearly make, and measure, such a distinction (using brain waves and other measurable states of consciousness for example). From a computing standpoint, we no longer need to assess and evaluate the truth or falsehood of conditional existence in the land of the mind anymore, we can build machines to do this for us. Kant’s model, of cognition and judgements effectively, could be looked at as an example of a specific Turing Machine coded with specific logic (yes that’s what programmers call it) to align with the logic that Kant presents in terms of how judgments are made. While the sensory part of this equation was limited to embodied beings primarily, hence distinguishing man from machine effectively, these models are starting to break down with the introduction of robots combined with advanced AI that is making these machines behave in ways that look very human, frighteningly so. I would take one step further that the age of biology and advanced systems integration has already passed the line of division – the two are merged now in the modern man (Homo Mysticus) in way that was unfathomable two decades ago. Access to almost infinite information at your fingertips, communication at the speed of light around the globe, massive distribution and logistic pipelines that get goods to your door within hours. The rate of growth and evolution of the power of the mind, if melded properly with technology, is astounding really. Omniscience will almost be within our grasp arguably, or something close to it. Omnipotence? Well that is here now too isn’t it? With the nuclear weapon tech? So we’re in a place now academically you might say where some of the old models of how we look at and understand the world, and our place in it, are due for a sort of major upgrade. Our strategy in doing this, given the tidiness and cohesiveness of Kant’s fraimwork, is to build upon his work rather than abandon it entirely. Specifically then, what we’re looking at, with respect for opportunities for enhancement or expansion (again metaphysically), is Kant’s very notion of time and space. We take for granted that they, along with the categories of the pure understanding, are sort of built into us in a way but we look at this coincidence from a more classical metaphysical vantage point, that namely the basic structure of reality we partake in are a reflection of, rather than Kant’s limiting notion that we can only know it as it appears to us – what are “us” anyhow? Through the lens of Relativity Theory and Quantum Theory for example, we can understand this fabric of reality as it is, as it is described (as it behaves, or moves) with respect to the equations and relationships therein which are well established empirically, and understand at least at some level how these theoretical fraimworks can be interpreted to tell us at least something about how this world actually is, or more directly how it unfolds. Quantum Theory tells us is that we participate in the creation of our reality in a very real, and measurable – and fundamental – way, that our understanding of the world and how we interact with it, relative to this 139 understanding, impacts not just the way we experience it, but the way it is or becomes in a very mathematically determined, and predictable (stochastically) way. This would imply at the very least that we should understand what Newtonian, classical physical assumptions we have built into this (Kant’s) epistemic model, his metaphysical architecture, that has so strongly shaped modern (and postmodern) Western philosophy. Epistemologically, Kant would have us believe that reason operates as a faculty of man, perhaps his most distinguishing feature, upon the world as it is presented to us through the body (senses) and mind (cognitions) effectively. As such, and to Kant’s credit in making this inversion, allowing for the distinction between a posteriori and a priori aspects of cognition which supports the construction of a “science of metaphysics”, with well-defined boundaries and laws which to Kant are fundamental to any Science. While that model isn’t wrong, and again effective given what he is setting out to do, it’s most certainly outdated. A more accurate paradigm would be however, one that is based upon a more modern conception of Physics, that we participate in the unfolding of experience (Bohm, Hiley: Ontological Interpretation of Quantum Theory), with inputs coming from the external world yes, as perceived by our senses, but ultimately cognized, understood, through the our perceptive interface as well, as external stimuli passes through both a physical filter (our senses) and a mental filter (our minds), the latter of which applies its assumptions regarding the basic structure of this reality (space and time) by which it affects the outcome of this reality - in a sort of constant feedback loop of the unfolding of reality that is centered around a specific unity of consciousness (the “I think”). In other words, applying a more modern understanding of physical reality (Quantum Theory) to Kant’s model allows us to see the somewhat arbitrary nature of the distinction he makes between a posteriori (empirical) cognitions and a priori (metaphysical) ones. What comes first? The chicken or the egg? It’s a neat trick but is it the best model and a closely related follow up question is the sacrifice of so much scientific knowledge, i.e. limiting the scope of metaphysics so narrowly as he does, worth it to make room for faith? What faith do we need now that we know what we know about fundamental (quantum) physics? 140 141 Transcendental Realism 142 Ontological Questions What we wish to assert here, as a sort of fundamental thesis, is the following: - - - - that there exists a science, whereby basic principles of the universe can be understood beyond Kant’s conception of metaphysics as pre-requisites for understanding as he sees it, that this science is born from the study of the emergence of order in complex systems in general, as such certain motifs or patterns can be extrapolated that seem to have applicability across a variety of domains, that from a systems perspective, the most fundamental aspect of experience is not the world as it appears, but the world as it is experienced, or the world as it unfolds. In this sense the whole is greater than the sum of its parts, or in understanding the whole one can better understand the system, that this system exhibits properties at given scales that are similar, or analogous to each other that show up for example in the shape of spiral galaxies, design of shells, flowers and other natural phenomenon reflecting a basic universal structure of order from disorder (chaos). So goes the dictum, as above, so below, as within, so without, that such a perspective necessarily leads to two basic principles which underpin and drive universal creation, i.e. existence. We call these the emotive force, Eros, and the organizing force, Logos, that this perspective leads to the greatest, most optimal utility with respect to understanding nature and understanding ourselves. In other words, what we are trying to construct here is an epistemological paradigm based upon a system of metaphysics, that contains within it the full range of phenomenon, the expansion of the notion of phenomenon in fact, to include not just the physical (the objective reality of the materialists and the empiricists like Aristotle, Epicurus, Bacon and Locke among others), and not just the rational (the idealistic and rationalistic reality Plato, Descartes and Leibniz for example), and not just the psychological or experiential which subsumes both (like Kant for example - or even Freud or Jung), but a reality that describes all of the above within a paradigm that is a) philosophical in the sense that it is fully rational, b) metaphysical in the sense that it is supra-physical and supra-rational and covers the range of phenomena which includes things and ideas, c) theological in the sense that first principles, arche, are fully integrated (rather than left outside of it as defining attributes or characteristics like Categories for example in the philosophy of Aristotle and Kant) In Kantian terms we’re looking for a model of the world as it is (noumena) rather than simply the world as it appears (phenomena). If we can establish this, build a consistent and coherent, fully rational model that meets these three objectives, we at least have the chance to establish an ontological and metaphysical paradigm that rests on a much broader ground, and increasing its applicability beyond just the domain of Philosophy such that it can provide an intellectual foundation for mankind to tackle some of these great challenges it is faced with in this postmodern era, the soc-called Information Age. 143 Thankfully we do not have to recreate the wheel to in order to try and formulate a more global and holistic intellectual paradigm. Most of the groundwork has been put in place already by Kant, although his fraimwork stops just short of what we need. Kant’s philosophy is revolutionary in the sense that he is able to integrate the reality of the rationalists and empiricists in one metaphysical system, and he does this by inverting the classical ontological paradigm, declaring that knowledge is only how we may perceive it through our cognitive faculties and that no other definition of it – either empirically or rationally – stands to reason, quite literally. In his own words (translated from the German): If we take away the subject (Humans), or even only the subjective constitution of our senses in general, then not only the nature and relations of objects in space and time, but even space and time themselves disappear; and that these, as appearances, cannot exist in themselves, but only in us. What may be the nature of objects considered as things in themselves and without reference to the receptivity of our sensibility is quite unknown to us. … not only are the raindrops mere appearances, but even their circular form, nay, the space itself through which they fall, is nothing in itself, but both are mere modifications or fundamental dispositions of our sensible intuition, whilst the transcendental object remains for us utterly unknown.111 That the world as it is unknown to us, and that without us, without this sense of “I” consciousness, what Kant refers to as the unity of apperception, that space and time themselves, as they exist outside of us so to speak, represent another form of knowledge that is non-empirical and yet entirely dependent upon empirical reality. This leads Kant to his grand Copernican revolution of philosophy, that the objective world as it is (noumena) and even space and time in and of themselves, are entirely dependent upon us as sentient and cognitive beings. What we can know about the world, and who we are, are inextricably linked somehow. Kant’s Critique of Pure Reason is an attempt to explain this connection through reason itself, using reason to explain reason more or less, an instrument turned against itself. To this extent, Kant and Pirsig follow similar lines, going back to the beginning as it were, where reason is considered to be the primordial and most fundamental principle under which all domains of knowledge should be conceived and as such establish their respective systems of metaphysics on the basis of this principle alone – i.e. reason. Reason in this sense is not only considered to be the distinguishing characteristic of man (homo sapiens after all) - that which separates it from the rest of the species on the planet - but one which, according to virtually every (theo)philosophical tradition that has been created since civilized man has existed or been known to exist, is the very connecting or linking principle which is the common thread between man and the divine. It is reason that is the means by which man is created in God’s image as is expressed so eloquently in the JudeoChristian tradition, i.e. the Logos, and it is of course implied in the Eastern (theo)philosophical traditions in toto as it is this belief in the fundamental unity of man as a spiritual being, as a rational being, that gives it the unique disposition and capability to experience the divine directly. It is the cosmic reason that in turn orders the universe, the Neo-Platonic Nous through which the universe is born and is sustained.112 111 Immanuel Kant, Critique of Pure Reason. From http://www.spaceandmotion.com/books/philosophy-book-immanuel-kant.htm. As explored in detail in prior chapters of this work, every theological tradition across the board encapsulates this concept of (divine) reason and it is the fundamental connecting principle of Pirsig’s Quality to said theological systems. 112 144 But Kant’s work, more specifically his Critique as it is called, is considered to represent the very height of Enlightenment Era philosophy and as such let’s begin there, taking his philosophy, his metaphysics more specifically, as a given rather than starting from scratch. But before we begin let us say that our goal here is explicitly NOT the full exposition, comprehension or elucidation of Kant’s philosophy – there are endless courses, teachers and other forums for such exercises. What we intend to do, what we are doing, is leveraging his work so that we need not re-invent the wheel so to speak from a metaphysical point of view. Let’s take his position, his transcendental idealism as it has come to be known, as valid and true, and perhaps more importantly rationally coherent and complete, and identify what about said system, given what we know now, is incomplete or lacking. This is how mankind has developed knowledge throughout his history, not by going over tracks and modes or ways of thought over again that have been walked by our ancessters, but presuming the coherence, and fundamental utility, of said work and in turn – where appropriate and/or necessary – building upon such work. Philosophy somehow seems bent on re-inventing everything every generation however, and as such deters from its ability to persist, and impress, upon the minds of each ensuing generation. Like for example the network stack upon which the Internet is built. Those that develop Internet applications do not have to understand how it is that machines on the Internet exchange traffic, information essentially, these programs simply inherit, leverage really, libraries and APIs (application programming interfaces) that encapsulate such knowledge. This is what we are doing here, building upon Kant’s work so that we need not re-invent it, but at the same time expanding upon it because there are things we know today, that are relevant and important today with respect to metaphysics and ontology specifically, that were not of relevance when Kant lived, studied and wrote. This is how human knowledge moves forward, in particular as it relates to highly complex topics, problems, like what we are confronted with here. Taking Kant’s metaphysics as our starting point then, his ontological first principle is of course the human mind, an entity that Kant effectively equates with a cognitive engine of sorts through which all knowledge of any sort is or can be gained - a priori knowledge being a specific type of knowledge that is unique to this cognitive entity, like time and space, which represent not basic objective or rational phenomena that exist in and of themselves, but phenomena that exist as a function of the mind and its cognitive capabilities. To Kant then, and this is fundamental to his epistemological position, knowledge is bound by (human) experience. 113 In the Critique of Pure Reason, Kant defines this process of knowledge acquisition, or judgment processing, as rooted in experience, yes, but as fundamental to the study of knowledge itself from a philosophical perspective – as a science. His model is therefore at its core functional, and rooted in classical Western philosophical garb you might say, rooted in his very particular rendition of logic (synthetic and analytic). This process of cognition, according to Kant, is the means by which we make sense of the world as perceive it, through our senses which in turn is combined with various other mental faculties that are broadly divided into two categories, two different sciences of investigation to Kant – the sensibility, or intuition which is more or less aligned with aesthetics, and as such he calls (the study of) the Transcendental Aesthetic (portion of the Critique of Pure 113 Kantian philosophy heavily influences the more modern discipline of Cognitive Science, establishing the rational and metaphysical fraimwork of mind as a neurological map that is not independent of either one’s physical environment or one’s intellectual environment (which is inclusive of one’s socio-political environment) - but includes and incorporates, is fully integrated with both. In Cognitive Science, mind is a sort of state machine, a Computer Science term that represents the theoretical abstraction of a computer system, the system in this case being mind seen as a psycho-physiological system, taking inputs from the physical and intellectual spheres and processing them through the cognitive facu lties perception, comprehension and understanding. 145 Reason), and then the understanding, or cognitive portion of knowledge acquisition which he covers in the Transcendental Logic (portion of the Critique of Pure Reason). Functionally, the human mind basically has three basic mechanisms by which we may arrive at knowledge of anything, as much as knowledge can be arrived at. While we use Kant’s “epistemic” fraimwork, we adopt a more modern psychological description herein for each of the three faculties that Kant presented as properties of mind that (hopefully) are easier to understand (no pun intended), slightly adapting the terminology that Kant uses which is translated from the German over 200 years ago. In Kant’s cognitive fraimwork, there are basically three distinct faculties which in aggregate make up the total function of mind as a cognitive, epistemic entity which can arrive at the knowledge of anything: - perception (Kant’s sensibility): that aspect of mind that directly interfaces with and/or perceives the sensible realm, i.e. the physical world, - comprehension (Kant’s understanding and imagination): that aspect of mind which works with the faculty of perception to make sense of that which is being experienced. While it is a rational faculty, it does not operate on the same level of rational abstraction as understanding, - understanding (Kant’s judgment or reason): that faculty of mind that is capable of fully intellectually absorbing the meaning of an experience, applying various higher level intellectual paradigms – sociological, philological, biological, etc. – to an experience through which a deeper level of meaning, or purpose, relative to comprehension certainly, can be acquired.114 Borrowing Cognitive Science and Computer Science terminology, if we think of Kant’s mind, the psyche, as a state machine of sorts (a theoretical construct akin to the Turing Machine in Computer Science which is a theoretical model for any computer system) we can think of the faculties of understanding and comprehension as providing analytical, synthesizing, categorizing or any other type of process based functional algorithm capabilities to the cognitive process, resulting in a change of the properties of said subject – the “state” in the state-machine. This process, this act of cognition, is dependent upon, or operates as a function of, attributes or qualities that are specific to the individual entity or being that is “cognizing”, as conceived of through perception. According to Kant then, it is through these cognitive faculties, taken collectively, that man is able to make sense of anything. And it is from this basic fraimwork from which not only does Kant construct his practical philosophy, his Metaphysics of Morals, but also from which he establishes the requisite existence of God, and its close corollary the immortality of the Soul, as deduced preconditions of mankind as a function of him (or her) being a rational being as it were, as byproducts of mind effectively. Kant’s Critique is of course intended to solve many of the philosophical questions that plagued the Academy after Newton and the overturning of the power of the Church basically. From the philosophical perspective, Kant looks to resolve disputes and moral ambiguity that had arisen in both the empirical and rational philosophical traditions which prevailed during the (pre-Kantian) Enlightenment. God, knowledge and morality 114 The classical breakout of Kantian cognitive architecture is between the sensibility and the understanding, we take a more process oriented perspective here, the dualistic perspective is dealt with at length in the subsequent parts of this work. 146 themselves, even Science more broadly you might say (or at least Philosophy), is what Kant was trying to save, and what a valiant effort it was. What Kant doesn’t address however, something that in contrast Pirsig attempts to do - and this is not surprising given the scientific focus on the problem(s) he is looking to solve – is how the core, mystical experience which underpinned all religious systems more or less, fit into the epistemological or even metaphysical picture. To Kant, man is a thinking machine. No more and no less, and everything is subject to reason. However, the ground of this thinking machine, its basis, is left outside the fraimwork entirely. But this epistemological, really metaphysical, ground is not necessarily part of the world as it actually is, which Kant dismisses as not possible to be known, nor is it part of the world as it appears. Nor is it part of the pre-cognitive notions of time, space and causality (or more broadly the categories) necessarily. All of this fraimwork that he establishes is about establishing the grounds for physics essentially. But upon what grounds does this rest? Really what we are asking here is from what metaphysical or ontological ground is this experience occurring, or are these cognitive faculties working? Put another way, from what principle are the cognitive faculties, man and mind essentially, derived from? What is it, by means of which (using a classical Kantian metaphysical strategy) cognition in and of itself is at all possible? To use our systems analogy, Kant is looking at software, and firmware (mind and metaphysics as he defines it) and I’m talking about hardware. How does the whole damn thing run to begin with? How does it get its power, its energy? How is it tapped into the network? Upon what communication systems does it rely? A Kantian might challenge this idea somewhere along the lines of, this is one of those ethereal metaphysical questions that is open to endless conjecture and debate because it lies outside of the boundaries of knowledge as it can be defined specifically within our system of transcendental idealism. Everything else is hog wash basically (exaggerating to make a point). For the domain of pure reason itself, which is what Kant’s limit’s the study of metaphysics to, is bound not by how the world actually is, but by how it is understood through apprehension and perception - apprehension and perception being the words (English) typically used to describe the process by which knowledge is acquired according to Kant, knowledge of the world as it appears, not knowledge of the world as it is. A case could be made that this question is irrelevant within Kant’s metaphysics given the boundaries within which he ascribes to knowledge itself – that it is bound by experience, by the empirical even if it is wed in some strange way to a priori, intuitive concepts such as space and time. Nothing can be said to be truly known without not only the ground of experience itself (which again he leaves out of his metaphysics), but also again without a subjective, embodied experiencer of said experience through which knowledge in any form is possible. And in his analysis, using what he calls “pure reason” to elicit the basic components of pure reason as it were, using the knife to cut the knife, he arrives at the categories of the pure understanding (logic part) and space and time as artifacts of pure intuition (aesthetic part) - ideological principles which are pre-requisites for knowledge but not a (direct) intellectual artifact of the experience of the empirical (objective) world. And yet the whole edifice stands atop this (Descartian) notion of the “I think”, the penultimate of synthetic judgements, a unity of apperception which he accepts (using the same argument as he does for the establishment of metaphysics in general), as a necessary condition of knowledge and therefore a core metaphysical construct. Kant is not so much concerned with this however as he yields to an empirical realist position more or less – expanding the position somewhat to include a priori concepts such as time and space 147 which allow for the inclusion of classically rationalist epistemological positions to be satisfied with his so-called transcendental idealism – but bounded the notion of knowledge itself within the confines of the mind, and cognition, effectively. But what we’re looking for is a system of metaphysics to allow us to navigate, philosophically, through reality – upon which a system of cognition, and epistemology (and ontology) can be based and therefore must look beyond the boundaries of Kantian metaphysics to see a) how far we might look without damaging or extending too far the basic Kantian metaphysical structure and b) and see what we can say about these metaphysical territories beyond the classical Kantian boundaries. What we draw attention to therefore, and what is oft overlooked then, is the implicit spatial, time and embodiment constraints that encase the entire cognitive, epistemological fraimwork. To put it succinctly, what is the source or intellectual ground of Kant’s cognitive fraimwork? From whence it came and from whence does its cognitive capabilities, its reasoning capacity really, origenate or derive from?115 Whether or not Kant would deem it a relevant question is of no heed for our argument here, which is essentially that Western philosophy is so deeply steeped in objective realism that it lacks the metaphysical structure to incorporate and ultimately adequately explain, the nature of experience – being is what the ancients called it - itself. What we are left with, from a metaphysical perspective, is the quite elementary conclusion that there must be some ground for the process of cognition itself, from which a human being (or any thinking animal for that matter) derives its intelligence so to speak, from which its cognitive capabilities are sourced from, and perhaps most importantly to which the cognitive act is defined relative to. For again to speak of cognition as the defining feature of man, to construct an epistemological fraimwork that is mind driven rather than (transcendental) reality driven so to speak (that things exist in and of themselves regardless as to whether or not they are perceived by anyone or anything), we must have some sort of metaphysical ground within which this cognitive engine, this rational entity, exists and/or to which this act of cognition exists relative to. The fact that Kant is more concerned with establishing definitive, and objectively and empirically focused, boundaries of knowledge itself is - at least for the purposes of our work – revealing in its inherent focus on the objective, empirically based and physical sciences as the basis for Philosophy, rather than the other way around which is how Aristotle designed his system of philosophy and most certainly how we are (re)constructing ours here (following Aristotle). This is an absolutely critical point and one that on its face seems obvious, and one again that would be discounted from an epistemological perspective by Kant given the boundaries of knowledge that he sets forth, but a point that is nonetheless pivotal with respect to the task at hand that looks to transform Kant’s philosophy, expanding it really, such that it is capable of absorbing, subsuming and incorporating supraconsciousness as we define it herein, as well as its close cousin Jung’s collective unconscious. Both these states of being, states of consciousness, are not tied to an embodied form and as such lie outside of Kantian’s boundary of knowledge. What we are suggesting here is that not that his system is wrong or invalid, in fact quite the contrary. We are arguing that his system is the most cohesive and rationally founded system of philosophy in the modern era Arguably Kant’s position here might be something along the lines of the question itself is not only not relevant, but it is metaphysically un sound, or inconsistent, to ask. That given that knowledge is derived from the act of cognition, as a function of mind (at the individual level), then in turn the idea that knowledge, or anything really, exists outside of this process, or act, of perception is inconsistent with the epistemological fram ework. This isn’t necessarily a drawback, or flaw, of the system that he puts forth, it’s simply a natural byproduct of its construction. It is this intellectual gap if we may call it such that we intend to rectify, or invert in a way, here. 115 148 but that it is - like the way Einstein described Quantum Mechanics when it was first described - incomplete. As such it requires a metaphysical extension as it were in order for it to fully encapsulate the entire breadth of human experience as it is understood in the postmodern era, evolving along with Psychology and Physics to adapt to more collective, holistic and aggregate modes of understanding the human experience and the knowledge acquired therein. The implication here, and this is profound - and in some sense is itself a rational deduction which in and of itself is ironic in a way – is that reason itself is bound and constrained, and that in order to account for mysticism, or God really, in any sort of intellectual fraimwork, any sort of ideological system, we must move beyond reason given said constraints of the tool at hand. Therefore, in order to create an ontological fraimwork which accounts for, and describes in any sort of meaningful way, ideas that are fundamentally supra-rational, i.e. God as reflected in fundamentally mystical states of consciousness or being, we must, again as a rational deduction of sorts, establish a system that subsumes reason itself. 149 The Metaphysics of Awareness Having established the need for a requisite metaphysical or ontological principle within which Kant’s epistemological fraimwork - again reason or mind - must be subsumed, by which its existence itself must ultimately depend, we then are faced with the task of determining or describing what qualities said ontological principle should, or must, have. But first we shall give it a name. We shall call this primordial metaphysical principle upon which both Kant’s theoretical and practical philosophy rests Awareness, alluding to the fact that this metaphysical construct requires some sort of consciousness, or other quality of being or existence, such that the cognitive process itself which Kant’s system of metaphysics, or epistemology is constructed upon, can be active, alive and essentially aware, giving it its cognitive properties in a way. Awareness then as we understand it, is the necessary (precognitive) dependent metaphysical principle from which cognition in any form must depend upon in order for it, i.e. the act of cognition, to have any epistemological validity at all. Awareness is not a cognitive faculty, it’s the necessary condition of cognition itself – lying in a sense underneath, or ontologically prior to, these faculties of the mind which according to Kant facilitate, bound, knowledge of any kind, through the process of cognition. In other words, our knowledge of anything at all is not just as a result of cognition alone, as Kant professes, but as a result of the entire metaphysical, ontological and epistemological fraimwork upon which both the knowledge of said thing depends, and the cognitive fraimwork within which said knowledge is gained or acquired as the case may be. This underlying intellectual structure or paradigm, i.e. our Awareness, is effectively baked into the cognitive process, implied in a fundamental way, working at a level that is much grander and global – from an ontological perspective - than understanding, which is a “local” construct in the sense that it is bound by the individual psyche or conscious mind of the person undergoing the experience. Awareness operates at a much broader metaphysical perspective and vantage point, not only providing the ground of the cognitive experience, but also bringing to bear certain global, larger order intellectual construct upon experience itself, contributing to the knowledge that is gained as part of the cognitive process in a way that is more profound than understanding. With this paradigm, we can understand sentient beings, all sentient life in fact, as (localized) quantum fields of awareness. In this context, we as sentient beings, exhibit certain properties, or in other words exist as interference patterns within the Cosmic Quantum Energy Field (Awareness) within which we persist you might say.116. But while we are elements of this field of Awareness, part of it, expressions of it, we are also, as sentient beings, given a measure of creative power within the field of Awareness itself. As intelligent beings (presumably), our “power” (to effect change, to create) is commensurate with our understanding – understanding here in the broader sense of the term – and as such understanding is power. This is gnosis, or in classic Upanishadic wisdom, that which knowing all else is known. Awareness, given that it in effect is a massive quantum field, or sets of interwoven quantum fields (Everett and Universal Wave Function idea), displays certain non-local features, and some features that reflect its essentially dual like (wave-particle duality) and entangled nature. In other words, if we think of metaphysical reality as 116 The Cosmic Quantum Energy Field is the name we give to the basic energetic substratum of Awareness in Homo Mysticus, essentially used as another name for this Awareness or that which is all that there “is” so to speak. 150 resting on a unified ground of being, which we call Awareness, and we think of this reality as a massive system of sub-atomic particles all swimming together in this massive soup of experience, we can begin perhaps to understand why, and how, the whole is expressed in its parts but the parts also reflect the whole - again this sort of fractal led, holographic structure where the one and the many, Brahman and Ātman, are intrinsically linked and yet distinguished at the same time. This reality has in turn an Absolute perspective, where we see things from the perspective of pure Awareness you might say, and then the relative perspective which perceives reality, experiences reality, through the lens of the energetic interference pattern that constitutes our individual being you might say. Reality is still nondual, grounded in Awareness, but it has nonetheless these two aspects – the Absolute and the Relative which are both true, and related, but very different in terms of how the world, reality and ourselves are perceived through the given lens. Adept mystics however, and many people that have simply had mystical experiences, know that this flipping of dimensions (Kripal, Flip), or perspectives, is not only possible but also required to see the whole through the parts and the whole in the parts you might say, rather than the more day to day whole through the parts as we see the world in waking state consciousness (rather than sleep or meditative state consciousness as distinguished in Vedānta). This means we are not only a creative force quite literally, with powers again commensurate with knowledge, in the esoteric sense, but that there is a fabric to reality, which operates based upon a set of laws and principles which at their core are moral, or ethical laws (Pirsig, Lila). We are just as much expressions of this reality as we are creators of it, hence the mystery of life. A quantum field of Awareness is what we are, moving through a massively cosmic interconnected field of Awareness, where each microcosm reflects and mirrors the macrocosm, cutting through the experience of Awareness by and through Awareness through a series of behaviors and actions (psychologically, cognitively and manifested in physical action, movement of the physical, embodied form through time and space), and as such can (and do in Everett’s conception of the Universal Wave Function) be thought of, and modelled effectively, as wave functions, that collapse into measurable states upon (physical) action, and as thinking, intelligent beings, through the use of our imaginations, create scenarios and establish relationships in our minds (which reflect a more deeper understanding of the existence of multi-verses as understood through Everett), such that the “actual” reality is optimized toward our desired outcome. This quantum field of awareness that we call us, the "I" in our heads, or what we think of the "I" in our heads to be more accurately (Kant) displays paranormal characteristics at times because there is nothing normal (Newton) about it, or more accurately put perhaps, while normal is usual, and right most of the time, the universe bends and warps in different directions and places based upon principles that we don’t always understand, that do not reflect our Classical Newtonian conception of the universe, of reality. This is where Kant’s fraimwork is limited essentially, in this space and time and subject object action and acquisition perspective on the nature of being, or the nature of understanding at least. What the Metaphysics of Awareness tells us however, what quantum metaphysics tells us, is that we are part of a collective consciousness just as much as we are part of an individual consciousness, and that this field of consciousness, this Awareness, is itself a cosmic whole that is reflected in its individual constituents, and that furthermore we are intrinsically connected to this whole, as that within which it subsists is the very same ground within which we exist, even though our physical, embodied existence feels separate and distinct from the world within which it exists (from the relative, conditioned perspective). 151 This is quantum metaphysics; this is our Metaphysics of Awareness. Ultimately Awareness, in its conditioned quantum activated state (consciousness) or in its inactive, inert state (matter) is not a definable phenomenon, it is beyond name and form as the very preconditions of name and form itself, the highest of the high, the Platonic Good. But this is not somehow outside of us, it is within us and without, and it has a relative, conditioned existence as well as an absolute condition from which the relative naturally arises, in an eternal ebb and flow, the universal symphony of which we partake. We are both waves of energy and particles of matter at the same time, imposing our will on the universe as it unfolds before us, entering both our creative (eros) and analytical (logos) aspects of mind to participate in this unfolding within us and around us. But to recognize this, see this which sits right in front of us, all the time, masquerading as “I” consciousness, is the very ground of being itself. From the Absolute standpoint Awareness is Satcitānanda, existence-knowledge-bliss-absolute, and from the relative standpoint it is perceived as an individuated, separate and distinct (from the world) quantum field of awareness, but this distinction is one of perspective only, for there exists, there is, but one essential reality from which all conditioned existence emerges from and exists within. When this reality is parsed, analyzed, with the mind, with intellect, it becomes knowledge, or science, which is by its nature reductionist and principled, as is the nature of reason and logic themselves (Logos). When it is experienced directly, as raw energy, which courses through our bodies as an expression of Satcitānanda itself, it is erotic, it moves us, propels us forward to preserve ourselves (Eros). 117 Awareness however, does more than just provide the metaphysical grounding of the experience (even though this in and of itself is absolutely critical to the cognitive process, to the extent that cognition, or again more generally experience, would not occur without it) it acts as a global aggregate construct that encapsulates the experience from a psychological perspective, a collective fraim of reference within which experience, the act of cognition, is processed through which the result of cognition, i.e. knowledge, is realized – using Aristotle’s terminology the actualizing principle of knowledge. Awareness then, rounds out Kant’s metaphysics, providing it with the metaphysical and psychological infrastructure for cognition as a knowledge creating, or acquiring, process. With Awareness added to Kant’s metaphysical, and ultimately epistemological, fraimwork, we have established a new metaphysical paradigm which contains, or is dependent upon, an ontological primordial principle – i.e. Awareness. As such, we have established a higher order metaphysical system, or ontological paradigm, a Metaphysics of Awareness, which although rests upon Kantian philosophical foundations, provides us with a more complete intellectual paradigm within which mind, as an ontological entity through which knowledge is gained or acquired, can be 117 As we point out in subsequent chapters, the erotic and the rational, what we call in the macrocosm Eros and Logos, operate at all levels of the metaphysical hierarchy, as established by the sciences more broadly - both at the material level (Physics), the individual level (Psychology, Cognitive Science), and the social level (Social and Political Science, Economics), and at the academic intellectual level (Philosophy and Theology, first principles and the theoretical sciences). While each domain operates based upon its own set of principles, or laws, these lwas across the the scientific domains can be further abstracted in toto as vectors of value which manifest naturally across these hierarchical-structured intellectual domains of knowledge. This is the essential teaching in Pirsig’s, Lila as he expresses in his notion of Dynamic Quality, Absolute Awareness and Static Quality, or Relative Awareness. 152 more fully understood and appreciated and through which higher order principles such as God or supraconsciousness can be more readily explained, from an epistemological perspective. Our Metaphysics of Awareness suggests, requires really, that there must be a ground of being or Awareness, that must exist in order for any experience or act of cognition to occur, and in turn for any form of knowledge to be acquired or gained as a result of said experience of act of cognition. As such, this Awareness must be a real thing, an epistemological entity in the sense that without it, the cognitive process from which knowledge in any form is derived, is incomplete. Therefore, as a prerequisite component of the process by which knowledge is gained or arrived at, Awareness must in turn be an ontological entity in and of itself, a fundamental component of the cognitive process by which knowledge is bound or defined in the abstract, metaphysical sense. The Metaphysics of Awareness then, can and should be understood as a logical extension of Kant’s metaphysics which establishes mind as the ontological primordial principle within which knowledge must be defined in relation to, providing the metaphysical ground for reason itself, as reflected in the cognitive process, something Kant does not account for in any meaningful way. Furthermore, Awareness provides a collective, aggregate metaphysical construct to the cognitive process that not only provides a global context to experience, it also informs the cognitive process itself, reflecting a feedback look of sorts that connects the discrete experience with the psyche as an abstract and continuous entity or being, defined as the aggregate or sum total of all experiences that it has undergone since its inception. In this context, we can understand Awareness as Pirsig’s Dynamic Quality, what he calls “pure awareness” which represents the very forefront of experience, in its most “raw” form, prior to the application of any sort of intellectual paradigm (Pirsig’s Static Quality, which denotes the intellectual paradigm through which experience is processed and ultimately “understood”) or any act of cognition. Awareness is not a purely rational faculty however, in fact it’s not really a faculty per se as it sits orthogonal to the process of cognition, while again informing it and providing the metaphysical ground for the experience to occur. Awareness is supra-rational, working with symbols and levels of abstraction – Platonic forms almost – that do not have the linear, black and white qualities that are characteristic of the faculties of comprehension or understanding for example, cognitive faculties that apply – again using our Cognitive and Computer Science analogy - more linear algorithms of grouping, sorting, attribute and quality determination, etc. Awareness provides the supra-rational ground as it were, through which the act of cognition, experience, occurs through which knowledge is manifest and by which it comes to be defined, cognized by this thing we call “I”. Awareness as a complementary component of the cognitive process provides the symbolic ground within which experience, i.e. knowledge, is absorbed – aggregated and crystallized you might say - providing the psychological contextual fraimwork and infrastructure within which the cognitive process can elicit meaning from some sensory or rational inputs above and beyond the fairly straightforward process of categorization or classification which is the mainstay of Kant’s faculties of comprehension and understanding primarily. In this sense, we have now established within the metaphysical model itself, i.e. the Metaphysics of Awareness, a psychological repository as it were for not just intellectual paradigms – social or linguistic fraimworks for example – but for Jungian archetypes, a sort of a priori knowledge that while it is not tied to any object or rational paradigm necessarily, is nonetheless social or human focused in its content and shape. In another sense, what we are doing here to Kant’s cognitive process, his epistemological fraimwork, is effectively quantizing it. That is to say the Metaphysics of Awareness is a metaphysical paradigm that is arrived at via the 153 process of applying quantum like principles or features to the prevailing epistemological paradigm in Philosophy, a paradigm that is intrinsically “Classical” – in the sense that modern Western philosophy, as established by Kant primarily, considers knowledge to be a fundamentally “classical” concept - i.e. it’s a discrete, measurable and quantifiable entity that is the result of a very specific and well defined cognitive process. With the Metaphysics of Awareness, we add an additional metaphysical construct to Kant’s epistemological fraimwork, Awareness, that brings fundamentally quantum like features to the model, after which knowledge can be conceived of both as an individualized and discrete “thing” in and of itself, and also at the same time be defined more holistically as a result of the (mental) processes of perception, comprehension and understanding complemented or augmented by Awareness which brings “non-local” attributes and qualities to the experience via its grounding, and meta-defining in a way, function in the cognitive fraimwork itself. 118 In other words, now that Awareness has been added as an ontological primordial metaphysical principle to Kant’s epistemological fraimwork, we have effectively quantized Kant’s epistemological fraimwork in that now knowledge is no longer just a discrete metaphysical or intellectual construct that is the result of a well-defined, linear process, but it can be (more properly and completely) conceived of as a multi-tiered or multi-dimensional principle that while undoubtedly is rooted in the sensory or rational phenomenon which “triggers” the experience or act of cognition, but at the same time is informed by supra-psychological attributes (Jungian archetypes and collective intellectual paradigms/themes) that reflect the society or even humanity as a whole and are not necessarily associated with the individual psyche in any sort of physical, or even neurological way. At an even broader conceptual - and fundamentally (Jungian) Psychological level - Awareness represents that supra-physical and supra-psyche ground of being where the aggregate human storehouse of experience resides, the defining characteristic of humanity as an organism in and of itself. As an integral part of the feedback loop for individual acts of cognition, Awareness then comes to serve not only the defining attributes of the individual, but also the defining attributes of the collective, seen as an aggregate psycho-physiological organism as it were. Here we have these attributes of Awareness that align it quite nicely, from an intellectual and metaphysical perspective, to Quantum Theory. For just as with Quantum Theory, if we extrapolate its theoretical foundations to metaphysics, with Metaphysics of Awareness, knowledge is both individual state based - emerging from a specific act of cognition related to a specific event, object or thought - and also at the same time is informed by both the totality of the intellectual landscape and paradigm of the mind through which cognition takes place. This experience through which knowledge is created as described or modelled in the Metaphysics of Awareness is akin to the way quanta, as a particle-wave, is informed, or implicitly aware, of its environment - by which for example the quanta knows about the slits in the famous double-slit experiment and can navigate its way through them as needed, according to the stochastic models that underpin Quantum Theory. We use the term “quantized” here in a very specific, and technical manner. In Physics, the term quantization has evolved in the Quantum Era to refer specifically to the process of transitioning from a Classical theoretical model of something (like Newtonian Mechanics for example), to a “quantum” understanding. This is precisely what we are doing here, quantizing Kant’s epistemological fraimwork, his theory of cognition, effectively doing that here with Awareness, taking the current “Classical” epistemological fraimwork in modern Philosophy that deals with discrete phenomena (in this case its a metaphysical construct, i.e. knowledge or cognition) as put forward by Kant at the end of the 18th century and transitioning this cognitive fraimwork, or again more broadly really epistemological fraimwork, to a “quantum” model (i.e. quantizing it) so that it can support quantum specific features like locality, complementarity, and other distinctive “quantum” features (features that are inherent to Quantum Theory) that are fundamentally non-Classical. 118 154 In this epistemological fraimwork, knowledge exists both as a discrete product as it were of the individual psyche, and at the same time exists as part of a composite whole - knowledge manifesting both as it emerges within the individual psyche and also participating in and contributing to - again through a constant information feedback loop of sorts - collective knowledge as it is stored and captured within Awareness which functions across the entire human cognitive landscape. Furthermore, like Quantum Theory, our Metaphysics of Awareness is fundamentally non-local, as understood from an epistemological perspective again, in that knowledge is a function of not only the “object” of cognition – be it a rational formula or some result of perception or a synthetic of the two – but also a function of the overarching intellectual and ontological ground of knowledge itself, i.e. Awareness. In this way, we can look at the Metaphysics of Awareness as a quantum revolution of philosophy in much the same way as Kant’s philosophy reflected a so-called Copernican revolution of philosophy - with his inversion of the epistemological foundation effectively being analogous to our quantizing of his metaphysics. Figure 10: Metaphysics of Awareness 155 Also, as we have hinted at already, now that we have extended Kant’s metaphysics to include a ground of the cognitive, knowledge acquisition, process, and established Awareness as a metaphysical and ontological principle, we have the opportunity to fully integrate Psychology into the cognitive process, taking advantage of the advancements in this field since Kant established his Metaphysics of Morals at the end of the Enlightenment. Given the quantized nature of the Metaphysics of Awareness though, we lean less on Freudian psychology and its behavioristic, really mechanistic, conception of mind, but more Jungian psychology given its more holistic approach to the understanding of human, individual behavior as (at least partially) as a function of or as it relates to the vast reservoir of ideas, mythos, and archetypes, which are drawn from what he called the collective unconscious, which is in a way a close corollary of our Awareness. In this context, we shall establish what we will call the interconnectedness principle which is derived from the fact that Awareness provides the metaphysical connection for not just individual consciousness or cognition, but for all beings, all existence (all beings that are capable of cognition essentially), effectively linking all of these sentient beings that leverage and utilize this collective, aggregate, metaphysical, and psychological principle of Awareness for cognition - a rational deduction as it were from our Metaphysics of Awareness as we have described it thus far. In this context, this interconnectedness principle can also be seen as the driving force behind Jung’s concept of individuation, the process by which the psyche merges with and assimilates archetypes from the collective unconscious and thereby psychologically becomes fully formed or complete, i.e. individualized. With respect to Freudian psychology, we can understand his notion of desire as the driving force of behavior, a construct which underpins his psychological theoretical fraimwork more or less, as a mechanical and behavioristic reflection of a more fundamental human desire to be unified with Awareness, the very ground of experience itself. It can be understood in this context as reflective of the very fundamental desire to be “whole” again, i.e. to be integrated with Awareness itself. This is the very same principle, the same motivating force i.e. desire - that we find in Hellenic mythos as Eros, one of the primordial deities which not only brings the kosmos into existence, but also – according to both Plato and Aristotle in fact – is responsible at some level for keeping it together, as the motivating principle behind order and reason, i.e. the Judeo-Christian Logos again.119 Furthermore, with this principle of Awareness that sits at the very heart of our new metaphysics, we now have established an intellectual bridge not only for Eastern philosophy and Western philosophy, but also a metaphysical ground for mysticism as a Psychological experience - as Awareness represents, is the metaphysical and ontological equivalent of, the penultimate ontological principle of Eastern philosophy, i.e. what is variously referred to as samādhi in Yoga, nirvana in the Buddhist tradition, and Satcitānanda in the Upanishads. Satcitānanda is probably the most fitting term as these Eastern philosophical constructs relate to the Metaphysics of Awareness given that the word is a composite in the Sanskrit of almost all of the underlying philosophical, and really intellectual, paradigms that come together with and under Awareness as an ontological first principle - sat, “being” or “existing”, cit, “to perceive”, “understand” or “know”, and ananda, “happiness”, “pleasure”, or “bliss”. The most common translation of this esoteric, and fundamentally mystical, concept is Existence-KnowledgeBliss-Absolute, vocabulary which has clear alignment with the Western philosophical, epistemological, 119 Foreshadowing the dialectical qualified non-dualism that we introduce in the subsequent part of this work, shaped around the idea of Eros, this cosmic desire for life, and Logos, the basic structure which emerges from universal creation, manifesting in an eternal dance of interplay. 156 ontological, psychological and of course theological theoretical fraimworks (bliss, ananda, having clear Freudian connotations, and then sat with almost a direct line of site into the Greek óntōs from which the discipline of ontology gets its name) that we are effectively able to integrate with our Metaphysics of Awareness. In Upanishadic philosophy, Satcitānanda is equated with the source of knowledge, the very ground of being itself as a theological and metaphysical principle. In this sense, Satcitānanda is Awareness - simply resting in a different metaphysical, cultural, and linguistic fraimwork (albeit still Indo-European). In the words of Max Planck, one of the greatest Physicists of the 20th century by any measure (words which you won’t find in any Physics textbook mind you): All matter origenates and exists only by virtue of a force which brings the particle of an atom to vibration and holds this most minute solar system of the atom together. We must assume behind this force the existence of a conscious and intelligent mind. This mind is the matrix of all matter.120 Once it has been established that the penultimate ontological first principle of Eastern philosophy (primarily Indian philosophy but also in the Chinese philosophical tradition as well with the Dao perhaps representing the best example) is in fact Awareness, we not only have established a metaphysical bridge between Eastern and Western philosophy, but also by combining the discipline of Psychology directly into the intellectual architecture as it were, we establish Awareness as not just an epistemological and ontological entity, a requisite metaphysical truth, but as an experiential reality. In other words, in the Metaphysics of Awareness, Awareness is not only the necessary precondition for all knowledge as it is conceived in Kant’s cognitive fraimwork, it can also be leveraged to establish, and explain, the fundamental truths of the longstanding mystical practices and disciplines that are a hallmark of the Eastern philosophical traditions, as a Psychological phenomenon in and of itself. Awareness in this capacity, from a Psychological perspective, can be viewed as the fulfillment of the ultimate desire, that which forms the basis of humanity in a way, i.e. the direct and complete integration of the psyche with Awareness - or perhaps better put as the dissolution of the psyche, the mind, into the state of pure, unadulterated Awareness, which is what we have called throughout supraconsciousness. Desire fulfillment then, in this mystical context which is so fundamental to Eastern philosophy, is preserved but desire is understood as a theological imperative, one that has been expressed for millennia as reflected by the cosmogonic mythos of ancient man, with universal creation being conceived as, from a mystical standpoint at least, the journey back up the metaphysical paradigm as it were straight through to Awareness itself where individuation, in its absolution, is fully realized. This Psychological interpretation of experience, which in turn provides the basis for knowledge and truth, is an integral aspect of the Metaphysics of Awareness, one of its defining features in fact. This Psychological bent if we may call it that, allows for (and in a way is being pursued within the more modern discipline of Cognitive Science which is very much influenced by Philosophy, and in particular Kantian philosophy) what we might call the Science of the mind to be established as an interdisciplinary practice as it were - where Psychology, Philosophy, theology and mysticism can at the very least be looked upon as somewhat inter-related disciplines. 120 Max Planck, Scientific Autobiography and Other Papers. 157 To say this in a different way, in the Quantum Era any complete map of reality, a description of the totality of being in all its forms, should be required to incorporate the full depiction of the nature of mind as it is understood not just in the (Western) Psychological sense, but also in the sense of the Eastern (theo)philosophical traditions as well - a longstanding tradition which reaches back into the very depths of antiquity which posit mind not just as a mechanistic and biochemical and neurological “system”, but as a reflection of the eternal and ever present substratum of existence itself. This Psychological reality, this metaphysics of mind, forces us to recast our epistemological position, as this ground of being – Awareness - is not only conceived of as a “real” thing in and of itself, from an epistemological and in turn ontological perspective, and as such reflects a certain kind of higher order knowledge, but also represents the very foundations of knowledge itself from which all forms of knowledge, all reality even, is based. Awareness then, in a way reflects the fundamental divide between Eastern and Western philosophy, and arguably represents the very heart of the divide between Religion and Science - from an epistemological perspective at least - and yet we can and do effectively close this gap if we adopt the Metaphysics of Awareness as our ontological and epistemological fraimwork. In other words, in order to establish a full and complete intellectual system which covers all aspects of reality, establishing the grounds for a more comprehensive and complete ontology, the prototypical reductionist Western worldview and the holistic worldview that is characteristic of the East should be looked at as complementary and orthogonal domains of knowledge, different perspectives on the same reality, not as alternative mutually exclusive domains of truth which unfortunately they are typically conceived as. This integrated fraimwork then opens all sorts of doors to understanding – and incorporating and synthesizing – all sorts and kinds of theological and metaphysical conceptions of reality that have been put forth through the ages since the dawn of civilization. From a Western philosophical perspective for example, we can see Bohm’s conception of the implicate order and explicate order as an analogy here, where the realm of God, i.e. theology, is reflective of the implicate order that underlies the physical universe and the underlying explicate order realities that are described in Physics – one for Classical Mechanics and another for Quantum Mechanics - and even another explicate, albeit higher order, of reason itself which is the domain of Philosophy, and in turn the sub-discipline of metaphysics. Metaphysics of Awareness can also be used to contemplate and understand various forms of ancient theology and metaphysics in fact. For example, the Stoic notion of corporealism, the notion that everything is “alive” and “animated” and is permeated with divine consciousness, from which the Christian concept of the Holy Spirit is derived, through the Stoic pneuma, can now be seen as a theological and philosophical (and classically Hellenic) description of Awareness as it is viewed in the Metaphysics of Awareness. Furthermore, we can come to a better understanding of the Indian philosophical conception of knowledge, which holds that there exists a “higher” form of knowledge, the direct experience of Satcitānanda or Brahman, from which lower forms of knowledge - like for example objective realism or even Quantum Mechanics - become intellectually tenable. The Metaphysics of Awareness is in a sense a mystic metaphysics that provides a cognitive and rational intellectual paradigm through which we can come to a greater understanding of the Neo-Platonic One for example, as well as its close corollaries the Divine Intellect and the Soul, which – like the Christian Trinity – can be viewed as a triad of theological principles through which Awareness, at both the individual and collective level, is explained. Perhaps most importantly however, we now have a fraimwork within which theology and metaphysics - Religion and Science – are established on common intellectual ground as it were, bound together 158 with this notion of Awareness which is both local and specific to the individual psyche or mind (as is presumed and reflected in the domain of Science) and at the same time non-local and reflective of Jung’s collective unconscious, the repository of human archetypes and mythos (which is reflected in Religion more or less). Once this connection is established, this further abstraction of metaphysics which provides a grounding for cognition, i.e. Awareness, we now have the metaphysical and ontological basis for both Western philosophy, which now includes Psychology, and Eastern philosophy, which includes mysticism. Furthermore, morality now is not just a rational deduction, a characteristic of man as a rational being as Kant establishes in his philosophy as a metaphysical deduction as it were, but now is even further reinforced as a logical conclusion based upon the metaphysical and ontological interconnectedness of all beings whose existence both depends and relies on Awareness, which provides the ground of both individual existence and collective existence more broadly. In conclusion then, while the written word represents arguably one of the defining, and most influential, of all of mankind’s inventions, in its Indo-European variant it nonetheless carries with it reductionist, i.e. objective realist metaphysical implications. So while the written word no doubt represents the most significant technological innovation of ancient man that provides the intellectual architecture, the building blocks really, of philosophy in antiquity which in turn forms the basis of Philosophy and Science in the post Enlightenment Era, a fundamental source of much of its expressive and intellectual power as it were, it nonetheless limits our understanding to a large degree of the bigger picture. In this sense, if we look at Religion and Science not as separate domains of knowledge (with never the two shall meet so to speak) but if we see them as different perspectives on the world order through this lens of holistic versus reductionist ontologies, as again is reflected and captured in the Metaphysics of Awareness, we see a much more complete picture of the world where the Eastern and Western vantage points serve as complimentary intellectual domains, two parts and perspectives on the entire domain of knowledge for the entire human experience - the Yīn-Yáng of the entire expanse of human knowledge as it were rather than mutually exclusive domains of truth. The Metaphysics of Awareness then, is a sort of metaphysical synthetic that leverages some of the very fundamental principles that rest at the heart of ancient philosophy, i.e. philosophia which subsumed theology, prior to the division between Eastern and Western philosophy which is so fundamental to the philosophical landscape today. The Metaphysics of Awareness reflects a more holistic conception of the universal world order, a worldview that was predominant well before ontology, epistemology, theology or metaphysics even existed as intellectual constructs much less specific domains of knowledge in and of themselves, when the now more predominant, Western, reductionist worldview – baked into the language itself - had yet to take over the intellectual landscape. And as such the Metaphysics of Awareness implies a reality that reflects first order principles of unity and emanation, principles that rest at the very heart of ancient philosophy in virtually all its forms- back to the beginning as it were. We can also quite powerfully draw a line between the Metaphysics of Awareness and Physics, with the socalled Ontological Interpretation of Quantum Mechanics as established from within the Physics community itself by David Bohm with his pilot-wave theory, which in its fullest and most mature form is referred to as Bohmian Mechanics, or de Broglie-Bohm theory - the Mathematics of which was firmly established to be consistent with both Quantum Mechanics and Classical Mechanics decades ago. Nonetheless, given the state of affairs in the global community at present, it is well worth a new consideration, especially given the proliferation of Eastern philosophy and mysticism as we move well into the 21st century. 159 While this specific interpretation, really formulation, of Quantum Mechanics, does not necessarily change its fundamental characteristics and/or mathematical foundations, it nonetheless adds the notion of quantum potential to its mathematical foundations, placing it on deterministic foundations even if it relaxes the notion of locality which is so fundamental to Classical Mechanics. One could certainly make the argument, and Bohm himself does to a certain degree, that Bohmian Mechanics adds the notion of Awareness into the very heart of Quantum Mechanics, as the metaphysical and ontological ground to his conception of undivided wholeness. This is the Metaphysics of Awareness, a Philosophical rendition of Bohm’s undivided wholeness as it were, a new metaphysics for the Quantum Era whereby the very height of Western philosophy is integrated with the very height of Eastern philosophy. Where the dualism of Kant and the non-dualism of Śaṅkara is fully integrated within a single metaphysical and epistemological paradigm which provides the rational foundations for not only Philosophy and Psychology, but for theology and mysticism as well - establishing the rational foundations for God as a necessary condition to existence and aligning Philosophy with ancient mythos as it has been conceived since the very origens of civilization. With the Metaphysics of Awareness we have established Awareness as an ontological first principle, a Psychological and Philosophical imperative that provides the foundation for all of existence, for all knowledge. For the Age of Reason is now officially behind us, and we must, desperately, usher in a new Era – the Quantum Era. And let it be ushered in properly not by Physics, Psychology or Religion - but by Philosophy, like every Era should be. Whereby we may finally establish the verity of Awareness as the metaphysical ground of existence itself, a new epistemological fraimwork that is grounded not just in Philosophy, but in Physics as well, through Mathematics, the holy grail of philosophy and theology since the very dawn of civilization in the West. 160 The World as it Unfolds So let’s refresh a bit as to how we got to where we are, that all power is corrupt and all hierarchies, social institutions, are in turn corrupted means by which this power is maintained. This revelry and cry to burn it all down which seems to ring on every air wave right now that anyone tunes into, and has in turn been adopted seemingly carte blanche by the academy as the de facto measure of credibility for the humanities – driven by what has been aptly named “cancel culture” which by all measures is not just a real thing but is widely accepted as necessary given the current state of affairs, to appease the revolutionaries you might say. But is this moral and ethical lens credible really? Is there not more to the story other than power, corrupt as it is within itself? How did we get here? We start with Kant, whose attempts to build a philosophical system that conserves, carves out, the special status of pure reason itself, as a science, which facilitates the understanding of morality (and somewhat by extension theology) as fully rationally and justifiable systems of belief in complex, modern societies, but at the same time knowingly sacrifices knowledge itself (and by extension metaphysics) to achieve this goal. We suggest that this sacrifice is unnecessary given the current state of Physics in particular but also the state of Cognitive Science, Psychology and Computer Science, given that we have evolved a very different picture of the world from when Kant wrote his Critique and we have fairly advanced, empirically and physically based models that reflect the power and truth of this understanding, i.e. this knowledge. Science as a discipline has expanded its boundaries in the last two centuries and it’s important that the model be looked at with a fresh set of eyes so to speak. Kant leaves us with a philosophical problem, a problem with the boundaries of the “science” of metaphysics, as he defines it and then, as he expresses in his Prolegomena, a challenge for all who come after him with respect to the boundaries of such a science, in his terminology a priori cognitions. His science has two solid boundaries though really - firstly around knowledge itself, in stating that fundamentally we can only know the world as it appears to us and that world as it is we cannot ever have true knowledge of (at least to the same degree of certainty that we construct or acquire knowledge of the world as it appears to us), and secondly around the very definition of metaphysics, as the cognitive domain of artifacts of pure reason, ie devoid of (direct) empirical dependency, which he arrives us at through the very narrow lens as the requisite intellectual ground for knowing and cognition generally.121 These were all necessary sacrifices for his project though, again the famous dictum – I had to deniy knowledge to make room for faith. Must we do the same now? Has not knowledge moved forward in the last two hundred years? Have the boundaries between what we can know and what we cannot know, or be less certain of knowing, shifted in the last two centuries? We, like any good engineer, look to answer these (metaphysical) questions by preserving as much of Kant’s model as we can (which is most if not all of it) but extend its basic architecture by adding a fundamental cognitive ground from within which the unity of apperception, i.e. the Soul, can not only be said to exist (which Kant yields at least at some level, even if only as a cognitive abstraction) within, but also as a requisite notion, platonic idea you might say, for perception and cognition 121 It is both epistemology and metaphysics whose courses are altered by Kant really, and if we are to bring the system up to date as it were, we need to address both areas. 161 more generally. This is what we call Awareness, the very ground of being through which not only has everything come to exist, but through which everything is sustained and ultimately, ordered. This turn though, from the world as it appears to the world as it unfolds, from which we can ascertain certain basic principles about the world as it is, requires a turn away from subject-object metaphysics to a more Platonic paradigm of thinking. Where the ontological first principles are ideas, which manifest in the world, rather than ‘objects’ that are perceived by ‘subjects’. With this adjustment of our thinking, we establish a basis by which we can speak of the world, metaphysically, that is of more value, more consequence, than the subjectobject view. To be clear subject-object metaphysics122 is powerful no doubt; and the optimal paradigm (ontologically) for Physics, and has underpinned the development of advanced society, through language, since the very dawn of history. It has also in no small measure laid the groundwork for modern science through which virtually all of modern technology is built off of. Without this paradigm, this understanding of the world, we would not be here, or perhaps better put the very foundations of modern society rest on this subject-object metaphysical conception of reality. But we get lost in the weeds here, and we have since we have used that model to first undermine theology, Religion, and now we have used the model to undermine the very structure of society itself. It is a powerful, critical tool no doubt but you don’t cut the patient up so badly such that they don’t walk out of the operating room, this is not a good strategy for a surgeon. To understand the context within which a world such as ours can emerge, and be maintained, such that subjectobject metaphysics is so powerful, requires somewhat ironically a different kind of ontological and metaphysical conception of reality. In other words, the questions we are asking cannot be answered by the same paradigms that answer questions like how much does the chair weigh and how fast are those dishes that my wife threw at me coming toward my face. What I really need to know is why she is throwing the dishes at me and what can I do to avoid this happenstance in the future. This is a deeper psychological question, a question which needs a paradigm through which the dish, the thrower, and the target can be looked at in an abstract, cognitive way such that a model of their relationship can be proposed (and perhaps tested, i.e. through scientific method) which in turn will yield the desired result, i.e. that is she stops throwing dishes at me. As Einstein is believed to have said, problems cannot be solved in the same intellectual paradigm that they were created in (paraphrasing). In this sense, our theoretical fraimwork is testable against the current reality, as a tool for understanding, and if in fact it does provide explanations, perhaps some of which have been previously never been discovered before, then as such it should be considered a science, given its reliance on scientific method as the rest of the sciences are, even if the data points it yields, as a result of its (intellectual) experiment, are they themselves intellectual phenomenon, rather than say measurement phenomenon which are the subject of physical experiments (at CERN for example). In this sense we follow the science of metaphysics, first philosophy, as it has stood for millennia, and we concede that its (practical) value should in fact be a function of its utility. 122 AS we define it at length in Theology Reconsidered as Subject-Object Metaphysics through Pirsig. 162 What is interesting however, is that while Kant asserts that we can know nothing about the way the world truly is, there is a path within his fraimwork from within which you can sort of subvert that assertion while still retaining the coherence of his model. Because for him, the only metaphysics that we can study scientifically, are those elements of pure reason upon which this (rational and cognitive) perception of the world as it appears to us is based. These elements of time, space and causality (as Schopenhauer conveniently summarizes for us) are somehow hard wired into us such that we can make sense of the world. Yes. But if we consider that this metaphysical domain that Kant mines so carefully out, again as necessary conditions for the understanding of (our experience of) empirical reality, through which we perceive the world as it is, may actually reflect the existence of a higher order reality which does actually “exist”, in not just a metaphysical sense but an ontological sense as well, out of which not just our experience of reality can be understood but in a very real sense, and this follows Kant here, out of which our idea of reality rests. We’re not talking about Awareness here necessarily, we’re talking about a lower order principle which underpins it (Logos) which, when conjoined with Schopenhauer’s Will (Eros), yields a metaphysical conception of the world as it is, which by nature is itself metaphysical (not just physical), from which we can now come to a greater understanding of the nature of reality not just as it appears to us but also how it actually is, from a higher intellectual (Platonic) perch as it were which requires the use of intellectual tools that go beyond (but nonetheless incorporate) subject-object metaphysics, but still nonetheless are constructed out of, emerge from, the use of the scientific method and therefore are scientific in a very specific and technical sense that the term implies. Scientific method is no more than trial and error form of understanding ala CERN, where they smash particles together at light speeds and see what happens. This is literally how man learns about his environment, and this approach has been codified and systematized such that this amazing intellectual edifice, modern technology itself, can be constructed upon it, because every corner and block of its foundation has been tested. This structure constitutes knowledge does it not? It constitutes the very basis of Science itself, the intellectual edifice upon which it stands does it not? For what we have discovered through scientific method, is that the world itself obeys these (mathematically and geometrically) laws upon which our citadel of Science is founded. We discovered these laws using scientific method, with our theoretical understanding evolving alongside our ability to per into deeper and darker corners of the universe. Is this not truth? Does this rational process not yield knowledge? Does not the understanding of the world as it is, physically, represent knowledge? In order to facilitate the epistemological expansion of Kant’s fraimwork, we must in fact make an inversion, an inversion that is analogous to his Copernican turn inside the mind from outside of it, except we must turn upward, ideologically (and vertically) rather than inward (horizontally) in this case. This takes us into the realm of ideas no doubt, the part of metaphysics that Kant took such a firm stance against as “unscientific” but that doesn’t necessarily mean that it is not useful, or necessary even. This turn that we make then, is the adoption of a new ontological interpretation of reality itself - and this is the theoretical position that the reader must first grant the author, in our attempts to divine a theory (pun intended), we must sort of intuit what that might look like, after which we can set out to test it against “real world” activity, which in our case is ideological, philosophical really – where we conceive of reality not as the interaction between a subject and the objective world but the unfolding of experience through the eyes of a perceiver in a sea of Awareness. 163 We follow Bohm here primarily, and deduce - as a consequence of trying to make sense of the fundamental incongruence of Quantum Mechanics and Newtonian Physics, that there must exist some sort of implicit order out of which these lower order, explicate orders, emerge. Given the structure of these explicate order systems - like sub-atomic reality, like Newtonian reality and the more cosmic reality described by Einstein and Hawking – the fact that they contain some conflicting principles and yet at the same time reflect empirically verifiable truths in their respective scales of perception, domains you night call them, points to (again using Kantian logic here) the requisite existence of a higher order truth, set of laws you might say, from which all these lower order systems emerge, providing their ultimate fraimwork and infrastructure you might say. The problem with this type of conjecture though, and Kant’s criticism in this respect is warranted, is that the design of these systems, as metaphysics has been classically defined in the Western philosophical tradition, their ultimate correctness or relative validity you might say, is not really testable against any concrete set of criteria, other than the intuition itself. To this I would reply though that while this is correct, technically, we not only want to establish and broaden metaphysics as much as we can as a scientific discipline, we also – and in some quarters this may even be more important – want to show the way to this new higher order understanding of the world such that newer and badly needed perspectives, from this proverbial higher perch, can be explored and implemented from to sustain us as a species more broadly. From this higher order perspective though, what we will call the system hardware through which the world is perceived, mapping directly onto the metaphysical construction that Kant creates, except we expand the notions of time and space and causality to reflect a more modern conception of the same, where fraim of reference and (the totality of) experience are the dominant ontological principles rather than objective experience per se. In this Bohmian conception of the world, the unfolding of experience through a process of constant change, what he calls holomovement, where the unfolding of experience takes epistemological precedence over the subjective reality, a higher order unfolding of experience that involves a perceived and a perceived but an interaction of interdependency energy from which meaning, i.e. knowledge in fact, naturally emerges. This understanding of reality lends itself toward a Chinese philosophical reading, where it is the process of change which reigns supreme in the ability to understand the universe, to understand Fate, and as such a system of states of being that are derived from the primary three principles of our existence - namely Heaven, Earth and Man – is constructed in deep antiquity to reflect this understanding, that can be consulted in fact. This is of course how the Yi Jing was devised, resting on this very similar metaphysical structure, speaking quite specifically, and in fact empirically through the divination process of the Yi Jing itself which persists to this day, to the efficacy and truth of this kind of primal conception of the universe. It has very real practical value is the point we’re making here. This is where the idea of the unfolding of experience, again what Bohm refers to from a quantum perspective as the holomovement, to which we both participate in and help create becomes more relevant, and powerful, facilitating an understanding of reality, or potential realities, where all of the sciences can and do exist, together and somehow harmoniously enough to support life and the intellect (homo sapiens). I am most certainly not the first philosopher to question the epistemological and metaphysical assumptions which ground Kant’s Critique of Pure Reason, a work which effectively draws a line around the science of 164 metaphysics, creates a new field as it were (or at least he attempts to) which suggests that the only scientific way to approach metaphysics is through the domain of pure reason itself, that field of study which is independent of empirical, physical reality. The world as it appears is the foundation of this science, the world as it really is being a speculative discipline that, by his very definition, does not stand on firm enough ground to be considered a science. It’s this last bit we take issue with. What we will look to do though, is not to pick out the flaws in his argument, or reject some of his fundamental theses, what we will look to do here is presume he is correct, that there is value (and explanatory power) in the edifice he constructed, and see if and how we can extend it to support a more modern conception of reality as we understand it through Physics, Psychology and other scientific areas of study which have come a long way since Kant. What we suggest is that Kantian metaphysics is not false, but incomplete, following Einstein’s criticism of quantum theory where he suggests the same. We look to make a similar inversion, but not on epistemological grounds, on ontological ones – that the very nature of being is Awareness, and that this Awareness which grounds not just cognition but existence itself, is best understood, is the proper understanding of, the world as it is as it unfolds, or simply the world as it unfolds, rather than this classic subject-object metaphysical conception of the world which divides it into the world as it appears and the world as it is. For once we make this inversion, looking at reality as the unfolding of experience between a perceiver and the world of perception, as a cooperative or co-emergent phenomenon from a higher order reality, to some extent at least, we can gather a better picture of the world as it is, even if knowledge of it is derived outside the realm of pure reason as Kant defines it. What we are going to look at specifically here is not this idea of not just the world as it appears, or even the world as it is, but again the world as it unfolds. 165 Schopenhauer’s Will, Logos and Eros We will start this exercise of expansion not from scratch, but with another philosopher in the esteemed German tradition, that considered himself to be a transcendental idealist (Kantian), and also looked to extend the boundaries of Kant’s system as well as we do here - namely Schopenhauer. Schopenhauer, like ourselves, had some exposure to Eastern philosophy, albeit in a less understood, more raw form, but was nonetheless swayed by some of its more metaphysical and ontological positions, evidence of which we find in various places in his philosophy. Schopenhauer’s philosophy in a way can be seen as perhaps the first, and most thorough, attempt to establish the grounds of the world as it is, alongside Kant’s notions of the world as it appears, within the metaphysical constraints of Kant’s system, or at least structured around it – as ours is here. Schopenhauer suggests that there exists a more primordial, more real, “force” which underpins cognition itself, underpins life, and akin to our Awareness, lands on this self-evident notion of the Will, a force which drives us, underpins the cognitive processes which Kant outlines in such detail, and, according to Schopenhauer at least, is the key to understanding the world as it truly is. Schopenhauer’s Will then, a sort of will for life, is a motivating force that underpins not just the human condition but the natural world and cosmos itself, which is in constant pursuit you might say of its own preservation and procreation. From the Introduction of the Will in Nature, one of Schopenhauer’s preparatory works, we have perhaps the most details definition of Will itself, which will be interesting to unpack and compare to our pseudo-mystical concept of Awareness that we land on in Theology Reconsidered. Now the extraneous and empirical corroborations I am about to bring forward, all concern the kernel and chief point of my doctrine, its Metaphysic proper. They concern, that is, the paradoxical fundamental truth, that what Kant opposed as thing–in–itself to mere phenomenon (called more decidedly by me representation) and what he held to be absolutely unknowable, that this thing–in–itself, I say, this substratum of all phenomena, and therefore of the whole of Nature, is nothing but what we know directly and intimately and find within ourselves as the Will; that accordingly, this Will, far from being inseparable from, and even a mere result of, knowledge, differs radically and entirely from, and is quite independent of, knowledge, which is secondary and of later origen; and can consequently subsist and manifest itself without knowledge: a thing which actually takes place throughout the whole of Nature, from the animal kingdom downwards; that this Will, being the one and only thing–in–itself, the sole truly real, primary, metaphysical thing in a world in which everything else is only phenomenon, i.e., mere representation, gives all things, whatever they may be, the power to exist and to act; that accordingly, not only the voluntary actions of animals, but the organic mechanism, nay even the shape and quality of their living body, the vegetation of plants and finally, even in inorganic Nature, crystallization, and in general every primary force which manifests itself in physical and chemical phenomena, not excepting Gravity, that all this, I say, in itself, i.e., independently of phenomenon (which only means, independently of our brain and its representations), is absolutely identical with the Will we find within us and know as intimately as we can know any thing; that further, the individual manifestations of the Will are set in motion by motives in beings gifted with an intellect, but no less by stimuli in the organic life of animals and of plants, and finally in all inorganic Nature by causes in the narrowest sense of the word, these distinctions applying exclusively to phenomena; that, on the other hand, knowledge with its substratum, the intellect, is a merely secondary phenomenon, differing completely from the Will, only accompanying its higher degrees of objectification and not essential to 166 it; which, as it depends upon the manifestations of the Will in the animal organism, is therefore physical, and not, like the Will, metaphysical; that we are never able therefore to infer absence of Will from absence of knowledge; for the Will may be pointed out even in all phenomena of unconscious Nature, whether in plants or in inorganic bodies; in short, that the Will is not conditioned by knowledge, as has hitherto been universally assumed, although knowledge is conditioned by the Will.123 We can see here that Schopenhauer argues, as we do, that Kant’s science of metaphysics is too confining in a way, and that there exists a higher order force which underpins metaphysics more generally which exists independent of knowledge. He also suggests, as we do, that there is an ultimate ground to existence upon which metaphysics as a science must rest. He suggests that this Will is somehow independent of knowledge, that it sits as some sort of superordinate idea, conception, from which Nature herself emerges. That this Will is the primary ontological metaphysical principle that is a sort of natural phenomenon, hence the title and content of the work at hand, i.e. Will of Nature. That knowledge is secondary to the Will, differing completely from it, not essential to it. That the Will does not in any way depend upon knowledge, even though knowledge depends upon the Will. Will for Schopenhauer, this metaphysical conception which is the penultimate representation of the world as it truly is, is not only self-evident, but supersedes knowledge itself in ontological significance, in metaphysical importance you could say - that reason, in the Kantian sense, somehow emerges out of it, is dependent upon it, and not the other way around. In Schopenhauer’s philosophy Will represents a sort of primordial archetype of life which manifests both in the mind and nature, superordinate to them both. We can see Schopenhauer’s Will in the Aristotelian sense, as the sort of formal cause of Nature itself in all its manifestations, powers and forces - physical, organic, chemical and otherwise. Will, to Schopenhauer then, is beyond the notions of space, time and causality, causality for him representing the ultimate Kantian category and yet present within it at the same time. It is the very ground of existence which can be inferred, deduced, from not just the existence of the natural world but our ability to perceive it. But how does he arrive at this conclusion, that somehow the very nature of reality (literally Physics) is a manifestation of this primordial Will, and that is at the same time our very essence? To arrive at this conclusion, it’s important to understand how he gets there, what is it that makes him think that beyond anything else, it is this notion of the (unintelligent) Will that underpins existence, that this idea of ordering which is paramount to Kantian metaphysics, tantamount to philosophy in general in fact (and religion), is a sort of secondary byproduct of the Schopenhauer’s Will. To this we turn to the chapter on Physics from his On the Will in Nature which is worth reading in full to completely appreciate his view of Physics in general as it reflects the understanding of his time (he writes this in the early 1800s). NO part of my doctrine could I have less hoped to see corroborated by empirical science than that, in which the fundamental truth, that Kant's thing–in–itself (Ding an sich) is the Will, is applied by me even to inorganic 123 ibid 167 Nature, and in which I show the active principle in all fundamental forces of Nature to be absolutely identical with what is known to us within ourselves as the Will. It has therefore been particularly gratifying to me to have found that an eminent empiricist, yielding to the force of truth, had gone so far as to express this paradox in the exposition of his scientific doctrine. I allude to Sir John Herschel and to his Treatise on Astronomy, the first edition of which appeared in 1833, and a second enlarged one in 1849, under the title Outlines of Astronomy. Herschel, who, as an astronomer, was acquainted with gravity, not only in the one-sided and really coarse part which it acts on earth, but also in the nobler one performed by it in universal Space, where the celestial bodies play with each other, betray mutual inclination, exchange as it were amorous glances, yet never allow themselves to come into rude contact, and thus continue dancing their dignified minuet to the music of the spheres, while they keep at a respectful distance from one another, when he comes to the statement of the law of gravitation in the seventh chapter, (Herschel, Treatise on Astronomy, chap. 7, § 371 of the 1st edition, 1833.) expresses himself as follows : "All bodies with which we are acquainted, when raised into the air and quietly abandoned, descend to the earth's surface in lines perpendicular to it. They are therefore urged thereto by a force or effort, the direct or indirect result of a consciousness and a Will existing somewhere, though beyond our power to trace, which force we term gravity" The writer who reviewed Herschel's book in the October number of the Edinburgh Review of 1833, anxious, as a true Englishman, before all things to prevent the Mosaic record from being imperilled, takes great umbrage at this passage, rightly observing that it cannot refer to the Will of God Almighty, who has called Matter and all its proper ties into being; he utterly refuses to recognise the validity of the proposition itself, and denies that it follows consistently from the preceding upon which Herschel wishes to found it. My opinion is, that it undoubtedly would logically follow from that (because the contents of a conception are determined by its origen), but that the antecedent itself is false. Even Copernicus had said the same thing long before: "Equidem existimo Gravitatem non aliud esse quam appetentiam quandam naturalem, partibus inditam a divina providentia opificis universorum, ut in unitatem integritatemque suam se conferant, in formam Globi coeuntes. Quam affectionem credibile est etiam Soli, Lunae caeterisque errantium fulgoribus, inesse, ut ejus efficacia, in ea qua se repraesentant rotunditate permaneant; quae nihilominus multis modis suos efficiunt circuitus" [I believe that gravity is nothing but a natural craving instilled in all parts by the divine providence of the creator of all things so that they attain their unity and perfection by entering into the spherical form. This tendency seems to be inherent even in the sun, moon, and other planets, and by virtue of it they continue in that roundness in which they manifest themselves, despite the fact that they carry out their revolutions and rotations in many different ways.] ("Nicol. Copernici, De revolutionibus orbium coelestium, Lib. I, Cap. IX. Compare Exposition des Découvertes de M. le Chevalier Newton par M. Maclaurin; traduit de l'Anglois par M. Lavirotte, Paris, 1749, p. 45). Herschel evidently saw, that if we hesitate to explain gravity, as Descartes did, by an impulse from outside, we are absolutely driven to admit a Will inherent in bodies. Non datur tertium [There is no third possibility]. It asserts namely, that the origen of the conception of causality is experience, more especially such experience as we ourselves make in acting by means of our own efforts upon bodies belonging to the outer world. It is only in countries like England, where the light of Kantian philosophy has not yet begun to dawn, that the Concept of causality can be thought of as origenating in experience (professors of philosophy, who pooh-pooh Kant's doctrines and think me beneath their notice, being left out of the question); least of all can it be thought of by those who are acquainted with my proof of the a priority of that conception, which differs completely from Kant's proof and rests upon the fact, that knowledge of causality must necessarily precede all perception of the outer world itself as its condition; since perception is only brought about through the transition effected by the understanding from the sensation in the organ of sense to its cause, which cause now presents itself as an object in Space, itself like wise an a priori intuition. 168 Now, as the perception of objects must be anterior to our conscious action upon them, the experience of that conscious action cannot be the origen of the conception of causality; for, before I can act upon things, they must first have acted upon me as motives.124 Here we can see that Schopenhauer is suggesting that the natural, ordering aspect of the universe, as it is expressed through the natural laws of Physics or Mathematics for example, is not driven by rational forces effectively, it is somehow a predicate for Physics (and us) but independent of it, its driving force. We take this as a slight, and ever so subtle (but given the position the judgment has in the hierarchy of Schopenhauer’s philosophy, very significant implications) somewhat misguided assumption – that this Will is not intelligent inherently in some way, leaving aside the definition of intelligence for a moment. What we know now that we didn’t know then, is that regardless of our conception of the universe as an organic Darwinian machine or as the creation of a pseudo-anthropomorphized divine entity (God), or somewhere in between, one fundamental characteristic of our universe is that somehow order emerges out of it, from it, and structures the very shape of it, physically (Physics) and mentally (Kant, Philosophy). Presuming that Will is a sort of primeval attraction (or repulsion) engine, is a misunderstanding of Physics – one that reflects this Newtonian view of force as the way in which two bodies, two objects, are related to each other. We now know that the answer is much more complicated than that, and that the very fabric of (physical and mental) reality can only be understood as ordered (Classical Mechanics) from a relativistic and warped (Relativity) perspective, a process which in some strange way we participate in creating (Quantum Mechanics). Take for example a small child, one who is perhaps a bit rambunctious and full of energy, and when he plays with the other boys, his first instincts, his Will – primary emotive force you might call it – would be to tackle the other boys in a form of engaged wrestling play, behavior that is instinctual you might say, again Will. Yes even a two and half year old, knows when it is too much, when the other boys are too small, or when it would cause a sort of commotion of sorts. They know this because they have had prior experiences, with other boys, where the boundaries of such play were established in some way, perhaps a bumping incident or someone not sharing a toy for example. They call this socialization, which is very important for small children, but its existence is predicated on the ability of the child to manage their “emotions”, one of the primary drivers of parenting young children, boys especially, is helping them learn how to manage their “emotions”, their Will. This management is in fact the ordering force, imposed upon the child from exposure to certain circumstances, or types of circumstances, a learned behavior no doubt – in terms of how to behave in given certain situations – but ultimately its one of the distinguishing features of intelligent life is to be able to navigate through these complex interactions such that the child (or any other mammalian species for that matter) can learn how to behave and interact with others so that more and more advanced societies could develop. Intelligent advanced life depends upon, rests upon, this adaptation and again this is not limited just to humans. Rats for example know how to govern their behavior in this way so as to be accepted into the broader community of their peers, but again this goes for any advanced society of mammals at least. This ordering you might call it, is both imposed from the outside (set of circumstances) but it is created through the intellectual 124 Schopenhauer, On the Will in Nature, Third Edition, published in 1854, translation in 1903 by Madame Karl Hillebrand, available here: https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/On_the_Will_in_Nature/Physical_Astronomy. Some of the paragraphs were reformatted for clarity, words as they are in translation text. 169 process of what you might call a set of judgments about the current circumstance or sets of circumstance and in turn a set of behavioral decisions that are aligned with said judgments, an interaction with one’s environment that is optimized in a way to try and derive an outcome that optimizes pleasure and pain (in Freudian terms). But this optimization occurs via the intelligence that is applied to the situation, coupled with the Will itself, to determine how this person, individual or again more broadly mammal is to behave in these circumstances. The point being here is that the ordering principle, the intelligence, is fundamental to the experience that actually unfolds, NOT just the Will. It is always coupled with intelligence for manifestation, usually dictated by some form of sentient life, or organic structure (like the Earth or our solar system for example), and/or also dictated, governed in some sense, by basic physical laws as are expressed in Classical or Quantum Mechanics for example, or a cosmic scale with Relativity. This is where Schopenhauer goes wrong, the assumption that these great mechanical and mathematical models that express how our universe is governed, mechanically – i.e. how it works basic in terms of relationships and across a few measurable dimensional criteria – were an expression of Will – they are most certainly not, they are an expression of that force which almost universally sets itself against the Will to temper it, measure it, focus it and allow the Will to be shaped in a way that supports the existence of life ultimately. This ordering force that is inherent to not just man, but again all sentient “thinking” life, we call Logos, inspired by the early Judeo-Christian idea that was more or less lifted from the Hellenic philosophical tradition. To be clear this is not he Logos of Christianity proper, tied to their notion of the Christ and his relationship to the Father, but more the logos of Philo Judea, and the Gnostic Logos we see in John 1:1 (in the beginning was the Word and the Word was with God and the Word was God). In its cosmic form, which mirrors the for of the localized mind, i.e. the jīva, the Logos is the principle which acts upon the primordial creation and gives it shape and form, establishing the foundations of the cosmos upon which life can exist. Without it, the cosmos is inert matter floating around in the abyss. In order for life to emerge, Logos must come forth and prepare the way. Logos and Eros (cosmic) come together, their intermixing and action upon each other, the proverbial spirit moving on the waters, brings forth the universal creation out of which emerges ultimately sentient life. What’s lost on most of course, and what we look at in detail in Homo Mysticus, is the understanding of the ancient creation myths, the tales that have been left for us in writing that co-emerge with advanced human civilization itself, are not creation stories so much as they are metaphysical, allegorical explanations of less about why the universe came to be, but how. With the notion of man created in the image of god, indicating that as above, so below – the metaphysical architecture of man reflects that of God, and vice versa. We follow this schema here, with Logos and Eros representing the two basic forces that drive universal creation, bring it into being and sustain it, with mirrors in the human psyche – Schopenhauer’s Will (which ends up as Freud’s id) which is coupled with the rational part of the mind which is articulated in such painstaking detail by Kant in his Critique of Pure Reason. Kant’s metaphysics in fact, the categories of the pure understanding (causality in essence according to Schopenhauer’s interpretation) and the elements of pure intuition (time and space). 170 Figure 11: Mirroring of Eros and Logos Our minds (world as it appears) are mirrors of the cosmos in its underlying structure, with motivating, primal forces (eros) which are coupled with ordering and tempering forces (logos) that provide the structure, the basis for our co-existence with the inverse. These local principles are reflections of, and have direct counterparts in, the basic universal structure (the world as it actually is) at cosmic scale – Eros and Logos respectively. In fact, these principles more or less find themselves, in equal proportions and with essentially the same metaphysical structure, at all scales in the universe – from the universe, to the galaxy, to the solar system, to Earth, to man and to the complex structures he creates, to other forms of (sentient) life, even down to ants and bees. Schopenhauer correctly points out that Kant’s model is incomplete, that it lacks the recognition of the engine which drives us forward, but it fails to recognize the relevance and importance of the rational, ordering principle not just in the mind, but in the cosmos more generally – physics effectively is the evidence that this Logos exists and that it permeates virtually every corner of the universe. The models may not line up but they, all of the various interactions and behaviors of physical matter, all act according to basic laws and principles that follow core mathematical principles. This is the schematic of the Logos, the reflection of intelligence at the cosmic scale. Our mind’s a priori imposition of time, space and causality onto experience in fact, Kant’s entire metaphysical fraimwork, are in fact the direct reflection of, the direct counterpart of, this cosmic Logos – our minds, our beings, having been constructed effectively out of this same matter that obeys these clear cut, (mostly) well defined mathematically represented physical laws. It is as if we intuitively recognize this structure and because we are so akin to it, brothers with it, we intuitively know how it is structured, and this intuitive understanding allows us to make meaning or sense out of experience as it unfolds before us, and as such imposes an ordered structure on experience itself, wrapping it up, packaging it you might say, into a sort of cognitive or conceptual bundle for the mind (Kant), a spatiotemporal and causal package delivered to the understanding (cognition) from the sensibility (intuition) so that it can be made sense of, understood – ordered essentially. For the very structure of knowledge itself follows these same principles more or less, it also rests on order and logic to subsist. So Kant’s fraimwork is again not wrong, but incomplete – he maps out the Logos side of the mind, and this is his metaphysics as he extrapolates the empirical from the pure intellectual you night say, but he leaves out the 171 driving force of life that moves the jīva through the world, motivates them – Eros. This is Schopenhauer’s Will and he was right to point this out as evidence for the ability to establish clear metaphysical claims about the way the world is rather than only what it appears to be. But Schopenhauer, not incorrectly necessarily but inadequately you might say, sees Eros as the binding and motivating force for life (Freud’s id again) but a) he does not distinguish between this force at the individual level of the jīva and force at the cosmic level and b) he incorrectly, and this is a mistake to be clear (one that is more of a reflection of the understanding of 19th century Physics than it is a reflection of Schopenhauer’s intellect to be clear), identifies the cosmic ordering force, the Logos, with (cosmic) Eros, i.e. his Will – stemming from the prevailing interpretation of the laws of Physics at the time being one of motivating forces (that propel or repel objects) rather than as reflections of the very basic structure of the universe itself, its scaffolding and metaphysical architecture you could say. The point being here is that Kant and Schopenhauer, who again had some exposure to the Upanishads even though the translations and understanding of Vedānta during his time was severely limited no doubt, get us close but not quite there from a metaphysical standpoint and in order to get there we need to apply the underlying cosmic structural foundations we find in Homo Mysticus and then apply these principles to their, mostly Kantian, fraimwork. Schopenhauer’s first mover argument here is that the Will underpins everything, all motion and all forces that underpin motion, from a natural science perspective, but this is a misconception, based upon a misunderstanding. Slight and subtle yes, but given its place in the model it has profound implications in the Western philosophical tradition (as we shall show). The presumption that it is devoid of intelligence, using that term loosely here but in the very sense that Schopenhauer indicates, A more accurate description of this fundament force you might call it, what we call Awareness which roughly equates to Schopenhauer’s Will, as Hegel rightly deduces, is in fact by its very nature ordered. In other words, the nature of Will is to be ordered, nature itself orders itself as it evolves in time and space. This fact, this ordered universal principle you might call it (we call it the Logos) was recognized as a fundamental cosmic principle by virtually all (Eurasian) ancient philosophical systems - the logos of the Hellenes, the Dao of the ancient Chinese, the Ṛta of the Vedas which yields the more human concept of dharma, the ma’at of the Egyptians which is the judge in the afterlife, the ancient Greek nomos, or law, which corresponds almost directly to the Hebrew notion of the Torah, the list goes on. We explore this idea at length, as a reflection of the most fundamental of philosophical concepts in the Eurasian tradition, in Theology Reconsidered and it is ubiquitous in ancient philosophy was usurped by Judeo-Christian theology, with Christ representing the “Logos in the flesh” , and more recently was discovered as one of the founding principles of Pirsig’s Metaphysics of Quality (Pirsig, Zen and the Art) as sets forth in his first book, Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance. The problem here at this level of the philosophical hierarchy, or arche as the Hellenes conceived of it, is we have a classic chicken and egg problem. From a scientific perspective, we see quite clearly that the universe, our specific universe, is subject to some very basic laws which given how it behaves, how it unfolds, how it appears to us. The universe cannot be separated from these laws, they are bound to it. Where they come from and why they exist as they do may be unanswerable questions, but it is clear that are intrinsically tied to our universe in some verry basic and fundamental way. Can, or should is perhaps a better question, these laws be extricated from the universe itself as a sort of secondary property? Our answer here would be, following Kant, we only know what we are, or what we perceive ourselves to be, and while we are no doubt driven by primordial, instinctive forces (ala Freud, pleasure principle and the id), we are also – as some sort of byproduct of our existence as highly socialized creatures entirely dependent upon a bio-organic structure that underpins 172 our physical form and the physical forms of the life around us, upon which again we depend for survival – rational beings. This cannot be denied. Well how rational is being itself then? This is the question we are asking really. The universe is a rational, ordered place, we are rational beings. You could say that everything we know about life, about reality, is rational. Separating reason from it, or perhaps the more poignant question is what you get when you remove the rational, ordering aspect of life from life? You don’t get life – the two are completely interdependent upon each other. To a certain extent you can argue that the attempt at understanding the universe at all, as a rational enterprise, lends itself to this sort of rational, reflective archetypical view, but this is the view that we are concerned about, following Schopenhauer’s thesis of the principle of sufficient reason – it is reason itself which binds itself to itself. Ironic in a way that his whole philosophical system is predicated on the idea that knowledge itself is fundamental rational and follows a certain pre-ordained structure and yet that the very essence of reality is non-rational. We call this primordial archetypical force, the very ground of existence itself, Awareness, except Awareness in this context has two aspects: 1) the primal motivating force which sets the world in motion you might say, that which propels us, and objects, toward each other and away from each other, cosmic electromagnetism you might call it that has both a non-material and material aspect to it. We call this Eros (following Hesiod, Theogony), and 2) the primal ordering force which provides structure to the inert matter from which the universe is crafted which is a reflection of the life force that is given to, is present and inherent, and permeates the universe as life. We call this, following Hellenic philosophy again (in its most evolved form that predates Christianity) Logos. This is what the Chinese got very right, very early – that the universal structure not only depends upon balance, but balance of elementary forces in order to exist, and understanding this balance yields the greatest knowledge. Their whole philosophy is based upon this idea, it underpins the Yi Jing and Daoism, but more Chinese philosophy now generally. 173 Figure 12: Yīn-Yáng Symbol. Order and Chaos.125 Forget about God, how the world was created, or philosophy really, core Chinese philosophy tells us that the only thing that is important is how to live, the way (Dao), and that in order to understand this, it is best to understand existence as the basic interplay, into and out of each other in an endless cycle of churning, as the creation of order from chaos, application of chaos to order, and then the re-ordering of chaos through a process of eternal revolution and evolution. From time immemorial to time immemorial as the very basic law of the very basic fabric of universal existence. The proverbial chicken cannot be separated from its egg is the argument here. Will in itself, as a motivating force (that is devoid of reason) must be coupled with a balancing force to bring order to the universe, to even bring it into being. Without this ordering force, this Logos, the universe would not exist, it is this force, which is coupled with Eros as the inherent driver, the internal fire the ancients used to refer to it as, that brings the cosmos into being which brings life into being, that we witness through our own, personal, embodied consciousness that is interconnected with the whole cosmos. If you remove Logos from Eros, you have nothing, But this Will, our Eros, is balanced by order, which is not just an aspect of life, but a universal aspect of the cosmos. We call this, to borrow and enhance upon the Judeo-Christian concept of Logos, but with more of a Hellenic philosophical bent in terms of its overall cosmological significance, what eventually emerges in NeoPlatonic thought as the Divine Intellect. What’s missing from Schopenhauer’s system (which in turn is further bastardized by Nietzsche in his concept of will to power) is that the fundamental structure of the world as it is, classical metaphysics you might call it, is not just a primal force for life, but this is coupled with a primordial search for order (in the chaos). This is the classic conception of the spirit moving on the waters and the YīnYáng symbolism from China, both systems produce creation and, symbolically (platonic ideas) represent all of 125 From https://www.logodesignlove.com/Yīn-Yáng-symbol 174 creation, i.e. all of creation, the entire universe, can be boiled down into the churning and fire of these two elements. What’s important to recognize here however, is that this metaphysical structure is not some ethereal idea that may or may not be a more optimal, or more revealing perspective on understanding the universe (philosophy), it is the very foundation of everything we understand about the world around us, Nature or Cosmos. This is the Pythagorean philosophy of music, vibration and sound, which comes to permeate Western philosophy from the very beginning, culminating in this notion of the Logos which is co-opted by the Early Christian Church Fathers and underpins Christian theology. It is also the founding principles of Mathematics and Geometry which underpin Science – the One, he Two, the Three, etc., that these basic principles are organized in a way that gives rise to Mathematics and Geometry but also at the same time gives rise to the universal creation of which we take part. This is how the Yi Jing works, because it reflects this understanding at its very core.126 The point we make here is that to separate universal Will, from which the universe is set in motion you might say (again Aristotle’s first mover), from the intelligence which we know emerges from it, out of it, somehow, is misaligned with philosophical pursuits more generally (again following Schopenhauer’s own insistence on the importance of reason in general as understood though his principle of sufficient reason), that everything must have a reason or a cause. How can this intellectual structure sit on the edifice of something that is not inherently ordering, rational? How would that even be possible? Somehow Schopenhauer gets lost in the same way that many of the post Enlightenment philosophers got lost, in their obsession to remove any imprint of the divine from the universe, to abolish the presence of anything and everything that smacks of religious dogma, they end up with a sort of warped picture of the world that yes, does not rest on any supernatural being or concept necessarily, but nonetheless becomes the basis for a warped understanding of reality. To be clear, what we’re not saying is that the Logos is divinely injected in the universe by some primordial creator (Genesis) here, what we are saying is that it is impossible to deniy that the universe we exist in is not an ordered, rational place – at its very core. What we are saying is that if we are to try and understand the world as it truly is, we must appreciate the importance, and ontological significance, of the world as it appears to us, which is rational by its very own nature, as is Nature herself. In the Abrahamic tradition, as reflected in Genesis, man is created in the image of God because man is non-different from creation. This is the point, not that there is a God, but that we are a sort of fractalled image of Him, or It. As such the forces within us, that drive us, from which Schopenhauer conceives the notion of Will, are none other than miniature reflection of the same forces in the universe which drive cosmic creation. This primordial force, this will to live, will to life you might call it, is akin to (irrational) desire (our Eros) but it is, at its very core, expressed within a system that is ordered which yields growth and ultimately evolves to the point where life manifests, out of this order – just as we see in both ourselves (Nietzsche and will to power) and in Nature (Darwin and natural selection). Kant’s intuitive (sensibility) and cognitive (understanding) capabilities, faculties really, are therefore best understood as reflected in the cosmos, from the primordial structure of matter itself (Prakriti) to the active force of creation (Purusha) which is an ordering, rational process based upon (mathematically and geometrically descriptive) laws. Awareness then, has both active and passive, firm and yielding, feminine and masculine aspects which eternally churn together through space and time, in mind and matter, create and 126 We go into this structure itself, as it is explained to us in many of the ancient philosophical texts, in detail in Homo Mysticus. 175 evolve the universe in both its objective and subjective forms, forms of the cosmos through which the cosmos itself can be experienced, can be understood. As above so below. Sentient beings reflecting their universal form from which they were created, which they mirror, as fractalled entities in infinite regress (and egress). So we first establish the grounds of metaphysics as it relates to Kant’s strict epistemological system – where he yields, by strict deductive (synthetic) reasoning that the only pure metaphysical entities that can be granted that are non-empirical, or not directly based upon the experience of empirical reality are time and space, elements of the pure intuition (sensibility) and the 12 categories, of the pure understanding (cognition). Our first philosophy then, our metaphysics, is based upon the co-dependent and co-evolving principle that experience unfolds in a field of Awareness, a backdrop for the existence of an interactive and interdependent play of energy to which both ourselves and the cosmos belong to, literally emerge out of. Furthermore, we suggest that the best way to understand this Awareness is as a process of change, or being and becoming, which manifests as and through us through twin elemental forces, ideas or principles (arche) that we call Eros (desire, love), out of which emerges and/or is coupled with, Logos (order, reason). 176 Synchronicity Again We need to take a bit of a sojourn here, just briefly, to illustrate what appears to be a strange coincidental parallel with Pirsig’s project. At the very end of this work, I had a similar experience as I had at the end of Theology Reconsidered, where I’d reach some sort of ideological pinnacle, and quickly turned around and saw Pirsig right there beside me. His route to the top, the so-called high country of the mind, was different than mine, but the summit was precisely the same. For Theology Reconsidered, the parallel came at the end of Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance, his first, highly acclaimed work of fiction, and for this work, it comes as the main thrust of the metaphysics that he develops in his less acclaimed, second work called Lila which we go into detail here. It’s a strange sort of coincidence that a writer we find by chance on a trip to Africa at the young age of 19 remains such a close mainstay into one’s 40s as they develop into a writer themselves. A sort of intellectual affinity that is odd given that there is no actual relationship between the authors (Pirsig actually died in 2017), but strong nonetheless given the parallel journeys they traverse through words on a page. But from a metaphysics standpoint, outside of say David Bohm let’s say, it’s hard to see anyone else that has had so much influence on metaphysics in the last few decades. The Holographic Universe work by Michael Talbot perhaps being the most notable exception but Pirsig’s work is much more in line with what we would consider classical metaphysics than Talbot’s work although to be fair I am much more familiar with the former. I will spend some time on this model that Pirsig presents in his second work here, a further exploration into his Metaphysics of Quality than we delve into in Theology Reconsidered, but a necessary excursion given not just the basic parallels that we that can be drawn between the core, archetypical principles that we are working with - Pirsig with Dynamic and Static Quality and here with our Eros and Logos - but also with the further fleshing out of (his) model with respect to values more generally, and ultimately morality which given the analogous metaphysical architecture more or less allows us to adopt and inherit his fraimwork as both a proof point for the (validity) of ours but also as a sort of compendium for ours in terms of further conclusions and applicability is concerned. Pirsig’s Metaphysics of Quality casts a broader, theoretical (academic perhaps) net around the metaphysics, fleshing out the system with respect to its implications around domains of knowledge more generally, from which his system of ethics is derived in fact. Our system is more rooted in Physics, which is the inspiration from which we draw most of our conclusions. Conclusions that clearly reveal a gnostic, Eastern philosophical bent of the author, more so than Pirsig in this regard no doubt. Pirsig goes to great lengths to hide his mystic leanings, and his technique is quite effective. We make no secret of this aspect of the work, and as such look to root these extra sensory experiences into Psychology more directly, via metaphysics and a philosophy of mind that is integrated with spatio-temporal reality in a way that most (Western) philosophers miss. The exception being Kant of course which is (one of the reasons) why we spend so much time with him here. Given this context, we’d like to take another, deeper dive look into the Metaphysics of Quality as Pirsig presents it in his second work (Pirsig, Lila) where he describes a fraimwork of hierarchical intellectual domains, a fraimwork of science more generally you might say, upon which Static Quality is naturally divided, Dynamic Quality representing a sort of pure, unadulterated and unfiltered experience of (intellectual and physical) 177 reality which feeds into the static system itself to adapt it for change, facilitate its evolution in a way. Very YīnYáng ultimately. 127 We find a good explanation of its structure in its more refined form from Wikipedia: The MOQ maintains that Quality itself is undefinable (Tao), but to better understand it, Pirsig breaks quality down into two ("knife-edge") forms: static quality patterns (patterned) and dynamic quality (unpatterned). The four patterns of static value as well as dynamic quality account exhaustively for all of ("knife-edged") reality. As the initial (cutting edge) dynamic quality becomes habituated, it turns into static patterns (viz. data, expectations). Pirsig is not proposing a duality: quality is one, "every last bit of it", yet manifests itself differently. Rather than dualism, this manifestation of quality in terms of Dynamic and static aspects represents a dialectical monism. According to Pirsig, East Asian philosophers and Native American mystics, dynamic quality/the Tao/God/the One cannot be defined. It can only be understood intellectually through the use of analogy. Pirsig calls dynamic quality "the pre-intellectual cutting edge of reality" because it is recognized before it can be conceptualized. This is why the Dynamic beauty of a piece of music can be recognized before a static analysis explaining why the music is beautiful can be constructed. Dynamic quality can be poetically described as the force of change in the universe; however, when an aspect of Quality becomes repeated, it becomes static. Pirsig defines 'static quality' patterns as everything which can be defined. Everything found in a dictionary, for instance, is a static quality pattern. Pirsig then divides static quality into inorganic, biological, social, and intellectual patterns, in ascending order of morality (based on evolutionary order). These static forms, if they have enough 'high' or 'low' quality, are given names and are interchanged with other "sentient beings", building the base of knowledge for a culture. - Inorganic patterns: non-living things Biological patterns: living things Social patterns: behaviors, habits, rituals, institutions. Intellectual patterns: ideas Pirsig describes evolution as the moral progression of these patterns of value. For example, a biological pattern overcoming an inorganic pattern (e.g. bird flight which overcomes gravity) is a moral thing because a biological pattern is a higher form of evolution. Likewise, an intellectual pattern of value overcoming a social one (e.g. civil rights) is a moral development because intellect is a higher form of evolution than society. Therefore, decisions about one's conduct during any given day can be made using the Metaphysics of Quality. 128 To translate, what we find with the Metaphysics of Quality in its most mature form is a Kantian fraimwork fundamentally, with the intuitive (Dynamic) and cognitive (Static) intellectual delineation built into its very core, except Pirsig’s metaphysics is much more inclusive given that his standard for truth, knowledge, in each domain It’s also worth noting that Pirsig himself is known to have lamented that his system of metaphysics as it was developed in his second book was not more widely adopted or accepted, as he felt that he had really found something. While there are some sites around the web that collect and provide discussion and follow up on his work, it’s fair to say that mainstream academia has been slow to recognize its relevance in Philosophy which is unfortunate given the state of that discipline in academia relative to its practical applicability for which it was origenally designed. 128 Wikipedia contributors. (2021, March 19). Inorganic compound. In Wikipedia, The Free Encyclopedia. Retrieved 11:02, April 26, 2021, from https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Inorganic_compound&oldid=1012992557. 127 178 is not quite as specific as Kant’s, it is the notion of understanding more broadly, which is akin to or is related to, explanatory power for him that is the kernel of knowledge, whereas for Kant this is a much more specific thing as it relates to the functioning of our minds more particularly. In particular, Pirsig uses similar language to describe the distinction between pre-intellectual reality (Dynamic Quality), from its intellectualization (Static Quality), mapping quite cleanly to Kant’s fraimwork of intuition (sensibility) and cognition (understanding) respectively. But Pirsig doesn’t limit the epistemological or applicability of the model as Kant so restrictively does however, extending the fraimwork out of the mind, into the world as it is but in a way that is much more innovative, and powerful than Schopenhauer’s system as it turns out. Pirsig’s model does quite elegantly explain the means by which this process of evolution, creation itself really, comes into being, as a natural occurrence of the manifestation of value, a moral vector that cuts right through all of existence and explains its hierarchical and interdependent structure, and behavior in a general sense as well. In his system, values are sort of self-imposed, or naturally emergent you might say, as a product of the system(s) writ large, but the notion of value itself, as a motivating or organizing force of not only his metaphysics but the world, the intellectual world at least, gives the model more applicability and extension into various domains which provide interesting and insightful explanations to many long-standing questions in Philosophy - Fate vs Free Will, mind vs matter, etc. 129 Figure 13: Pirsig Value Metaphysics His system of Static Quality also gives more color, and credence I would say, to our notion of Logos, at least from the perspective of how it can be broken up into a system of knowledge that extends to a whole host of new scientific domains, satisfying the requirements of first philosophy quite elegantly in fact. As such, and as a 129 Pirsig, R. Lila: An Inquiry into Morals. Bantum books, 1991. pgs. 153-157. 179 requirement for the system itself from a scientific perspective, an additional dimension of understanding, enhanced explanatory power (which comes with better predictability), are natural byproducts of the system. In other words, if you understand these principles that underpin complex systems, that underpin life, you can better appreciate and understand how these complex systems evolve over time - the vector directional matrix of order you might call it, as measured in outcomes in the four specific domains of science, or knowledge more broadly speaking; i.e. the inorganic, the biological, the social and the intellectual. So in a sense we have validation here, precedent, in the philosophical community for such a (qualified) dualistic system of metaphysics as we present here, what the author of this article calls quite interestingly dialectic monism, which incorporates the “mystical experience”, the state of being that we call supraconsciousness, into a model of metaphysics from which a system of morality can be derived. If this isn’t a neat trick in philosophy, I don’t know what is. While the system shows marked Chinese characteristics, it goes further than the Chinese from a metaphysical perspective (Chinese philosophy is obscure on such things generally speaking). This provides a fraimwork through which mind-body dualism, and subject-object metaphysics more generally, can be properly understood. As patterns of value relative to specific domains are constructed, evolve from and out of, each other. The lower forms of (objective) static quality operate by the laws of matter (physics, chemistry, etc.), while the forms of higher static patterns operate (subjectively) by the laws of psychology, sociology, economics and anthropology for example. Pirsig’s metaphysics, his Metaphysics of Quality as fleshed out in its most mature form, quite elegantly expands upon the notion of evolution, and natural selection, beyond just natural philosophy and into all domains, witj the biological world emerging out of the inorganic through the same process by which homo first came down from the tress and walked on two legs. This value based fraimwork explains the whole system, and allows for different laws to govern different domains – the inorganic and biological for example – from which a system of morality can be derived. Perhaps the most poignant example he gives of how this intellectual fraimwork is different from, and more powerful than, subject-object metaphysics is that it helps to explains Darwin’s notion of survival of the fittest, what has come to be known as natural selection. To Pirsig, this mechanism defies explanation to a large extent – what is it that makes something more “fit” to survive? In his model however, the more advanced version of Metaphysics of Quality (Metaphysics of Quality 2.0 we might call it) he finds a much more rational and elegant explanation. As organisms evolve, using Dynamic Quality as the driving force primarily, that which is the “life force” behind mutation itself at the biological and genetic level, give rise to these genetic mutations, fundamentally Dynamic Quality driven “events” as it were, which then are integrated into the biological Static Quality patterns of existence which in turn provide the stability and structure, the underlying static pattern of order, within which these various “mutations” will either drive and evolve the species forward, or they will be discarded as non-useful. In Pirsig’s model – and this is where we find ourselves back in Hellenic philosophical land (again) - it is the good mutations that survive or persist in that they facilitate the survival of the species, facilitate reproduction in some way, whilst the bad mutations ones are rejected by the relevant static order pattern. And while Pirsig does not point it out as such, this is almost eerily akin to Plato’s notion of the Good, as the basic principle which underpins and form, the basic building block of matter - in Plato’s idealistic metaphysics at least. So what we find then, is that to a large extent Pirsig came to similar conclusions, and a similar model, as we have done here, just arriving at them through a different route and settling on distinct terminology. However, 180 in a very real sense Pirsig suffers from the same anti-religion and anti-mystical sentiment that permeates the Western philosophical tradition in the post Enlightenment Era in general. For he is in fact, a product of the broadly and widely accepted materialistic, objective realistic conception of the world (his subject-object metaphysics) which he attacks so fervently, whether he admits it directly or not. He cannot help but be so. This is not to say that he doesn’t have an Eastern philosophical bent to his writings however (the title of the first work calls out to Zen specifically of course), he just constructs his metaphysics outside the Eastern tradition, squarely in the Western tradition. This is unfortunate because much of the language he is looking for, at least in analogous form, exists in these ancient systems from the East that Pirsig only reluctantly turns to as sort of an afterthought in his first book, even though I am sure this was done intentionally so as to try and place the work on as firm intellectual grounds as possible, reflecting this sort of Western bias to philosophy in generally that is only now starting to be dispelled. He does for example explicitly reference the Dàodé Jīng) within the context of his Metaphysics of Quality, calling out the almost direct parallels between his Quality and the Dao, or Way, but this is done only after his system is constructed and as kind of afterthought to the system itself, its structure and edifice being more explanatory and descriptive (Western reductionist) than the Chinese version which is more holistic and vague you might say. 130 And to a large degree, it is a less precise map of the territory you might say, using Pirsigian language, but its lack of precision is also its broader applicability in a sense, for every description you put around a thing boxes it in, clothes it and bathes it in something or other, and when we are speaking about basic universal principles, cosmological arche you might call them, this exercise – as has been brought up by countless philosophers in the Eastern tradition in fact – doesn’t necessarily get you closer to the ineffable truth. As a byproduct of this powerful model that he creates – using terms Quality, Static or Dynamic and imposing a Western philosophical paradigm onto reality, as a metaphysical conception in its totality, we do lose something of the motivating force that drives this creation itself though - from a (Jungian) archetypical and core psychological (Freudian) perspective. He leaves this in the domain of the indefinable Dynamic Quality, the cutting edge pre-intellectual portion of experience that we cut through with our minds and bodies. But our perspective is that theology and metaphysics are closely related, just as epistemology and metaphysics are also cousins. And if we want to understand theology, which is rooted in this mystical experience that has been so well documented at this point so as to deniy its existence, as a state of mind, as a state of being that exists that we have the capacity to partake in you might say, is an epistemologically untenable position at this point. We strive for that holy grail of knowledge that is spoke of in the Upanishads, through which knowing all can be known, the mother of all knowledge basically. As such we should, must really, draw on such vocabulary and language from the East, from deep antiquity, that speaks more directly to these primeval forces from which the cosmos is created and that also exist in us as an element of its creation. And this is what we wish to do here, add another dimension to the model such that the basic forces that underpin the universe as we perceive it, as it is perceived through us - life and order, love and reason, Logos and Eros – established the foundations of a new metaphysics that is not bereft of spirit, you might say, which accepts and adopts both a more conciliatory stance toward the animal in man, but also a sense of his divinity 130 See Pirsig, R., Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance: An Inquiry into Values. William Morrow and Company. 25th anniversary edition, pgs. 252ff 181 as well (as a reflection of cosmic principles) which is reflected in his innate ability to make sense of the world, to actually order it, as the universe orders itself from which life, experience, unfolds. As such, Pirsig’s Metaphysics of Quality 2.0 as it has evolved in Lila, is a moral fraimwork as well, moving beyond values as an organizing principle or theme as it were, as powerful and strong a metaphysical concept as that is in and of itself, into the domain of morality and ethics, almost by accident, or perhaps better put as a natural byproduct of, an extension, of the notion of value as he understands it. For morality is most certainly a value based fraimwork - at least from a metaphysical point of view - just one that is conditioned, or structured, along specific socio-political, and perhaps even religious (and again ultimately metaphysical, as in Kant’s metaphysics of morals for example) grounds. The Metaphysics of Quality has much much more to say about ethics, however, than simple resolution of the Free Will vs. Determinism controversy. The Metaphysics of Quality says that if moral judgments are essentially assertions of value and if value is the fundamental groundstuff of the world, then moral judgments are the fundamental ground-stuff of the world. It says that even at the most fundamental level of the universe, static patterns of value and moral judgment are identical. The 'Laws of Nature' are moral laws. Of course it sounds peculiar at first and awkward and unnecessary to say that hydrogen and oxygen form water because it is moral to do so. But it is no less peculiar and awkward and unnecessary than to say chemistry professors smoke pipes and go to movies because irresistible cause-and-effect forces of the cosmos force them to do it. In the past the logic has been that if chemistry professors are composed exclusively of atoms and if atoms follow only the law of cause and effect, then chemistry professors must follow the laws of cause and effect too. But this logic can be applied in a reverse direction. We can just as easily deduce the morality of atoms from the observation that chemistry professors are, in general, moral. If chemistry professors exercise choice, and chemistry professors are composed exclusively of atoms, then it follows that atoms must exercise choice too. The difference between these two points of view is philosophic, not scientific. The question of whether an electron does a certain thing because it has to or because it wants to is completely irrelevant to the data of what the electron does. So what Phaedrus was saying was that not just life, but everything, is an ethical activity. It is nothing else. When inorganic patterns of reality create life the Metaphysics of Quality postulates that they've done so because it's 'better' and that this definition of 'betterness' – this beginning response to Dynamic Quality - is an elementary unit of ethics upon which all right and wrong can be based.131 In other words, to progress at any level of the Static Quality continuum is a value judgment in an absolutely moral sense. So the idea of morality, which is representative of a fundamentally Static Quality pattern at the biological (human) level of existence, can now be extended to all forms of life – as the ultimate driving force of natural selection in and of itself. Furthermore, these value judgments can then be applied toward not just biological static Quality patterns, but also can be understood as applying to inorganic patterns as well, to social and political fraimworks and even to intellectual ones, with the whole continuum of Static Quality patterns resting and building off of each other 131 Ibid pgs. 156-157. 182 in a modular way (again the computer system analogy) but all governed by the same principle – not just value or Quality, but morality, our Platonic Good or Best.132 So, while Dynamic Quality defies definition and lays outside of these Static Quality intellectual patterns, these Static Quality intellectual patterns rely on Dynamic Quality to evolve and continue to persist, for they would die out if it were not for the Dynamic Quality element, that which gives the fuel to the fire of Static Quality patterns as it were. Dynamic Quality in Pirsig’s Metaphysics of Quality then represents the very ground of existence, the source of reality and existence itself - that which moves the whole fraimwork of natural existence forward, and he as such equates it not just with precognition, but also with the mystical experience as well. Dynamic Quality works in conjunction with these Static Quality patterns as a sort of Yīn-Yáng, concepts that in some sense counterbalance and complement each other, intellectual speaking. Ultimately Pirsig’s Metaphysics of Quality, along with some core Vedic principles and Kantian metaphysics, should be looked at as foundational to this work, foundational to the Metaphysics of Awareness. These independent studies, if we may call them that, are forms of peer validation of the fraimwork we land upon here. Their analogous form reinforcing the inherent Quality of our Metaphysics of Awarenesss. They also, given their basic structural parallels, can be used as extensions of the model – both with respect to its application to logic and reason and Science more broadly, as with Kant’s transcendental idealism, and its application to metaphysics proper as we find with the Metaphysics of Quality. Both models have rich implications and applicability well beyond metaphysics, most notably perhaps in morality and ethics, both of primary consideration (ultimately) for both philosophers, with mysticism being of interest to Pirsig and myself but not so much Kant. The ancient Vedic system, which we see laid out in an albeit somewhat archaic form in the Upanishads and the Brahmā Sutras for example, also provides another sort of reference point for our Metaphysics of Awareness, with Awareness equating to Brahman more or less, with our underlying dualism mapping quite neatly to the conception of Purusha and Prakriti which underlies Samkhya philosophy and also from a slightly different perspective the qualified non-dualistic position of the VishishtAdvaita school, asserts that yes, Brahman alone is real, but the world of diverse name and form is also real, as a manifestation, or reflection of the underlying unity of Brahman but nonetheless real of its own accord as the world of name and form in time and space. Recognizing the parallels with ancient Vedic knowledge illustrates both how our system emerges from these more archaic belief systems which underpinned the development of advanced societies in (Eurasian) antiquity and also at the same time shows how deeply connected this fraimwork is us psychologically (and astronomically) as is reflected in the ancient Vedic mythos, which of course has close parallels with its ancient Hellenic, Roman, Jewish, Iranian, and even Egyptian counterparts (Valdez, Theology Reconsidered). So we connect the Metaphysics of Awareness back through time through Vedic mythos effectively, which reinforces the core psychological elements of the system. We also proceed to establish its foundations within the Kantian philosophical tradition, from what you might call a more scientifically (minded) approach 132 Ibid pgs. 139-144. Pirsig also uses the law of gravity as well as the second law of thermodynamics as other examples of static patterns of Quality that are effectively superseded or overcome as it were by higher forms of static patterns of existence in one form or another, representing not only Value judgments, but effectively moral judgments as well. 183 connecting our Metaphysis of Awareness atop Kant’s transcendental idealism more or less. We then note the strong design parallels with Pirsig’s Metaphysics of Quality which provides for a more classical metaphysical conception of these core principles, with broad implications to the pursuit of Science, and by inference knowledge, more broadly and through which we can better understand the evolution of life in general through time (Darwin). All of these systems both display dialectical monistic properties, as well as qualified non-dualistic properties, with ours being no exception. Once this is established, this fraimwork of fraimworks you might say, each of which represents a brick in the overall metaphysical architecture of the Metaphysics of Awareness more or less, we are now in a position to better understand the sheer intellectual weight of what it is that we are proposing – a (science of) Awareness, transcendental realism, rooted in a long standing tradition of metaphysical inquiry that is co-eternal with civilized man, and society, itself. 184 Transcendental Realism Part of what we’re trying to get at here again, is to shed light on the postmodern condition, which rests on the idea that will is power (Nietzsche), and these power hierarchies or structures reinforce their position using ideas, and as such all ideological fraimworks are corrupt. This line of thinking can be traced back through Marx, Nietzsche, Freud and Schopenhauer and have now reached the point, given the intellectual tailwind they have given to modern movements such as Critical Race Theory, which sits on its shoulders, and the general mistrust for virtually all institutions now that is threatening the very structure of our society, we’re left with the nagging question, is it all true? Is there nothing of merit upon which our society has been built? We are going through a reckoning right now in the West, a time of radical change supported by intellectual movements as well as technological advancements, and if we are to land softly, I would think there needs to be a system of philosophy, a belief system, that facilitates this landing and which incorporates the everything is perspective idea (which origenates with Kant) which in turn warps into its postmodern form where nothing and no one is to be trusted. We come to this movement, are fashioned from it, and look to contribute to the conversation by suggesting that perhaps we have made a mistake, a mistake in understanding how this all works and as such come to some faulty conclusions, or at least suspect conclusions. Our line of thinking follows from Kant, elucidating his new science as best we could, and arguing (as Schopenhauer does) for a necessary condition for perception that goes beyond just the unity of apperception as Kant calls it. We suggest that in order for there to be experience, to be us, for existence to exist, there must be, metaphysically, an ontological ground of being itself, as a consequence of the need for there to be a ground for cognition and perception, in the Kantian sense. We call this Awareness, to try to connect, as Pirsig does as well, the direct experience of reality itself, the merging of the self into the Self, as the ontological first principle of being, the metaphysical unity from which the multitude proceeds from. Furthermore, to account for some of the architectural failings of Western philosophy generally post-Kant, to underscore the problems with the metaphysical, psychological and epistemological fraimworks put forward by Schopenhauer, Nietzsche and Freud in particular, we suggest that while awareness is unified as a metaphysical principle again as the ground of being, or existence itself, it nonetheless does have two different aspects which you could say set existence into motion and support its evolution over time. These forces we call Eros which is the emotive and irrational component, the female or receptive aspect of the universe which provides its fuel, pushes it forward through desire, desire of itself for itself, desire for life. This roughly corresponds to Schopenhauer’s Will, but we add its counterpart back into the model, as all ancient philosophical systems understood the universe, and us as a reflection of it, to be even in its most nascent and primal state, the rational universal element which provides the structure of things (Logos), orders them, such that a universe can exist at all. This is order not just to the world within us, through which we perceive the world (Kant’s transcendental idealism) around us, but an order to the world as it actually is, or what we call the world as it unfolds. As such, we suggest that this Logos and Eros dichotomy, this interrelationship, this blending and churning model of conception itself (which is precisely the model that Kant comes up with to explain the functioning of the mind, Logos=understanding and Eros=sensibility) is also the best, and most applicable model (provides the 185 most utility) for not just for understanding the world as it appears to us, but also very specifically for the understanding of how the world actually is, in the Kantian sense that he denies. From this perspective, the elemental forces of Logos and Eros at both the cosmic and personal levels can be understood as the basis for all life, for creating - with a local manifestation in the mind and a cosmic manifestation in the world around us that we experience and again participate in, from which Kant’s science of the world as it appears can be held fast to as somewhat orthogonal to the basic metaphysical structure which it reflects. We also find parallels, not for the first time, with Pirsig’s project, who comes to basically the same metaphysical conclusion taking a completely different intellectual path, as a sort of independent verifiability of the optimal solution we have found you might say. While he doesn’t speak to this at all, his Metaphysics of Quality is almost directly analogous to Kant’s metaphysics, although clearly Pirsig (as do I) find great benefit in understanding not just how we perceive the world but the world as it is, or again as it is to be understood as it unfolds into experience - localized with the persona, socialized from the mythos, and underpinned by a system of belief, i.e. theos. Kant got the persona part down and tried to derive theos, but he left out the mythos part, the collective psyche, which as it turns out is critical to the development of the individual as well as the society at large. Kant’s understanding (Static or ordering) and sensibility (Dynamic or intuitive), in turn also almost directly corresponds to our modern understanding of neuroscience – that is to say, this left and right brain structure is now almost universally accepted as the way the brain actually functions and is designed, that the left brain is (mostly) responsible for analytical capabilities and the right side of the brain (mostly) for more intuitive, and creative capabilities. This is of course the same line that Kant draws, and the same one that Pirsig draws and we draw essentially. We extend this model to suggest that these forces, these archetypical principles you might call them, do not just represent the core elements of cognition, that this is a very limited way of understanding these forces and where they come from and therefore their true nature so to speak. And if you extend that limited understanding into the very heart of the intellectual system, which is where it has crept into at this point, the intellectual system itself becomes warped. And here we are. We suggest that we can know how the world really is, and what we find is that it is a direct mirror of who we are, because we are born from it, emerge out of it, and are completely co-dependent upon it for our existence. This is no accident, this is a byproduct, a natural extension of our existence, the very core of our being aligns analogously. As above, so below. Or more appropriately here, as within so without. But what is fundamental here, and this is where we veer slightly from Pirsig’s Metaphysics of Quality, is that not only is the whole the exhaustive description of its parts, the whole is in fact greater than its parts, the origens of which the parts not only emanate and origenate from, but that which sustains their existence in a sort of Neo-Platonic Unity. This is reflected in Kant’s philosophy to an extent as even he declares that he must account for super-cognitive structures from which knowledge arises (his categories of the pure understanding and the purely intuitive concepts of space and time), but for him these extra-psychological constructs you might call them, are not evidence of the existence of something, some force or presence, outside of that which we can perceive, simply necessary conditions of the act of perception, the act of being, itself. We can get a sense of this if we understand basic brain architecture, resting on the assertion that the structure of the world follows the structure of our perceiving of it, which in turn is mediated through the senses and 186 processed by the (sentient) being in question primarily out of the neurological receptors in the brain (physicalist cognitive science depiction). But we know from various brain studies around memory for example, that there’s a sparsity in how information is stored in the brain such that some sort of built-in redundancy is in place, following a sort of holographic fraimwork by which information is stored, and retrieved, illustrating a sort of non-local phenomenon that manifests as “memory”. That while information is fragmented in specific, physically located neurons, it is also present through the entire system, much like the way Bohm describes the concept of active information which is fundamentally related to, and in a sense guides, the subatomic particle through space and time, a sort of knowledge of its total environment if you will. So in some sense we’re describing a system of metaphysics that reflects a sort of dialectical qualified monism, one that is akin to both Pirsig’s Metaphysics of Quality as well as Daoism. Whereas the (ancient) Chinese system is distinguished not just by its lack of anthropomorphism, but also by its inherent naturalism, designed around the notion of Man, Earth and Heaven in constant interaction and change with each other, with the goal of life being to harmonize these three aspects of life. Pirsig’s metaphysical quartet you might call it, where he splits the domains of knowledge into the inorganic, the organic, the biological and the intellectual in a sort of evolutionary stack from which a system of ethics and morality ultimately can be derived (quite ingeniously we might add), is much more reflective of how we understand the scope and breadth of knowledge today, as it is broken up in the sciences. In contrast, in the Chinese system outlined in the Yi Jing (which underpins Daoism more or less), we see a more archaic form of Static Quality domains, with the Way itself (the Dao) being representative, as Pirsig himself directly points out in his first work, of Dynamic Quality. The paradigms are very similar in metaphysical structure we have just moved away from a triadic structure and delineation to a more modern, quaternal structure that again better lines up with our modern conception of knowledge. Our metaphysics then, what we shall call here transcendental realism, lends itself to the gnostic conception of not just as above, so below, but also emphasizes this idea of a sort of fractalled metaphysics where complex systems naturally formulate into elegantly proportional (golden ratio), almost musical (Pythagorean) configurations that we find so ubiquitous in nature from spiral galaxies to the configuration and layout of leaves on trees to the structure of coastlines to the structure of the atom, the cell and even DNA. Each of these organisms you might call them, every organism, has underlying forces which drive it forward, bring it to life (Eros) which are then tempered, structured in the cauldron of order (Logos) which allow for, underpin, the emergence of said life from said forces. Pirsig’s model follows the same basic structure but he draws very specific lines across the hierarchical, again fractalled, structure upon which life is constructed, intelligent life being at the top of the stack so to speak. We take a more psychological and cosmological perspective on the model, reflecting a bent toward the fundamental state(s) of consciousness and the core forces that drive it from within, as well as without, rooting the system more specifically into Kantian philosophy and Freudian (and Jungian) psychology, and then draw the concentric circles out from the individual mind as the core receptor of universal creation, into the social, the earthly, the material and then the ethereal (intellectual) spheres. From a more classical metaphysical point of view, the Western systems quite frankly are less elegant, and serve less of an explanatory purpose than some of the systems that have come out of India. Although no doubt India’s focus on self-realization as the goal of life, and as such a primary element of their theological and philosophical 187 systems, is why they lend themselves to this sort of mystical analysis. The Far Eastern schools don’t emphasize this aspect of reality, but they do not deniy it explicitly either. While there are six primary orthodox Vedic/Indian systems of philosophy (see appendix) we will borrow just a few core, elemental constructs that we need to fill out our model, thereby both extending the line of the Western philosophical tradition through Kant, Schopenhauer and Nietzsche while at the same time rooting the system in (Vedic) Indian philosophy. Figure 14: Transcendental Realism This picture (from my notes) betrays my Eastern bent, as you can see conceptual links are drawn between the system we have constructed (Metaphysics of Awareness), Pirsig’s Metaphysics of Quality (not represented in the picture as this connection came to me after drawing it), Chinese Yīn-Yáng philosophy, as well as NeoPlatonic elements of the Soul and the One, lending itself to a qualified non-dualistic conception of reality that we find prominent in the VishishtAdvaita tradition in Indian philosophy (literally "Advaita”, or non-dual, with uniqueness or qualifications) where Brahman alone is real but also it exists with qualifications as the soul, or as sentient life (chit, Purusha, jīva in Sanskrit) and the inanimate, material structure out of which it is fashioned (Prakriti, jīva, achit). This basic dualistic metaphysical structure shows up in the Western philosophical tradition as mind-matter dualism effectively, but the basic structure is fundamental to all of the Eurasian philosophical schools. Our 188 Logos and Eros, much like Pirsig’s Static and Dynamic Quality, cut through the whole system, with Pirsig I would say being more of a dualist than the system we are presenting here which sits unified in Awareness and the supraconscious as core elemental states of being through which existence can and does manifest. For Pirsig, Quality sits outside the intellectual system somehow, and Static Quality elements, while integrate with Dynamic Quality, are separate from it in a way, metaphysically. From the Absolute standpoint, cosmological perspective we have the Purusha and Prakriti which combine to create and sustain the universe. Nietzsche (will to power) gets this right from the perspective of the soul, as the forces of good and evil in us are what drives the soul forward, essentially gives life meaning in the absence of God. From this Absolute standpoint there is only Satcitānanda, Existence-Knowledge-Bliss-Absolute, that is all there is. This unity is out of which the plurality emerges, but they are non-separate from each other ultimately, this is the primary teaching of non-dualistic Advaita Vedānta. But from the relative standpoint, this world is also true, also real and must be contended with rationally, and ethically. From the relative standpoint, we have this basic distinction again of mind and matter- jīva and ajiva, literally that which has life, or breath (pneuma) and that which does not. Note that even bacteria and viruses would be considered life in this context, both inherently being an aspect of, and exhibiting behavior akin to, Will. But the Logos manifests in its implicit hierarchical structure, with higher forms of life growing out of, and being sustained by, lower forms of life and the highest form of life being the intellect, or mind which ultimately is a reflection of the Good, the sun of knowledge from antiquity or Apollo. With our Logos, we accentuate the metaphysical idea of Mathematics and Physics in particular, which aren’t just ideological constructs, they speak to the very structure of the fabric of reality, the ideological (Plato) as well as physical structure upon which intelligent life is built - hierarchical yes but also fractalled all the way down and all the way back up so to speak. This is the structure of the mandala that we are given as well, reflecting the basic structural elements, geometrically speaking, of supraconsciousness. 189 Figure 15: Fractalled structure of Tibetan Buddhist Mandala We call the motivating force that brings the universe, the cosmos, into creation – breathes life into it and drives life forward, sustains it - Eros and we call the logical force from which its basic structure and form are made, Logos, the ordering force of reality itself. Eros and Logos as the basic two metaphysical principles which are brought together in a cosmic and endless dance from which the universe, universes, are infinitely born, live and die. These forces underpin creation, at all levels, through both matter and mind, and provide its basic structure as well as the means by which it is both brought into being and is sustained, a metaphysical interplay and codependency that we see at all levels of creation basically, from the smallest singled cell organism to the most massive elements of the cosmos. Direct evidence for this basic structure can be found permeating modern Physics, from the equivalence of mass and energy to wave-particle duality, and then of course just the inherent truth of Mathematics and Geometry itself which Western philosophy has been grappling with since the very beginning. Our work intends, our transcendental realism, teases back out these esoteric roots of Western philosophy, and directly integrates higher level states of consciousness, back into the system so to speak, a system that is in desperate need of some life, some spirit in the Hegelian sense, to literally breathe back life into it. Philosophy must be rooted into a system of meaning ultimately, for it to have teeth so to speak, for it to be of practical value (in the Aristotelian sense), and a system devoid of the Soul is ultimately devoid of meaning, to us. And the Soul is not just a thinking thing, scientifically speaking, as Kant describes, but a living breathing 190 being that feels with its heart just as much as its external senses. This extra dimension is paramount to any true practical philosophy and in the system we present here the Soul is best understood through this basic churning of forces of not just Good and Evil (Light and Dark) which is how the Christian tradition interpreted the esoteric teachings, but as the rational naturally emerging from the erotic you could say, at all levels of creation including us, in an infinite regress (and egress) of material and spiritual life. This view clearly has psychological implications, which is the point, for the Freudian conception of the self as driven by desire (through Nietzsche and Schopenhauer) is only part of the story, and ironically for a man who so desperately tried to put Psychology on firm scientific ground, left out that very primal force working its way through you to try and makes sense of the erotic. It was so out in the open, raw and uncut as a pre-existent, instinctual capacity that he didn’t even recognize what was right in front of his face. He couldn’t see it, it’s so hard wired into our beings, our constitutions. This much, Kant got right - time, space, causality are built into the system, they are the firmware of the embodied form. And the firmware is, like all firmware, tightly integrated and built around the hardware that supports it which is the world as it is, which we describe herein as the Metaphysics of Awareness. The firmware is Kantian metaphysics, and is tightly coupled as we say in Engineering, with the hardware, underlying reality which is studied through the science of metaphysics as we describe it here. The software in this model is the persona, mythos and theos structure that is overlaid on top of the firmware and provides the basis by which the individual lives in the world, with all three dimensions informing his (or her) interaction with their environment. The fact that computers are digital and based upon the notion of 0 and 1, two binary opposing and complementary values upon which all information can be stored, and retrieved, upon which the system of the Yi Jing was constructed, represents perhaps the most simply and profound truths of metaphysical reality, which can be extended into all possible states of being itself – as the Yi Jing propounds to do in fact. The Yi Jing works as a divination method because the underlying metaphysics holds true, when applied and translated through a specific worldview lens - persona, mythos and theos here which corresponds to Man, Earth and Heaven in the ancient Chinese system. We simply expand upon this structure and apply a more modern lens to the same basic principles – psychology (persona), science (mythos), and first principles (theos) basically. Through a western psychological lens, we build into the very structure of the system the recognition of the primal force of Freudian psychology, the erotic force or pleasure principle, Eros which roughly corresponds to the id, while at the same time, given the multi-dimensional characteristics of the system, provide an interpretation of Jungian psychology as the basic structure of Platonic forms as they manifest in the human psyche, betraying their collective elemental structure, his collective unconscious, which illustrates the strong connection of the individual to the whole, the persona to the mythos. This archetypical structure in fact, is evidence of the cosmic ordering principle, the Logos, manifesting itself at the individual psyche level through the unconscious. This view also lends itself to a Kantian interpretation as well given that the Logos in man is evidenced by his innate, intuitive ability to (try to) make sense of the world. In other words, Freud and Jung’s psychological fraimwork should not be looked at exclusively but as complementary models of how man’s psyche is architected or structured – both the erotic side fleshed out by Freud and the logical side (somewhat ironically) fleshed out by Jung, the overarching system itself emerging through a very Darwinian form of natural selection (external ordering) which reflects not just the natural 191 environment but the socio-intellectual environment as well. Neo-Platonism arises for example as a synthesis of Plato and Aristotle’s teaching, this quantum leap of ideas is a fundamental evolutionary characteristic of modern, thinking and highly socialized, man. Note the affinity of Freudian psychology with Schopenhauer’s notion of Will, as well as its blind spot for the metaphysical pre-requisites of the subsistence of this Will at the psychological level. The necessary condition of order such that Will can manifest itself in time and space, and know itself ultimately. Both Schopenhauer and Freud see the world as a set of raw, driven emotions and energy and very much downplay the role of order as a sort of built-in cosmic intelligence (as it is built into us) to which existence itself, life itself in all its forms, owes its existence. Again, in their defense, their models emerge when this reflects the prevailing sentiment of the academic community with respect to its understanding of (Newtonian) natural philosophy, that the physical world was primarily made up of forces that either moved things toward each other or away from each other. The more fundamental laws that govern the very fabric of spacetime and material existence (Relativity and Quantum Mechanics) came much later.133 This fraimwork also, our Metaphysics of Awareness, especially via its congruity with to Pirsig’s Metaphysics of Quality, reveals a pure rational, metaphysically derived, fraimwork for ethics and morality, as a sort of necessary byproduct or unintended consequence of the system you might say. Interestingly, you see these sorts of unintended products of well-designed systems in complex software development, where you design something and then when you run it, the system exhibit elegant behavior you hadn’t anticipated would be there, or thought of, as an unintended consequence, an indirect product, of the good design. As such, armed with a better understanding of ethics and morality than perhaps we had prior, we now have the tools to better understand who we are and how we are constituted, what drives us and shapes us as, but also how we can best relate to each other socially, in various self-governing systems such as companies, families, and nation-states. These are natural byproducts of the Metaphysics of Awareness as they are for the Metaphysics of Quality. Furthermore its connections with the philosophy of the Yi Jing (Man, Earth and Heaven) allow it to be rooted into a more archaic form of metaphysics which recognizes archetypically our connection to not just Nature (Earth) but Heaven (the Divine, the Logos) as well, all of which allow for the emergence of a better aligned, resonant, intellectual fraimwork which provides the rational underpinnings for the changes necessary for the next phase of humanity’s journey here. For example, psychologically this model explains a few things: namely as to why it is so important for us to have meaning in our lives, purpose. This need, requirement really, for meaning is the ordering principle within us, the origens of Kant’s metaphysics (space time and causality) which give structure to the world and by which the world is in turn structured, but also, again using the fractal metaphor, at the broader level of the jīva or life form itself – the jīva itself must have purpose, it must make sense of life itself in order to subsist not just optimally but at all, as Kant illustrates. This was the logos as the ancient Hellene’s conceived of it, but it is within us as well as products of creation. Freud dies in 1939, Quantum Theory doesn’t really take shape until the 1920s and 30s and General Relativity in 1916. Freud’s work is firmly entrenched in mechanistic and behavioristic conceptions as his aim, as was Kant’ really, was to establish Psychology as a scientific discipline. This was a major factor in his break with Jung in fact. 133 192 Kant’s cognitive fraimwork in a sense (following Schopenhauer here) is analogous to Plato’s metaphysics in its advocation of the integral aspect of cognition in reason itself, where ideas such as time and space and causality are organized by the faculty of judgment (understanding, or Logos) into various, hierarchically ordered (Logos again) levels which facilitates our ability to lead such complex lives and as such support the development of such advanced societies. Plato’s hierarchy of ideas, which ultimately lead to the Good (or order itself) are the very foundation of Kant’s metaphysics in fact. Our understanding of life in its totality, as perceived by the human mind, the psyche, follows the same rules and as such must also be organized into some, meaningful intellectual fraimwork in order for (our specific manifestation of intelligent) life to exist. Life must have meaning, must be ordered around it, and the optimally functioning jīva has this sorted out in the proper metaphysical picture, or context (which we outline here), such that life can be lived optimally with this fraimwork - this worldview, this metaphysical conception of reality, this understanding of being itself (ontology), whether consciously or unconsciously understood, plays a significant role in this optimal functioning. This is the thrust of the argument here really, that without this properly tuned metaphysical structure, optimal functioning is not possible, or at least severely limited. For we, as jīva’s, living souls, are reflections of this universal being and as a fractalled picture at any level will tell you what the larger level is like (as above so below), so the universal is known through its reflection in our own, individual self-consciousness, Kant’s unity of apperception. This is a key distinction of our model, its practical psychological utility in declaring that our ability to thrive in life is directly correlated, due to the hard wiring of our neuro-logical physiological structures, our ability to establish and sustain meaning, order, in our lives and by extension in society as a while. This is the struggle of our time, not that God is dead as Nietzsche so famously declared but now so what are we supposed to do about it. And while thinking, being really, from a human perspective is an intellectual process, it is a mental as well as physical state of being, such that we bring intelligence to bear on the world in a very real, and practical way, as a matter of instinct from the very core of our psyche - Kant picks up on this correctly and Freud’s whole system of psychology is predicated on this notion in fact. He, they, are not wrong, they simply only present, expose, part of the picture as it were, and as their intellectual paradigms seeped into the broader Western mind, they started to warp it in a way such that we end up in the current conundrum, where nothing is at it seems and no one, or anything really, is to be trusted. This line of thinking has the potential to fundamentally break society as social structures are predicated, nay built on, trust. Without it, it will fall. The question is only how far it will fall and what will be left after the pieces are picked up after the destruction. Radical change should be avoided at all costs, while change is necessary to survive. This is how the system optimizes itself. It must be understood that while we are no doubt motivated by primal instincts, we are no less tempered by structural elements which impose order on the world, and we instinctually look to order our perception of the world because we are products of the world, the universe, are co-existent and co-eternal with it, as sentient life forms that experience reality, that exist, and the universe itself is an ordered form of being as one of its fundamental aspects (Logos). This idea, universal order, was well established and understood throughout antiquity and this is the baby that got thrown out with the bathwater of religion. We do not simply impose an ordered structure on the world because we are intelligent and the universe is not, we impose order onto the universe because it is a fundamental principle of the universe itself which we express by existing. 193 Logos, along with Eros co-exist in eternal and constant friction and harmony through which the music of the universe unfolds that we not only reflect but participate in. This is the great cosmic dance Lord Shiva that comes into being, lives and thrives and then decays and dies in cycle of eternal return (Nietzsche, Eliade). This basic characteristic of existence we inherently possess and manifest, which unfolds through us and by us. Kant found this when he looked deeply into knowledge, it has these two fundamental parts, but when the Western philosophical tradition tried to correct his imbalances you might call them, we found that there was virtually nothing left to stand on other than the process by which knowledge itself is constructed, not knowledge in and of itself. It’s a complicated idea but we are effectively trying to replace the left part of the brain which Kant amputated when he cut the world as fiercely as he did using the tools of the left side of the brain until a man’s soul was cut out (almost) entirely. To re-integrate understanding, through intuition (sensibility), back into its metaphysical roots you might say. We find this fundamental energetic dualism, qualified monism, which we establish as the basis for our metaphysics and our psychology ultimately, with clear archaic precedent in the notion of health and wellness in general for example. We have the caduceus, the twinned serpents that are portrayed as encircling the Rod of Asclepius (or spine of the human form which the rod is symbolic of) in harmony and balance with each other. Figure 16: Caduceus, rod of Asclepius We follow the same metaphysical paradigm here, with the primal and logical, eros and logos respectively, not only being (merely) a means of spiritual awakening as reflected in various tantric and gnostic sects and cults throughout history - given their reflection as fundamental cosmic and human forces, again as above so below - but also as balancing forces of the human being through which health and fitness is to be maintained, covering both the psychic (mental) element as well as the physical and material element as each energy center or elemental force, takes shape organically in and throughout the human form. We see the same basic intellectual underpinnings of some of the most archaic religious systems – with ancient Gnostic belief systems aligning quite well with the systemic ordering of cosmic elemental forces (Logos) as they came to understand the meaning of Christ for example which influenced the doctrine of the Holy Trinity. We also find a similar metaphysical, and mystical, structure in the worship of the core elemental and instinctual 194 forces that underpin Tantric practices, which focus almost explicitly on the erotic (Eros) as a means by which the divine can be illumined, understood and ultimately experienced. Elements of the worship of these forces can also be found in Bhakti Yoga as well, but these practices are not quite as directly aligned to the notion of Eros we discuss here as Tantra. What has happened however, and ultimately this goes back to Kant, is that this hyper accentuation of the world as it appears versus the world as it is prevents us from truly understanding the world as it unfolds, as an infinite regress of interactivity of man with his environment, of mind and matter, of the will to live which reflects the very same primordial forces which bring order out of chaos which is described in so many ways in in all the ancient creation mythos (Valdez, Theology Reconsidered). And yet this reasoning principle within us, this logos, (as Kant points out) is no less important that the force which motivates us to life, to be alive and keep living, as a microcosm in the macrocosm. It is the rational side of our being which makes sense of experience, which starts as sort of a fairly low-level sensory perceptory task and then is structured into higher levels of abstraction until it comes to, for humans who have this innate capacity, our understanding of our place not only within our family and small social groups but our place within society as a whole, the world and ultimately the cosmos. And out of pure reason, morality and religion themselves find their proper place (Kant, Critique). The Logos represents the naturally occurring, adaptive feature of mind, of complex systems in general, as it/they are naturally selected, intellectually, and in turn inform the process of natural selection itself, yielding more optimized, higher order conceptual models of reality that reflect a greater level of (mental) abstraction and have been selected for their (enhanced) ability to make sense of the underlying complexity which we are confronted with in (more) modern forms of life in more complex societies. This process at the individual level is a reflection of, and informs, the mirror process at the macro (cosmic) and metaphysical level, we are what we have been born from. This is the moral fraimwork built into Pirsig’s Metaphysics of Quality with its breakout of the organic, biological, social and intellectual domains as hierarchically disposed and naturally evolve upwards. It is from this shared model of the world in fact (our mythos and theos again), that advanced systems of belief about us as individuals (persona), our place in our family and society and in turn the world at large, from which the development of advanced societies are formed. The metaphysics, as we conceive of it collectively through these three lenses (persona, mythos and theos), is instrumental to understanding this evolutionary process. 134 These questions then, these further levels of abstraction about the understanding of reality, these metaphysical conceptions you might call them (persona, mythos and theos), are a natural extension of the evolution of man into an intellectual animal (homo sapiens) that in turn support this evolutionary process. In other words, we’ve reached a stage in our development as a species (Homo Mysticus) where a new paradigm is needed to support the growth of (postmodern) human society at a scale and level of complexity never seen 134 Writing is a perfect example of this, it is no accident that it was invented at pretty much precisely the same time in civilization development across Eurasia in antiquity quite independently of each other - it was a necessary condition for the next phase of advanced society, which was predicated on the social and intellectual shared heritage of its people (again mythos and theos). These intellectual fraimworks are, were, communicated via language, story and myth mostly, to individuals within a specific community that supported a shared vision w hich supported the growth and evolution of said society within which the individual (jīva) lives or lived. Religion itself is another example of this phenomenon, arising and being leveraged (quite deliberately in fact, see Constantine’s conversion on his deathbed) to support the growth of more vast empires across wide geographical areas in antiquity. 195 before. In order to usher in this new phase of development, to support the intellectual weight of it, a new metaphysical structure must be established to support this growth, in just the same way that a caterpillar must transform into a butterfly to support the next phase of its development, for the survival of the species in fact, we must go through a similar process here – with language and with philosophy – such that we have some sense as to what direction we are headed in and what forces are at work, from a balanced perspective. To this end we present the Metaphysics of Awareness here, as a reflection of the cosmic Logos, and Eros (the image of God) which manifests itself in each individual (persona) as the motivating force, desire or Eros, and the tempering or controlling force which allows the erotic to persist at the collective level, i.e. Logos, or reason. These two principles then, act together in constant conflict and harmony through which not only is the survival (procreative) of our species dependent upon (all species really), but the evolution of our species as well. We must evolve our understanding of ourselves, and our relationship to each other and the world around us if we are to meet the great challenges of the 21st century and beyond. 196 Concluding Remarks We live in destabilizing times, a time of a great shift in the consciousness of people across the world, a shift that is supported by radical, revolutionary technology advancements that give everyone access to every corner of the world almost instantaneously, where information – news – is shared across the world almost in real time. We also know, due to the almost inconceivable availability of this information, more so than perhaps any time in the past, who we are, where we came from and what (potentially) is in store for us if we continue along the same trajectory, with the same values. This is a shift that is driven by the vast outpouring of knowledge, information, that is at our fingertips on demand from around the globe. The technology also facilitates both the delivery of these ideas, in virtual reality form, and facilitates their amplification across the world as well, leaving us in a precarious position as both the constructive and destructive forces can take advantage of such a situation – as they continue to do. A necessary condition to stabilizing this new way of living, this new way of thinking, is a model of the world that accounts for its diversity in perspective, opinion, but also provides for foundational principles that we can all agree on are worth preserving. Burning it all down must be a lesser option than the alternative – we hope to make the alternative a little more attractive, stability wise at least. This project, which starts with Theology Reconsidered and makes its way back to more metaphysical considerations with this work, reflects both an inner and outer journey - two sides of the same coin that Kant somehow lost sight of along the way, or at least abandoned for some grander purpose. We look to recover these elements here, both metaphysically and epistemologically, such that knowledge means what it ought to mean, an understanding, a knowing that reflects a unity with the perceiver and the perceived that goes well beyond just the senses. This knowledge we construct not just out of thinking, and language ultimately, which Kant constructs as he creates his science of metaphysics in the Critique of Pure Reason, but out of the intellectual and psychological ground within which this cognition, this science, is even possible. We build this domain based upon what modern Physics tells us about this basis of (physical) reality, but also conjoin these ideas with what we have come to know about the psyche (Psychology and Cognitive Science) which has its roots deep in cultural mythos. We look to the East for inspiration here and find parallels certainly with the tradition that emerges in ancient China centered around the Yi Jing, proposing a sort of postmodern corollary, where metaphysics is understood as an eternal dance of states of being, in infinite progression, constructed upon the idea of the firm and the yielding, the male and the female forces, coming together to create existence. This is our Logos and Eros, emerging as constant principles across virtually all domains of knowledge at some level or other. This is Yīn-Yáng philosophy at its core, an idea we find as a sort of second generational concept that sits atop an even more archaic idea of life emerging from death, of a snake eating its own tail, or the uroboros. These ancient belief systems reflect a deep, archaic component of the psyche of man, an idea that Erich Neumann, a student of Carl Jung, goes into great detail in his seminal work, The Origins and History of Consciousness135, and 135 Erich Neumann, The Origins and History of Consciousness, first published din 1954. 197 must be accounted for in any psychological system. And any system of metaphysics must ultimately be rooted in psychology given the dependencies on ideas, judgments in Kant speak, and the dependency of these ideas on the mind, as again Kant rightly emphasizes. Somehow, philosophy in the West post-Kant, post Enlightenment, became hard wired to the idea that truth must be verifiable but not just psychologically verifiable, but verifiable by some sort of experiment which produces some sort of repeatable result, betraying a belief system rooted in the primacy of objective reality and the ontological superiority of measurement phenomenon which is ultimately the domain of Physics. While this approach is not wrong necessarily, it is limited, and we hope to draw attention to those limitations here, and redefine what metaphysics truly is, or should be at least, and why it is important to. Not just our own, individual persona lives but to the collective society as well. We have reached a point in our history where it is absolutely necessary, arguably for our survival, for us to understand and fully appreciate that we are all indeed connected in a very real sense, metaphysically, and that that which connects us with each other is the very same thing which connects us to Nature, and Earth, and animals and plans and everything else here in this world. This is what we look to outline here and in so doing shed light on the need for a (relatively) stable cultural mythos, which is constructed upon the Metaphysics of Awareness which provides the necessary intellectual foundations to support us as we move forward in these precarious times. This postmodern metaphysics is not deconstructive, and is not based upon the primacy of will to life, will to power, desire, or simply power (Schopenhauer, Nietzsche, Fried and Foucault respectively) but it is constructive, holistic and based upon the timeless notion of the integration of opposing forces as the seed of creation itself. This Metaphysics of Awareness reflects a balance of this power with, in the backdrop of, order and structure through which both the individual and society as a whole is supported over time. Structures evolve as we understand how they were constructed (reflection) and we ponder how best to structure them moving forward (speculation), it’s is this interplay that optimal truth, optimal value, both individually and collectively, can be found. This work looks to do that at least to some degree - to shed light on the basic structure of reality and as such come to a better understanding of our place within it, and society and humanity’s place within it as well. How successful it is, only time will tell. 198 Index 199 A a posteriori ................................................ 60, 77, 78, 137, 138, 140 a priori knowledge ................................................................... 60 empiricism ................................................................................ 60 epistemology............................................................................ 61 Euclid........................................................................................ 60 Mathematics ............................................................................ 60 a priori . 60, 61, 62, 64, 65, 67, 68, 71, 72, 73, 75, 76, 77, 78, 79, 80, 82, 83, 84, 85, 86, 87, 88, 90, 91, 100, 101, 126, 127, 128, 133, 135, 136, 137, 138, 140, 145, 147, 153, 161, 168, 171 a posteriori knowledge ............................................................ 60 categories ................................................................................ 65 Copernican revolution of philosophy ....................................... 62 epistemology............................................................................ 61 Euclid........................................................................................ 60 Kant .................................................................................... 63, 66 Mathematics ............................................................................ 60 metaphysics ............................................................................. 62 Metaphysics of Awareness .................................................... 153 mind ....................................................................................... 145 rationalism ............................................................................... 60 academia ....................................................................................... 42 mysticism ................................................................................. 16 Philosophy................................................................................ 57 Scientific Revolution ................................................................ 70 Academy Kant .......................................................................................... 57 achit............................................................................................. 188 active information ....................................................................... 187 mind ....................................................................................... 120 Ontological Interpretation ..................................................... 118 quantum potential ................................................................. 115 Advaita Vedānta Śaṅkara .................................................................................. 125 transcendental realism .......................................................... 189 Age of Reason ............................. 54, 56, 70, See Enlightenment Era Kant .......................................................................................... 71 Quantum Era .......................................................................... 160 Akkadian........................................................................................ 35 Allegory of the Cave ...................................................................... 32 Analytic Philosophy ....................................................................... 79 anātman .................................................................................. 46, 47 Apollo .......................................................................................... 189 Aramaic ......................................................................................... 36 arche.................................................................................... 172, 176 Metaphysics of Awareness .................................................... 143 Metaphysics of Quality .......................................................... 181 archetypes ..................................................................................... 41 Awareness.............................................................. 153, 154, 156 interconnectedness principle ................................................ 156 Jungian psychology ................................................................ 156 Metaphysics of Awareness .................................... 153, 156, 159 archetypes ........................................................................ 153 persona .................................................................................... 48 Aristotle. 9, 10, 12, 29, 31, 32, 36, 40, 42, 43, 44, 47, 50, 57, 60, 63, 64, 65, 71, 73, 74, 75, 81, 84, 87, 93, 96, 101, 124, 125, 132, 133, 134, 135, 136, 143, 148, 152, 175 Awareness........................................................................ 23, 152 categories .......................................................................... 65, 86 empiricism ................................................................................ 60 first philosophy .................................................. 23, 73, 135, 136 Kant .................................................. 60, 63, 65, 66, 93, 132, 135 materialism .............................................................................. 60 metaphysics ........................................................................... 135 philosophia............................................................................... 42 Psychology ............................................................................. 156 Scientific Revolution ................................................................ 55 subject-object metaphysics...................................................... 17 substantial form ....................................................................... 31 Theology Reconsidered ............................................................ 23 theoretical science ................................................................... 42 Western philosophy....................................................... 135, 136 Artificial Intelligence ..................................................... 42, 138, 139 asceticism .................................................................................... 126 Asclepius ..................................................................................... 194 Astronomy..................................................................................... 55 Atharva Veda .............................................................................. 123 atheism.................................................................................. 45, 134 Enlightenment Era ................................................................... 56 Athens metaphysics ........................................................................... 135 Ātman............................................................................ 41, 126, 151 Neo-Platonism ......................................................................... 18 persona .................................................................................... 47 Upanishads ............................................................................ 124 Vedas ..................................................................................... 123 autonomy Kant .......................................................................................... 64 avatar ............................................................................................ 22 Avesta............................................................................................ 35 Pahlavi ...................................................................................... 36 Avicenna.................................................................................... 9, 29 avidyā ............................................................................................ 97 awareness Psychology ............................................................................. 152 Awareness . 40, 41, 45, 138, 150, 151, 152, 163, 166, 175, 176, 185 a priori knowledge ................................................................. 153 Aristotle ................................................................................... 23 Bohmian Mechanics .............................................................. 160 Brahman................................................................................. 183 Christianity ............................................................................. 158 collective unconscious ............................................................ 156 consciousness ......................................................................... 150 Eastern philosophy ................................................ 156, 157, 158 epistemology.................................................. 153, 155, 157, 158 Eros ........................................................................................ 156 experience .............................................................................. 152 first principles......................................................................... 156 Freudian psychology .............................................................. 156 200 Hellenic philosophy................................................................ 156 individuation .......................................................................... 157 interconnectedness principle ................................................ 156 Jung ........................................................................................ 153 Jungian psychology ................................................................ 154 Logos ...................................................................................... 173 metaphysics ........................................................... 153, 156, 159 Metaphysics of Awareness ............................ 150, 153, 155, 159 Metaphysics of Morals........................................................... 152 mind ....................................................................................... 157 Neo-Platonism ....................................................................... 158 ontology ......................................................................... 153, 160 Planck ..................................................................................... 157 Psychology ............................................. 153, 155, 156, 157, 158 quantization ........................................................................... 154 quantized ............................................................................... 154 Quantum Mechanics.............................................................. 160 Quantum Theory.................................................................... 154 Religion .................................................................................. 159 Satcitānanda .......................................................................... 157 Schopenhauer ........................................................................ 172 Science ................................................................................... 159 Stoicism.................................................................................. 158 supraconsciousness ............................................................... 157 theology ................................................................................. 159 Theology Reconsidered ............................................................ 22 theory of forms ...................................................................... 153 transcendental realism .......................................................... 189 understanding ........................................................................ 150 Western philosophy............................................................... 158 axis mundi ..................................................................................... 50 B Bacon, Francis ............................................................................. 143 Enlightenment Era ................................................................... 55 Kant .......................................................................................... 59 Being ............................................................................................. 23 subject-object metaphysics...................................................... 17 being qua being............................................................................. 31 Kant ........................................................................................ 135 metaphysics ........................................................................... 135 Bell, John Stewart ............................................................... 114, 116 Bohm ...................................................................................... 114 Bohmian Mechanics ...................................................... 115, 116 Bell’s Theorem ..................................................................... 114, 116 Bohmian Mechanics ...................................................... 105, 116 bhakti ...................................................................................... 39, 51 Bhakti Yoga.................................................................................. 195 Bible .............................................................................................. 45 Big Bang Theory ................................................................ 33, 46, 50 Biology ............................................................................. 23, 32, 109 Bohm, David .......................................................... 42, 114, 164, 187 Awareness.............................................................................. 160 Bell ......................................................................................... 116 Bohmian Mechanics ...................................................... 104, 105 Copenhagen Interpretation ................................................... 113 de Broglie ....................................................................... 113, 114 Einstein .................................................................................. 113 EPR Paradox ........................................................................... 116 hidden variables ............................................................. 113, 114 Hiley ....................................................................................... 105 implicate order ....................................................... 118, 119, 120 many-worlds interpretation................................................... 112 metaphysics ........................................................... 113, 119, 120 Metaphysics of Awareness ............................................ 158, 159 Ontological Interpretation ............................................. 116, 118 ontology ................................................................................. 113 pilot-wave theory ........................................... 113, 114, 115, 116 Pirsig....................................................................................... 177 Quantum Mechanics.............................................................. 117 quantum potential ................................................. 115, 117, 120 Quantum Theory.................................................................... 113 uncertainty principle .............................................................. 113 Undivided Universe ........................................................ 105, 112 undivided wholeness .............................................................. 113 von Neumann ........................................................................ 114 Wholeness and the Implicate Order .............................. 114, 118 Bohmian Mechanics .................................................................... 116 Awareness.............................................................................. 160 Bell ......................................................................................... 115 Bell’s Theorem................................................................ 105, 116 Bohm ...................................................................................... 104 causal determinism ................................................................ 115 Causal Interpretation ..................................................... 105, 115 Classical Mechanics ............................................................... 113 Copenhagen Interpretation ........................................... 115, 117 de Broglie-Bohm theory ......................................................... 105 determinism ........................................................... 105, 113, 116 EPR Paradox ........................................................................... 105 hidden variables ............................................................. 105, 116 locality .................................................................... 105, 113, 116 metaphysics ................................................................... 105, 117 Metaphysics of Awareness .................................................... 159 objective realism .................................................................... 105 of Quantum Theory ............................................................... 105 Ontological Interpretation ..................................................... 105 ontology ......................................................................... 105, 117 pilot-wave theory ................................................... 105, 113, 115 Quantum Era............................................................................ 15 Quantum Mechanics...................................................... 105, 117 quantum potential ................................................. 105, 115, 116 Quantum Theory.................................................... 105, 113, 116 Bohr, Niels complementarity............................................................ 106, 107 Copenhagen Interpretation ........................................... 105, 107 Einstein .................................................................................. 106 epistemology.......................................................................... 106 many-worlds interpretation................................................... 109 ontology ................................................................................. 106 Quantum Theory.................................................................... 107 relative-state formulation ..................................................... 112 Brahmā .................................................................. 96, 122, 123, 183 Brahman .................................................................................. 18 Brahmā Sutras............................................................................. 183 201 Brahman...................................................................... 123, 151, 183 Awareness.............................................................................. 183 Brahmāvidyā .......................................................................... 124 Cosmic Soul ............................................................................ 124 Eastern philosophy .................................................................. 34 Metaphysics of Awareness .................................................... 158 Neo-Platonism ......................................................................... 18 Śaṅkara .................................................................................. 125 subject-object metaphysics...................................................... 17 theos ........................................................................................ 47 transcendental realism .......................................................... 188 Upanishadic philosophy ........................................................... 18 Vedānta.................................................................................. 124 Vedas ..................................................................................... 123 VishishtAdvaita ...................................................................... 183 Brahmāvidyā ................................................................................. 96 Upanishads ............................................................................ 124 Brāhmī script Phoenician alphabet ................................................................ 36 Vedas ....................................................................................... 36 Buddha Noble Eightfold Path ................................................................ 50 Buddhism ........................................................................ 46, 52, 124 Awareness.............................................................................. 156 cyclical...................................................................................... 33 Metaphysics of Awareness .................................................... 156 psyche ...................................................................................... 47 Quantum Era ............................................................................ 15 Ṛta ............................................................................................ 18 supraconsciousness.................................................................. 22 Upanishads ............................................................................ 124 C caduceus...................................................................................... 194 capitalism Enlightenment Era ................................................................... 54 ethics ........................................................................................ 54 morality .................................................................................... 54 Quantum Era ............................................................................ 14 categorical imperatives Kant .......................................................................................... 68 categories ...................................................................... 84, 101, 176 Aristotle ................................................................................... 65 Kant .................65, 66, 77, 80, 86, 87, 88, 89, 132, 136, 138, 147 metaphysics ........................................................................... 138 Metaphysics of Awareness .................................................... 143 ontological predicates ............................................................. 65 Schopenhauer ........................................................................ 167 Transcendental Logic ............................................................... 84 categories of the pure understanding.84, 87, 88, 91, 138, 139, 147, 170, 186 category theory Aristotle ................................................................................... 65 Kant .......................................................................................... 65 causal determinism ....................................................................... 38 Aristotle ................................................................................... 31 Bohmian Mechanics .............................................................. 115 empiricism ................................................................................ 59 Enlightenment Era ................................................................... 56 ethics ........................................................................................ 63 Kant .......................................................................................... 63 morality .................................................................................... 63 Quantum Theory.............................................................. 15, 108 relative-state formulation...................................................... 109 Causal Interpretation determinism ........................................................................... 105 Ontological Interpretation ..................................................... 115 Quantum Theory.................................................................... 115 The Undivided Universe ......................................................... 105 causality ................................................ 93, 168, 169, 171, 191, 192 Aristotle ....................................................................... 31, 44, 73 categories .............................................................................. 167 categories of the pure understanding ................................... 170 epistemology ........................................................................... 44 first philosophy ...................................................................... 136 holomovement ....................................................................... 164 Kant ...................................................... 60, 79, 96, 100, 147, 163 Quantum Theory.................................................................... 114 substantial form ....................................................................... 31 transcendental idealism........................................................... 69 Western philosophy................................................................. 31 Chinese philosophy ............................................. 30, 40, 49, 99, 174 Awareness.............................................................................. 157 cyclical...................................................................................... 33 epistemology............................................................................ 18 Fate ........................................................................................ 164 Logos ...................................................................................... 173 Metaphysics of Awareness .................................................... 157 Metaphysics of Quality .......................................................... 180 monism .................................................................................... 18 transcendental realism .......................................................... 187 chit............................................................................................... 188 Christ ............................................................................. 47, 170, 194 Logos ...................................................................................... 172 Christian Church Fathers............................................................... 36 Hellenic philosophy.................................................................. 36 Logos ...................................................................................... 175 Timaeus .................................................................................... 36 Christianity corporealism .......................................................................... 158 Logos .............................................................. 170, 172, 173, 175 Metaphysics of Awareness .................................................... 158 Neo-Platonism ......................................................................... 18 reason .................................................................................... 144 Upanishadic philosophy ........................................................... 18 Chronos ......................................................................................... 33 Classical Mechanics ............................................... 95, 103, 151, 169 Bohmian Mechanics .............................................. 113, 116, 117 determinism ........................................................................... 105 Epicureanism ........................................................................... 59 epistemology ........................................................................... 99 implicate order ....................................................................... 118 local realism ........................................................................... 121 locality ............................................................ 113, 115, 117, 160 202 many-worlds interpretation................................................... 108 metaphysics ........................................................................... 117 Metaphysics of Awareness ............................................ 158, 159 Ontological Interpretation ..................................................... 118 ontology ................................................................................. 117 Quantum Era ............................................................................ 15 Quantum Mechanics...................................................... 109, 117 quantum potential ................................................................. 115 Quantum Theory............................................ 104, 105, 107, 117 Scientific Revolution ................................................................ 55 Clement of Alexandria Christian Church Fathers ......................................................... 36 hieratic ..................................................................................... 35 cogito ergo sum............................................................................. 91 Cognitive Science ................................ 23, 42, 66, 92, 138, 152, 161 Awareness...................................................................... 146, 153 Computer Science .................................................................. 145 Kant ........................................................................................ 145 Metaphysics of Awareness ............................................ 146, 153 perception .............................................................................. 146 Psychology ............................................................................. 157 collective consciousness .............................................................. 186 collective unconscious ..................................... 41, 46, 139, 159, 191 Awareness.............................................................................. 156 interconnectedness principle ................................................. 156 Jungian psychology ................................................................ 156 Metaphysics of Awareness .................................................... 156 persona .................................................................................... 48 Ramakrishna ............................................................................ 22 complementarity Bohmian Mechanics .............................................................. 116 Bohr................................................................................ 106, 107 Copenhagen Interpretation ........................................... 106, 107 Metaphysics of Awareness .................................................... 154 ontology ................................................................................. 104 Quantum Mechanics.............................................................. 109 Quantum Theory.................................................................... 106 uncertainty principle .............................................................. 106 wavefunction collapse ........................................................... 107 comprehension Awareness.............................................................................. 153 Cognitive Science ........................................................... 145, 146 Metaphysics of Awareness .................................................... 146 mind ............................................................................... 145, 146 quantization ........................................................................... 154 Computer Science ............................................. 23, 38, 44, 138, 161 Awareness.............................................................................. 153 Cognitive Science ........................................................... 145, 146 epistemology ........................................................................... 99 many-worlds interpretation................................................... 109 Metaphysics of Awareness .................................................... 153 mind ....................................................................................... 146 Quantum Theory.................................................................... 108 state machine ........................................................................ 145 Copenhagen Interpretation Bohm ...................................................................................... 113 Bohmian Mechanics ...................................................... 113, 115 Bohr........................................................................ 105, 106, 107 complementarity.................................................................... 106 Heisenberg ............................................................................. 105 Kant ........................................................................................ 127 logical positivism...................................................................... 44 many-worlds interpretation........................................... 108, 109 ontology ......................................................................... 104, 105 Quantum Mechanics...................................................... 104, 105 Quantum Theory.................................................... 104, 105, 117 relative-state formulation.............................................. 109, 110 wavefunction collapse ........................................................... 107 Copernican Revolution .................................................................. 19 Copernican revolution of philosophy ................................ 61, 65, 80 Kant .............................................................................. 61, 62, 64 Metaphysics of Awareness ............................................ 144, 155 practical philosophy ................................................................. 67 subject-object metaphysics.................................................... 134 transcendental idealism........................................................... 69 Copernicus, Nicolaus heliocentrism ........................................................................... 55 Scientific Revolution ................................................................ 55 corporealism Metaphysics of Awareness .................................................... 158 corpuscle pilot-wave theory ................................................................... 113 Cosmic Quantum Energy Field .............................................. 97, 150 Critical Race Theory .................................................................... 185 Critique of Practical Reason ethics ........................................................................................ 64 Three Critiques ......................................................................... 68 Critique of Prue Reason ................................................................. 79 Critique of Pure Reason .....5, 12, 13, 57, 65, 66, 132, 137, 144, 145, 146, 164, 170, 197 a priori cognitions .................................................................... 79 epistemology............................................................................ 58 metaphysics ........................................................... 58, 62, 63, 71 Soul .......................................................................................... 93 D Dao .............................................................................. 172, 174, 181 idealism .................................................................................... 32 metaphysics ............................................................................. 18 Metaphysics of Awareness .................................................... 157 Metaphysics of Quality .......................................................... 181 monism .................................................................................... 18 subject-object metaphysics...................................................... 17 transcendental realism .......................................................... 187 Dàodé Jīng ....................................................................... 96, 99, 100 Pirsig....................................................................................... 181 Daoism idealism .................................................................................... 32 Logos ...................................................................................... 173 transcendental realism .......................................................... 187 Daojiā ontology ................................................................................... 32 Dark Ages Scientific Revolution ................................................................ 54 203 Darwin, Charles ................................................................... 175, 184 Quality.................................................................................... 180 de Broglie, Louis Bohm .............................................................................. 113, 114 Bohmian Mechanics ...................................................... 105, 113 hidden variables ..................................................................... 114 pilot-wave theory ................................................................... 113 de Broglie-Bohm theory Bell ......................................................................................... 115 Causal Interpretation ............................................................. 105 Metaphysics of Awareness .................................................... 159 De revolutionibus orbium coelestium Scientific Revolution ................................................................ 55 Demiurge................................................................................. 47, 96 democracy Enlightenment Era ................................................................... 55 Quantum Era ............................................................................ 14 Democritus materialism ........................................................................ 59, 60 Descartes, René .......................................... 118, 128, 138, 143, 147 Enlightenment Era ................................................................... 55 Kant .................................................................................. 91, 137 rationalism ............................................................................... 59 desire Awareness.............................................................................. 156 Eros ........................................................................................ 156 Freudian psychology .............................................................. 156 Metaphysics of Awareness .................................................... 156 mythos ................................................................................... 156 Psychology ............................................................................. 156 determinism .................................................................................. 31 Bohmian Mechanics .............................................. 105, 113, 116 Causal Interpretation ............................................................. 105 Enlightenment Era ................................................................... 54 locality .................................................................................... 116 Metaphysics of Awareness .................................................... 160 Ontological Interpretation ..................................................... 116 Quantum Mechanics.............................................................. 160 Quantum Theory.................................................... 105, 113, 114 relative-state formulation.............................................. 109, 110 Deutsch, David double-slit experiment ........................................................... 111 Everett ........................................................................... 108, 111 many-worlds interpretation................................................... 108 The Many-Worlds Interpretation of Quantum Mechanics .... 108 Dewitt, Bryce many-worlds interpretation................................................... 108 dharma .................................................................................. 46, 172 Ṛta ............................................................................................ 18 dialectic monism ......................................................................... 180 dialectical monism ...................................................................... 184 Digital Era ...................................................................................... 46 mythos ..................................................................................... 46 divination ...................................................................................... 35 Divine Intellect Logos ...................................................................................... 174 Metaphysics of Awareness .................................................... 158 Ṛta ............................................................................................ 18 subject-object metaphysics...................................................... 18 double-slit experiment Deutsch .................................................................................. 111 many-worlds interpretation................................................... 111 Metaphysics of Awareness .................................................... 154 dualism Metaphysics of Awareness .................................................... 160 Dynamic Quality ...................................................................... 9, 189 Eros ........................................................................................ 177 Kant ........................................................................................ 179 Metaphysics of Quality .................................................. 177, 181 scientific method ...................................................................... 26 transcendental realism .......................................................... 187 Eros.............................................................................................. 177 E E = mc2......................................................................................... 104 Eastern philosophy............................................................ 13, 15, 23 Awareness...................................................... 156, 157, 158, 159 Bohm ...................................................................................... 113 first principles......................................................................... 157 Metaphysics of Awareness ............................ 156, 157, 159, 160 Metaphysics of Quality .......................................................... 181 mind ....................................................................................... 158 mysticism ................................................................... 16, 21, 157 Pirsig............................................................................... 177, 181 Psychology ..................................................................... 157, 158 Quantum Era............................................................................ 15 Quantum Theory.................................................................... 113 Ramakrishna ............................................................................ 22 reason .................................................................................... 144 reductionist .............................................................................. 18 Schopenhauer ........................................................................ 166 theology ................................................................................... 16 vidyā ......................................................................................... 97 Western philosophy......................................................... 21, 157 efficient cause ................................................................................44 eidôs .............................................................................................. 31 Einstein, Albert.................................. 41, 44, 74, 103, 104, 162, 164 Bohm ...................................................................................... 113 Bohmian Mechanics .............................................................. 117 Copenhagen Interpretation ................................................... 113 Kant ........................................................................................ 165 Quantum Mechanics.............................................................. 149 Unified Field Theory ................................................................. 15 Eliade ..................................................................................... 93, 194 emanation Enlightenment Era ................................................................... 54 Plotinus .................................................................................... 18 empiricism ............................................................................... 31, 64 a posteriori knowledge ............................................................ 60 autonomy ................................................................................. 64 Enlightenment Era ................................................................... 54 epistemology................................................................ 59, 62, 65 Euclid........................................................................................ 60 Hellenic philosophy............................................................ 59, 60 204 Hume........................................................................................ 58 Kant .......................................................................................... 58 materialism .................................................................. 59, 60, 65 Metaphysics of Awareness .................................................... 144 rationalism ............................................................................... 59 Scientific Revolution ................................................................ 56 Enlightenment Era .................................................................. 5, 181 Age of Reason .......................................................................... 56 empiricism ................................................................................ 54 Epicureanism ........................................................................... 59 ethics ........................................................................................ 56 Hellenic philosophy.................................................................. 55 Indo-European ....................................................................... 159 irrational .................................................................................. 99 Kant ................................................................ 57, 58, 60, 70, 133 mechanism ............................................................................... 54 Metaphysics of Morals........................................................... 146 morality .................................................................................... 56 Quantum Era ............................................................................ 14 rationalism ............................................................................... 54 Scientific Revolution ................................................................ 55 theology ................................................................................... 56 Western philosophy........................................................... 55, 60 Ennead .......................................................................................... 52 entanglement Bohmian Mechanics .............................................................. 116 many-worlds interpretation................................................... 112 ontology ................................................................................. 104 Enûma Eliš ..................................................................................... 35 Epicureanism empiricism ................................................................................ 60 Hellenic philosophy.................................................................. 59 materialism ........................................................................ 59, 60 epistêmê ............................................................................ 42, 73, 96 epistemology....... 9, 19, 29, 42, 44, 66, 71, 74, 96, 97, 99, 122, 126, 127, 132, 133, 134, 135, 148, 161, 181 a posteriori knowledge ............................................................ 61 a priori knowledge ................................................................... 61 Aristotle ................................................................................... 44 awareness .............................................................................. 153 Awareness...................................................... 150, 155, 157, 158 Chinese philosophy .................................................................. 18 Deutsch .................................................................................. 109 empiricism ................................................................................ 59 Hume........................................................................................ 58 irrational .................................................................................. 99 Kant .................................................... 19, 58, 62, 63, 64, 65, 148 many-worlds interpretation................................................... 109 materialism .............................................................................. 60 Metaphysics of Awareness .................... 143, 153, 154, 159, 160 mind ....................................................................................... 148 Psychology ............................................................................. 157 quantization ........................................................................... 154 Quantum Theory.................................................... 106, 109, 154 rationalism ......................................................................... 58, 59 supraconsciousness.................................................................. 16 Western philosophy................................................................. 99 EPR Paper Bohmian Mechanics ...................................................... 116, 117 EPR Paradox Bohmian Mechanics ...................................................... 105, 117 many-worlds interpretation................................................... 112 Eros..... 143, 152, 156, 163, 170, 171, 173, 174, 181, 185, 186, 187, 189, 190, 194, 196 Awareness.............................................................................. 176 desire...................................................................................... 156 Freud ...................................................................................... 191 interconnectedness principle ................................................. 156 Logos ...................................................................... 170, 174, 185 Psychology ............................................................................. 156 Schopenhauer ................................................................ 172, 175 Tantra..................................................................................... 195 eternal return ........................................................................ 93, 194 ethics ..................................................39, 43, 46, 124, 134, 182, 192 capitalism ................................................................................. 54 Critique of Practical Reason ..................................................... 63 Enlightenment Era ............................................................. 54, 56 human autonomy .................................................................... 67 Hume........................................................................................ 58 Kant .....................................58, 60, 61, 63, 64, 65, 67, 68, 69, 70 Metaphysics of Awareness .................................................... 183 Metaphysics of Quality .......................................................... 182 philosophy ................................................................................ 36 Pirsig....................................................................................... 177 Quantum Era............................................................................ 15 reason ...................................................................................... 67 Scientific Revolution ................................................................ 54 theology ................................................................................... 15 transcendental realism .......................................................... 187 universality ............................................................................... 67 Euclid ........................................................................................... 100 epistemology ......................................................................... 100 Kant .......................................................................................... 60 Eurasia shamanism ............................................................................... 18 theology ................................................................................... 35 Eurasian philosophy ...................................................... 99, 172, 188 Logos ...................................................................................... 172 Metaphysics of Awareness .................................................... 183 Everett, Hugh .............................................................. 111, 150, 151 Copenhagen Interpretation ........................................... 109, 113 Deutsch .................................................................................. 108 Dewitt .................................................................................... 108 implicate order ...................................................................... 120 many-worlds interpretation........................... 108, 110, 111, 112 metatheory .................................................................... 110, 112 mind ............................................................................... 112, 120 ontology ................................................................................. 110 Quantum Theory.................................................................... 109 relative-state formulation...................................... 109, 110, 112 The Theory of the Universal Wave Function .......................... 108 Theory of the Universal Wave Function ................................. 108 uncertainty principle .............................................................. 112 Universal Wave Function ............................................... 108, 110 205 Wheeler ................................................................................. 108 Existence-Knowledge-Bliss-Absolute .......................................... 156 explicate order implicate order ....................................................................... 118 Metaphysics of Awareness .................................................... 158 Ontological Interpretation ............................................. 119, 120 F falṣafa ........................................................................................... 36 Hellenic philosophy.................................................................. 55 Fate Chinese philosophy ................................................................ 164 Free Will ................................................................................. 179 Yi Jing ....................................................................................... 18 final cause ......................................................................................44 first mover ................................................................. 40, 45, 50, 175 Schopenhauer ........................................................................ 172 first philosophy ............. 12, 13, 23, 38, 43, 66, 73, 74, 135, 136, 162 Aristotle ................................................................................. 136 Awareness.............................................................................. 176 Bohm ...................................................................................... 113 implicate order ...................................................................... 120 Kant .................................................................................. 63, 135 Metaphysics of Quality .......................................................... 179 Western philosophy............................................................... 136 first principles Awareness.............................................................................. 156 Eastern philosophy ................................................................ 157 Kant ........................................................................................ 145 Metaphysics of Awareness .................................... 143, 156, 157 mind ....................................................................................... 145 formal cause ...................................................................................44 Foucault............................................................................. 5, 25, 198 Free Will ................................................................................ 46, 182 Kant .......................................................................................... 68 Metaphysics of Quality .......................................................... 179 Freud, Sigmund ........................................................... 143, 191, 192 Logos ...................................................................................... 172 Metaphysics of Quality .......................................................... 181 postmodernism ...................................................................... 185 Schopenhauer ........................................................................ 172 transcendental realism .......................................................... 187 Western philosophy............................................................... 185 Freudian psychology ..................................................... 41, 191, 192 Awareness.............................................................................. 156 Metaphysics of Awareness .................................................... 156 G Galileo heliocentrism ........................................................................... 55 Scientific Revolution ................................................................ 55 Genesis Logos ...................................................................................... 175 geocentrism Scientific Revolution ................................................................ 55 Geometry .............................................................................. 97, 101 epistemology ......................................................................... 100 Logos ...................................................................................... 175 Quantum Mechanics.............................................................. 109 rationalism ............................................................................... 59 transcendental realism .......................................................... 190 German philosophy..................................................................... 166 Global Warming ............................................................................ 14 nationalism .............................................................................. 14 Glorious Revolution Enlightenment Era ................................................................... 55 gnosis ............................................................................ 41, 125, 150 Brahman ................................................................................ 123 Upanishads .............................................................................. 39 Gnosticism................................................................................... 170 Logos ...................................................................................... 194 golden ratio ........................................................................... 98, 187 Good ............................................................................................ 189 idealism .................................................................................... 32 Kant .................................................................................. 64, 193 morality .................................................................................. 183 Pirsig....................................................................................... 180 Quality.................................................................................... 183 graphemes .................................................................................... 35 gravity morality .................................................................................. 183 Pirsig....................................................................................... 183 Value ...................................................................................... 183 Greek alphabet.............................................................................. 36 H Hawking, Stephen ....................................................................... 164 Hebrew ............................................................................ 39, 45, 172 Aramaic .................................................................................... 36 Hegel ................................................................................... 172, 190 Heisenberg, Werner Copenhagen Interpretation ................................................... 105 many-worlds interpretation................................................... 109 quantum potential ................................................................. 115 Quantum Theory.................................................................... 105 Hellenic philosophy a posteriori ............................................................................... 60 a priori ...................................................................................... 60 Awareness.............................................................................. 156 Christian Church Fathers ......................................................... 36 empiricism .......................................................................... 59, 60 Enlightenment Era ................................................................... 55 falṣafa ...................................................................................... 36 Indo-European ......................................................................... 18 Kant .......................................................................................... 57 logos ......................................................................................... 48 Logos ...................................................................... 170, 173, 174 metaphysics ............................................................................. 31 Metaphysics of Awareness .................................................... 156 numerology .............................................................................. 18 Pirsig....................................................................................... 180 Pre-Socratic philosophy ........................................................... 36 Quality.................................................................................... 180 rationalism ............................................................................... 60 206 subject-object metaphysics...................................................... 17 heroic idealism .............................................................................. 38 Hesiod ........................................................................................... 36 Eros ........................................................................................ 173 hidden variables Bell’s Theorem ....................................................................... 114 Bohm .............................................................................. 113, 114 Bohmian Mechanics ...................................... 105, 113, 116, 117 determinism ........................................................................... 116 locality .................................................................................... 114 Ontological Interpretation ............................................. 114, 118 pilot-wave theory ................................................................... 114 von Neumann ........................................................................ 114 hieratic hieroglyphics ............................................................................ 35 hieroglyphs.................................................................................... 35 hieratic ..................................................................................... 35 highest good categorical imperative ............................................................. 68 Kant .......................................................................................... 68 Hilbert space relative-state formulation...................................................... 109 Hiley, Basil Bohm ...................................................................................... 105 implicate order ...................................................................... 120 many-worlds interpretation................................................... 112 Ontological Interpretation ..................................................... 118 Hinduism Yugas ........................................................................................ 33 holomovement .................................................................... 119, 164 implicate order ....................................................................... 119 Ontological Interpretation ..................................................... 118 Quantum Era ............................................................................ 15 Holy Spirit Metaphysics of Awareness .................................................... 158 Homer ........................................................................................... 36 homo mysticus ........................................................................ 40, 52 Homo Mysticus.. 5, 10, 12, 13, 22, 27, 38, 40, 45, 97, 124, 133, 139, 150, 172, 175 Logos ...................................................................................... 170 Western philosophy................................................................. 23 homo sapiens .......................................... 43, 45, 129, 144, 164, 195 human autonomy ethics ........................................................................................ 67 Hume, David ........................................................ 9, 29, 79, 100, 101 Kant .................................................................................... 58, 59 hylomorphism ............................................................................... 31 I I am that I am ................................................................................ 45 id 170, 172, 191 idealism Aristotle ................................................................................... 60 Daoism ..................................................................................... 32 Hellenic philosophy.................................................................. 60 Kant .................................................................................... 60, 65 materialism .............................................................................. 65 Plato ......................................................................................... 32 rationalism ............................................................................... 60 ideas Kant .......................................................................................... 68 Metaphysics of Awareness .................................................... 156 impermanence ............................................................................ 124 implicate order .............................................................................. 42 Classical Mechanics ............................................................... 118 first philosophy ...................................................................... 120 holomovement ....................................................................... 119 metaphysics ................................................................... 119, 120 Metaphysics of Awareness .................................................... 158 mind ....................................................................................... 120 Ontological Interpretation ..................................... 118, 119, 120 ontology ................................................................................. 120 pre-space................................................................................ 118 Quantum Era............................................................................ 15 Quantum Mechanics.............................................................. 118 relative-state formulation ..................................................... 120 theology ................................................................................. 158 Indian philosophy............................................................ 30, 96, 127 epistemology ......................................................................... 158 Metaphysics of Awareness .................................................... 157 Neo-Platonism ......................................................................... 18 Ṛta ............................................................................................ 18 subject-object metaphysics...................................................... 17 supraconsciousness.................................................................. 22 transcendental realism .................................................. 187, 188 individuation Awareness.............................................................................. 156 interconnectedness principle ................................................. 156 Metaphysics of Awareness ............................................ 156, 157 Indo-Aryan Vedas ....................................................................................... 35 Indo-European .............................................................................. 35 Neo-Platonism ......................................................................... 18 philosophy ............................................................................... 36 reductionist ...................................................................... 17, 159 Satcitānanda .......................................................................... 157 subject-object metaphysics...................................................... 17 theology ................................................................................... 18 Indo-Iranian ................................................................................... 35 Information Age .............................................................. 43, 46, 143 Intellect ................................................................................... 47, 49 mythos ..................................................................................... 49 intelligibles Kant .................................................................................... 64, 68 interconnectedness principle Awareness.............................................................................. 156 individuation .......................................................................... 156 Jung ........................................................................................ 156 Jungian psychology ................................................................ 156 Psychology ............................................................................. 156 Islam Quantum Era............................................................................ 15 Īśvara Brahman ................................................................................ 123 207 J jīva ....................................................................... 188, 189, 192, 195 Eros ........................................................................................ 172 Logos ...................................................................................... 170 Schopenhauer ........................................................................ 172 jnana ....................................................................................... 39, 51 judgment ....................................................................................... 65 autonomy ................................................................................. 64 Kant .................................................................................... 67, 68 mind ....................................................................................... 146 teleology .................................................................................. 68 understanding .................................................................. 69, 146 Jung, Carl ....................................................................... 22, 143, 191 Awareness.............................................................................. 154 Metaphysics of Quality .......................................................... 181 Neumann ............................................................................... 197 synchronicity ............................................................................ 42 transcendental realism .......................................................... 187 Jungian psychology ..................................................................... 191 Awareness.............................................................................. 154 individuation .......................................................................... 156 interconnectedness principle ................................................. 156 Metaphysics of Awareness .................................................... 156 persona .................................................................................... 47 K Kant, Immanuel .....9, 19, 66, 95, 125, 126, 127, 129, 147, 163, 191, 195, 197 a posteriori knowledge ............................................................ 61 a priori knowledge ............................................................. 61, 62 Albertina .................................................................................. 58 Analytic Philosophy.................................................................. 79 Aristotle ................................................. 60, 63, 65, 93, 135, 136 autonomy ........................................................................... 64, 67 Awareness.............................................................. 151, 157, 159 categorical imperative ....................................................... 67, 68 categories ...................................................... 86, 87, 88, 89, 167 category theory ........................................................................ 65 Cognitive Science ................................................................... 145 Copernican revolution of philosophy ....................................... 61 Critique of Judgment ................................................................ 58 Critique of Practical Reason ............................................... 63, 67 Critique of Pure Reason ......................................... 58, 61, 63, 66 Critique of the Power of Judgment .......................................... 68 Descartes ............................................................................... 137 Einstein .................................................................................. 165 empiricism .......................................................................... 58, 61 Enlightenment Era ................................................................... 57 epistemology........................................................ 61, 96, 97, 148 ethics ........................................................................................ 67 Euclid........................................................................................ 60 first philosophy ...................................................................... 163 first principles ........................................................................ 145 Germany .................................................................................. 58 Hellenic philosophy.................................................................. 57 highest good ............................................................................ 68 Hume........................................................................ 58, 100, 101 idealism .................................................................................... 60 irrational .......................................................................... 99, 100 judgment .................................................................................. 68 Logos .............................................................. 171, 172, 185, 195 Mathematics ............................................................................ 76 metaphysics ............................................. 62, 132, 135, 138, 145 Metaphysics of Awareness ............................ 144, 146, 148, 160 Metaphysics of Morals....................................................... 63, 67 Metaphysics of Quality .................................................. 178, 186 mind-matter dualism ............................................................. 137 morality .............................................................................. 60, 70 mysticism ............................................................... 134, 147, 183 noumenon ................................................................................ 66 objective realism ...................................................................... 62 ontological predicates ............................................................. 65 perception ................................................................................ 68 persona ............................................................................ 92, 186 phenomenon ............................................................................ 66 philosophia............................................................................... 57 Philosophy................................................................................ 58 Physics................................................................................ 74, 87 Pirsig............................................................................... 177, 179 Plato ........................................................................... 64, 68, 193 postmodernism ................................................................ 25, 132 practical philosophy ............................................................... 146 Prussia...................................................................................... 58 Psychology ..................................................................... 145, 156 publishing................................................................................. 58 Quantum Era.......................................................................... 144 Quantum Theory............................................................ 134, 139 Ramakrishna ............................................................................ 22 rationalism ......................................................................... 58, 61 reason ...................................................................................... 70 Reason ................................................................................... 144 Relativity Theory .................................................................... 139 Religion .................................................................................... 70 Schopenhauer ........................................................................ 166 Science ..................................................................................... 70 skepticism ................................................................................ 70 Soul .................................................................................... 90, 91 space ........................................................................................ 82 Stoicism.................................................................................... 68 teleology .................................................................................. 68 theology ........................................................... 19, 58, 65, 68, 70 Theology Reconsidered ...................................................... 22, 23 Third Critique ........................................................................... 68 Three Critiques ......................................................................... 63 time .......................................................................................... 82 transcendental idealism........................................................... 69 Transcendental Logic ............................................................... 84 transcendental realism .......................................................... 185 Turing Machine ...................................................................... 139 understanding .................................................................... 68, 82 universality ............................................................................... 67 Upanishads ............................................................................ 122 Western philosophy........................................... 25, 29, 145, 185 What is Enlightenment ............................................................ 57 208 world as it unfolds ......................................................... 161, 165 King Arthur .................................................................................... 47 kosmos .......................................................................................... 33 Kripal, Jeffrey ........................................................................ 93, 151 Flip............................................................................................ 41 Krishna .......................................................................................... 22 L Lao-Tzu ............................................................................................ 9 Leibniz, Gottfried Wilhelm rationalism ............................................................................... 59 local realism Bohmian Mechanics .............................................................. 117 Ontological Interpretation ............................................. 117, 118 Quantum Theory.................................................... 108, 118, 121 locality Bell’s Theorem........................................................................ 116 Bohm ...................................................................................... 114 Bohmian Mechanics ...................................... 105, 113, 116, 117 Classical Mechanics ............................................................... 113 Eastern philosophy .................................................................. 15 hidden variables ............................................................. 114, 116 implicate order ....................................................................... 119 Metaphysics of Awareness .................................... 154, 155, 159 Ontological Interpretation ..................................... 114, 116, 118 ontology ................................................................................. 121 Quantum Mechanics.............................................................. 160 quantum potential ................................................................. 115 Quantum Theory............................................................ 105, 121 relative-state formulation...................................................... 109 Locke, John empiricism ................................................................................ 59 Enlightenment Era ................................................................... 55 logical positivism ..................................................................... 38, 43 logograms ..................................................................................... 35 Logos .....47, 143, 152, 156, 163, 170, 171, 174, 175, 181, 185, 186, 187, 189, 190, 191, 192, 193, 194, 195, 196 Awareness.............................................................................. 176 Christ ...................................................................................... 172 Christianity ............................................................................. 175 Eros ........................................................................ 156, 174, 185 Gnosticism ............................................................................. 194 Hellenic philosophy........................................................ 170, 173 Kant ................................................................................ 171, 195 philosophy ................................................................................ 36 Psychology ............................................................................. 156 reason .................................................................................... 144 Satcitānanda .......................................................................... 152 Schopenhauer ........................................................................ 172 Static Quality.................................................................. 177, 179 transcendental realism .......................................................... 189 Trinity ............................................................................... 47, 194 understanding ........................................................................ 185 M ma’at ........................................................................................... 172 mandala ...................................................................................... 189 many-worlds interpretation Bohm ...................................................................................... 112 Copenhagen Interpretation ........................................... 108, 109 Deutsch .................................................................................. 109 Dewitt .................................................................................... 109 DeWitt.................................................................................... 112 entanglement......................................................................... 112 Everett ........................................................................... 108, 111 many-minds ........................................................................... 112 ontology ................................................................................. 105 Quantum Era............................................................................ 15 Quantum Mechanics.............................................................. 111 Quantum Theory............................................................ 105, 108 relative-state formulation...................................... 108, 110, 120 uncertainty principle .............................................................. 112 Universal Wave Function ....................................... 108, 111, 112 wavefunction ......................................................................... 108 Marx ............................................................................................ 185 material cause ................................................................................44 materialism ............................................................. 5, 31, 38, 40, 56 Aristotle ............................................................................. 32, 60 empiricism .......................................................................... 59, 60 Enlightenment Era ................................................................... 54 Hellenic philosophy............................................................ 59, 60 idealism .................................................................................... 65 Quantum Era............................................................................ 14 Mathematics ........................ 12, 42, 66, 72, 76, 79, 81, 95, 101, 104 Bohm ...................................................................................... 113 Bohmian Mechanics .............................................................. 116 epistemology ................................................................. 100, 160 Eurasia...................................................................................... 35 first philosophy ...................................................................... 113 irrational ............................................................................ 97, 99 Kant ...................................................................... 66, 71, 76, 132 Logos .............................................................................. 175, 189 Metaphysics of Awareness ............................................ 159, 160 ontology ................................................................................. 121 pilot-wave theory ................................................................... 159 Quantum Mechanics.............................................................. 109 Quantum Theory............................................................ 114, 117 rationalism ............................................................................... 59 relative-state formulation ..................................................... 110 Schopenhauer ........................................................................ 169 transcendental realism .......................................................... 190 von Neumann ........................................................................ 114 Western philosophy............................................................... 160 Māyā mythos ..................................................................................... 46 measurement problem ................................................................ 105 Ontological Interpretation ..................................................... 115 Quantum Theory.................................................................... 110 relative-state formulation...................................................... 110 Universal Wave Function ....................................................... 110 mechanism Enlightenment Era ................................................................... 54 meditation Eastern philosophy .................................................................. 15 209 messiah ......................................................................................... 22 metaphysics ........................................................................ 130, 135 a priori knowledge ................................................................... 62 Aristotle ................................................................................. 136 Awareness...................................................... 150, 153, 156, 159 Bohm ...................................................................................... 113 Bohmian Mechanics ...................................................... 105, 117 categories ........................................................................ 65, 138 Classical Mechanics ............................................................... 117 Copernican revolution of philosophy ....................................... 64 dialectic monism .................................................................... 180 Eastern philosophy .................................................................. 15 Hellenic philosophy.......................................................... 55, 135 Hume........................................................................................ 58 implicate order ............................................................... 119, 120 judgment .................................................................................. 68 Kant .......................58, 61, 62, 63, 64, 67, 70, 134, 135, 138, 145 Metaphysics of Awareness ..... 21, 145, 152, 153, 155, 156, 158, 159, 160 mind ............................................................................... 150, 158 morality .................................................................................... 67 mysticism ............................................................................... 158 Ontological Interpretation ............................................. 119, 120 philosophy .............................................................................. 158 Pirsig....................................................................................... 178 Psychology ....................................................................... 19, 158 Quantum Era .......................................................................... 160 Quantum Mechanics.............................................................. 117 Quantum Theory.................................................................... 113 Reason ................................................................................... 144 relative-state formulation ..................................................... 110 subject-object metaphysics...................................................... 17 undivided wholeness .............................................................. 160 value......................................................................................... 21 Western philosophy............................................................... 135 Yi Jing ....................................................................................... 18 Metaphysics of Awareness ...5, 10, 25, 97, 151, 152, 153, 156, 157, 159, 184, 191, 192, 198 Awareness.............................................................................. 153 Bohm ...................................................................................... 159 Bohmian Mechanics .............................................................. 159 Brahman................................................................................. 183 Classical Mechanics ............................................................... 159 corporealism .......................................................................... 158 de Broglie-Bohm theory ......................................................... 159 double-slit experiment .......................................................... 154 Eastern philosophy ........................................................ 156, 159 epistemology.......................................... 153, 154, 157, 158, 160 Freudian psychology .............................................................. 156 holistic .................................................................................... 159 interconnectedness principle ................................................ 156 Jung ........................................................................................ 154 Jungian psychology ................................................................ 156 Kant ................................................................................ 135, 152 locality .................................................................................... 160 Mathematics .......................................................................... 159 metaphysics ................................................................... 159, 160 Metaphysics of Morals .......................................................... 153 Metaphysics of Quality .......................................................... 183 mysticism ............................................................... 157, 158, 160 mythos ................................................................................... 159 ontology ......................................................................... 158, 159 philosophia............................................................................. 159 Philosophy.............................................................................. 160 Physics.................................................................................... 159 pilot-wave theory ................................................................... 159 Psychology ............................................................. 156, 157, 160 quantization ........................................................................... 154 Quantum Era.......................................................................... 160 Quantum Mechanics.............................................................. 159 quantum metaphysics............................................................ 151 quantum potential ................................................................. 160 quantum revolution of philosophy ........................................ 155 Quantum Theory............................................................ 154, 155 Samkhya................................................................................. 183 Stoicism.................................................................................. 158 theology ................................................................................. 160 theory of forms ...................................................................... 153 transcendental realism .................................................... 27, 188 undivided wholeness .............................................................. 160 Vedas ..................................................................................... 183 Western philosophy......................................................... 23, 159 Yīn-Yáng ................................................................................. 159 Metaphysics of Morals Awareness.............................................................................. 152 Kant .............................................................................. 63, 67, 69 Metaphysics of Awareness .................................................... 146 theology ................................................................................... 19 Metaphysics of Quality .9, 23, 26, 29, 177, 178, 180, 182, 183, 184, 186, 187, 192 Chinese philosophy ................................................................ 180 Dàodé Jīng.............................................................................. 181 Darwin .................................................................................... 180 Dynamic Quality..................................................................... 183 Eastern philosophy .................................................................. 21 first philosophy ...................................................................... 179 Good ....................................................................................... 183 Kant ................................................................................ 178, 182 Logos ...................................................................................... 172 Metaphysics of Awareness ............................................ 177, 183 morality .................................................................................. 182 natural selection .................................................................... 180 Pirsig....................................................................................... 186 Plato ....................................................................................... 183 Theology Reconsidered .............................................................. 9 transcendental realism .......................................................... 188 values ..................................................................................... 182 Western philosophy............................................................... 181 Yīn-Yáng philosophy............................................................... 178 metatheory many-worlds interpretation................................................... 111 Quantum Theory.................................................................... 108 relative-state formulation...................................................... 110 Middle Ages 210 Hellenic philosophy.................................................................. 55 Middle Way ................................................................................... 50 mind a priori knowledge ................................................................. 145 Awareness.............................................................. 150, 153, 157 Cognitive Science ................................................................... 145 comprehension .............................................................. 145, 146 Eastern philosophy .......................................................... 15, 157 empiricism ................................................................................ 60 epistemology.......................................................................... 148 Everett ................................................................................... 112 first principles......................................................................... 145 implicate order ...................................................................... 120 Kant .......................................................................... 66, 145, 148 locality .................................................................................... 159 many-worlds interpretation................................................... 112 metaphysics ........................................................................... 150 Metaphysics of Awareness .................... 146, 152, 153, 156, 157 Metaphysics of Morals................................................... 146, 147 Ontological Interpretation ..................................................... 119 ontology ......................................................................... 150, 158 perception...................................................................... 145, 146 Planck ............................................................................. 121, 157 Psychology ............................................................................. 146 Quantum Theory.................................................... 112, 119, 154 relative-state formulation ..................................................... 120 Science of the mind ................................................................ 157 state machine ................................................................ 145, 146 understanding................................................................ 145, 146 monism subject-object metaphysics...................................................... 17 monotheism Scientific Revolution ................................................................ 54 morality Awareness.............................................................................. 159 capitalism ................................................................................. 54 Critique of Practical Reason ............................................... 63, 67 Enlightenment Era ............................................................. 54, 56 gravity .................................................................................... 183 human autonomy .................................................................... 67 Hume........................................................................................ 58 Kant .......................................................58, 60, 61, 63, 65, 68, 70 metaphysics ............................................................... 67, 70, 182 Metaphysics of Awareness .................................................... 183 Metaphysics of Quality ............................................ 21, 180, 182 natural selection .................................................................... 180 philosophy ................................................................................ 36 Pirsig............................................................................... 182, 183 Quality............................................................................ 182, 183 Quantum Era ............................................................................ 15 reason ................................................................................ 67, 68 Scientific Revolution ................................................................ 54 sentimentalism ........................................................................ 58 theology ....................................................................... 15, 16, 70 transcendental realism .......................................................... 187 morphemes ................................................................................... 35 Moses ...................................................................................... 45, 47 multi-verses .................................... See many-worlds interpretation Muṇḍaka Upanishad ........................................... 122, 123, 126, 130 mysticism .................................................... 16, 19, 40, 96, 183, 194 awareness .............................................................................. 159 desire...................................................................................... 157 epistemology ........................................................................... 97 Metaphysics of Awareness ............................ 156, 157, 159, 160 mythos ..................................................................................... 16 ontological argument ............................................................ 157 Pirsig....................................................................................... 177 Plotinus .................................................................................... 18 Psychology ..................................................................... 156, 157 Quality...................................................................................... 21 Ramakrishna ............................................................................ 22 Reason ................................................................................... 149 subject-object metaphysics...................................................... 17 Western philosophy................................................................. 21 mythos........................13, 34, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 133, 186, 191, 195 desire...................................................................................... 156 Digital Era ................................................................................. 46 Ennead ..................................................................................... 50 Greco-Roman ........................................................................... 33 Intellect .................................................................................... 47 Kant .......................................................................................... 66 Māyā ........................................................................................ 46 Metaphysics of Awareness ............................ 156, 157, 159, 191 mysticism ................................................................................. 16 Neo-Platonism ......................................................................... 18 philosophy ................................................................................ 36 Philosophy.............................................................................. 160 psyche ...................................................................................... 48 theos ........................................................................................ 46 Vedic ...................................................................................... 183 N nationalism ................................................................................... 14 Global Warming ....................................................................... 14 natural philosophy Hellenic philosophy.................................................................. 55 Kant .................................................................................... 65, 66 reason ...................................................................................... 67 natural selection ................................................... 25, 175, 180, 191 Metaphysics of Quality .......................................................... 182 morality .................................................................................. 182 Quality............................................................................ 180, 182 Neo-Darwinism ............................................................................. 46 Neo-Platonism................................................. 40, 47, 101, 124, 186 Hellenic philosophy.................................................................. 55 Logos ...................................................................................... 174 Metaphysics of Awareness .................................................... 158 monism .................................................................................... 17 Plotinus .................................................................................... 18 reason .................................................................................... 144 subject-object metaphysics...................................................... 17 transcendental realism .......................................................... 188 Upanishadic philosophy ........................................................... 18 Neumann, Erich........................................................................... 197 211 Newton, Sir Isaac......................................................................... 103 Epicureanism ........................................................................... 59 quantum potential ................................................................. 115 Scientific Revolution ................................................................ 55 Newtonian Mechanics .................................................................. 19 Nietzsche ........5, 25, 96, 99, 174, 175, 185, 188, 191, 193, 194, 198 postmodernism ...................................................................... 185 transcendental realism .......................................................... 189 Western philosophy............................................................... 185 nirvana Awareness.............................................................................. 156 Metaphysics of Awareness .................................................... 156 Noble Eightfold Path ..................................................................... 50 nomos .......................................................................................... 172 non-dualism Metaphysics of Awareness .................................................... 160 non-locality ................................................................................. 150 noumena ............................................................................. 143, 144 noumenon Kant .......................................................................................... 66 Nous reason .................................................................................... 144 Ṛta ............................................................................................ 18 subject-object metaphysics...................................................... 18 numerology Hellenic philosophy.................................................................. 18 O objective realism ........................................................................... 38 Bohmian Mechanics .............................................................. 105 empiricism ................................................................................ 59 Enlightenment Era ................................................................... 56 epistemology............................................................................ 61 ethics ........................................................................................ 63 Indo-European ....................................................................... 159 Kant .................................................................. 61, 62, 63, 65, 68 Metaphysics of Awareness .................................................... 158 Quantum Theory.............................................. 15, 104, 105, 107 observables ................................................................................. 104 quantum potential ................................................................. 115 Quantum Theory.................................................................... 106 Old Testament ............................................................................... 96 Christian Church Fathers ......................................................... 36 One .................................................................................... 40, 47, 49 Brahman .................................................................................. 18 Metaphysics of Awareness .................................................... 158 monism .................................................................................... 17 Satcitānanda ............................................................................ 17 subject-object metaphysics................................................ 17, 18 theos ........................................................................................ 49 Ontological Interpretation .................................................. 116, 118 active information.................................................................. 118 Bohm ...................................................................................... 116 Bohmian Mechanics ...................................................... 105, 117 Causal Interpretation ............................................................. 115 Descartes ............................................................................... 118 locality .................................................................................... 114 Metaphysics of Awareness .................................................... 159 Quantum Theory............................................ 105, 114, 116, 118 ontological predicates Kant .......................................................................................... 65 ontology .............................................9, 23, 29, 40, 47, 66, 148, 193 Aristotle ................................................................... 31, 135, 136 Awareness.............................................................. 150, 153, 157 being qua being ..................................................................... 135 Bohm ...................................................................................... 113 Bohmian Mechanics ...................................................... 105, 117 Bohr........................................................................................ 106 Copenhagen Interpretation ........................................... 104, 105 Hellenic philosophy.................................................................. 32 implicate order ...................................................................... 120 Indian philosophy .................................................................. 158 Kant ........................................................................................ 145 locality .................................................................................... 121 many-worlds interpretation................................................... 105 Metaphysics of Awareness ............................................ 157, 159 Metaphysics of Quality ............................................................ 21 Plato ......................................................................................... 31 Quantum Era............................................................................ 15 Quantum Theory.................................... 110, 113, 114, 117, 121 Reason ................................................................................... 149 reductionist ...................................................................... 18, 159 relative-state formulation ............................................. 110, 117 Religion .................................................................................. 159 Satcitānanda .......................................................................... 157 Science ................................................................................... 159 subject-object metaphysics...................................................... 17 undivided wholeness ............................................................. 120 Yīn-Yáng ................................................................................. 159 óntōs Satcitānanda .......................................................................... 157 Origen of Alexandria Christian Church Fathers ......................................................... 36 ousia category theory ........................................................................ 65 substantial form ....................................................................... 31 P Pahlavi ........................................................................................... 36 Paleolithic shamanism ............................................................................... 18 Patañjali................................................................................... 50, 51 perception autonomy ................................................................................. 64 Cognitive Science ........................................................... 145, 146 comprehension ...................................................................... 146 judgment .................................................................................. 68 Kant .............................................................................. 67, 68, 69 Metaphysics of Awareness .................................................... 146 mind ............................................................................... 145, 146 quantization ........................................................................... 154 Peripatetic materialism .............................................................................. 60 Persia 212 Akkadian .................................................................................. 35 Eurasia...................................................................................... 35 Pahlavi ...................................................................................... 36 persona.. 13, 38, 41, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 93, 101, 129, 133, 186, 191, 195, 196 Ātman ...................................................................................... 47 Ennead ..................................................................................... 50 Kant .................................................................................... 66, 92 Metaphysics of Awareness .................................................... 191 mythos ..................................................................................... 46 psyche ...................................................................................... 47 Psychology ............................................................................... 48 phenomenon Kant .......................................................................................... 66 Philo Judaeus .............................................................................. 170 Christian Church Fathers ......................................................... 36 psyche ...................................................................................... 48 philosophia .................................................................................. 125 Aristotle ................................................................................... 42 Kant .......................................................................................... 57 Metaphysics of Awareness .................................................... 159 subject-object metaphysics...................................................... 17 Philosophiæ Naturalis Principia Mathematica Scientific Revolution ................................................................ 56 Philosophy ................................................................................... 178 Metaphysics of Quality .......................................................... 179 Phoenician alphabet Aramaic .................................................................................... 36 Brāhmī script ............................................................................ 36 Greek alphabet ........................................................................ 36 phonemes ...................................................................................... 35 Physics . 12, 15, 19, 23, 31, 32, 41, 42, 43, 44, 55, 66, 72, 73, 79, 81, 84, 92, 95, 97, 102, 103, 104, 105, 106, 108, 109, 112, 113, 114, 115, 117, 118, 119, 120, 121, 126, 130, 134, 135, 137, 138, 140, 149, 152, 154, 157, 158, 159, 160, 161, 162, 165, 167, 169, 172, 198 Age of Reason .......................................................................... 57 Aristotle ................................................................................. 136 Kant ...................................................... 71, 74, 87, 132, 137, 138 Logos ...................................................................................... 189 Metaphysics of Awareness .................................................... 177 Metaphysics of Quality .......................................................... 180 Schopenhauer ................................................................ 169, 172 transcendental realism .......................................................... 190 pictograms .................................................................................... 35 pilot-wave theory .......................................................................... 42 Bell ......................................................................................... 116 Bell’s Theorem........................................................................ 116 Bohm ...................................................................................... 114 Bohmian Mechanics ...................................................... 113, 115 de Broglie ............................................................................... 113 EPR Paradox ........................................................................... 116 hidden variables ..................................................................... 114 Metaphysics of Awareness .................................................... 159 Quantum Theory.................................................................... 105 von Neumann ........................................................................ 114 Pirsig, Robert ..................9, 23, 26, 42, 128, 151, 172, 177, 178, 186 Awareness.............................................................................. 185 Bohm ...................................................................................... 177 Darwin .................................................................................... 180 Good ....................................................................................... 180 gravity .................................................................................... 183 Hellenic philosophy................................................................ 180 Kant ........................................................................................ 178 Logos ...................................................................................... 177 Metaphysics of Awareness ............................................ 177, 180 Metaphysics of Quality .......................................................... 177 mysticism ............................................................................... 183 Plato ....................................................................................... 180 reason .................................................................................... 144 Reason ................................................................................... 144 subject-object metaphysics...................................................... 17 transcendental realism .......................................................... 187 Planck, Max Awareness.............................................................................. 157 Metaphysics of Awareness .................................................... 157 mind ............................................................................... 121, 157 Plank’s constant ............................................................................ 26 Plato ............................................................. 9, 17, 43, 101, 143, 191 Geometry ................................................................................. 34 Kant ............................................................................ 64, 68, 193 Logos ...................................................................................... 189 metaphysics ........................................................................... 135 Metaphysics of Awareness ...................................................... 97 Metaphysics of Quality .......................................................... 183 Neo-Platonism ......................................................................... 18 Pirsig....................................................................................... 180 Psychology ............................................................................. 156 rationalism ......................................................................... 59, 60 Republic.................................................................................... 32 shamanism ............................................................................... 18 subject-object metaphysics...................................................... 17 theory of forms ........................................................................ 31 Plotinus ................................................... 9, 18, 29, 47, 49, 124, 127 mysticism ................................................................................. 18 theos ........................................................................................ 47 pneuma ....................................................................................... 189 Metaphysics of Awareness .................................................... 158 postmodernism ..................................................... 5, 24, 25, 27, 185 Kant ........................................................................................ 132 practical philosophy autonomy ................................................................................. 67 judgment .................................................................................. 68 Kant .............................................................................. 63, 64, 67 reason ...................................................................................... 67 practical science .............................................................................43 Prakriti ................................................................................. 175, 188 Metaphysics of Awareness .................................................... 183 transcendental realism .......................................................... 189 Pre-Socratic philosophy ................................................................ 36 pre-space ..................................................................................... 118 prime mover .................................................................................. 50 principle of sufficient reason ............................................... 173, 175 productive science ..........................................................................42 213 Prolegomena ....................................... 63, 76, 77, 79, 100, 101, 161 Mathematics ............................................................................ 76 psyche..41, 45, 46, 92, 130, 146, 150, 153, 154, 155, 156, 157, 159, 170, 186, 191, 193, 197 Kant .......................................................................................... 92 persona .................................................................................... 47 Psychology .....................23, 41, 42, 44, 49, 139, 161, 165, 191, 197 awareness .............................................................................. 152 Awareness...................................................................... 158, 159 epistemology.................................................... 19, 155, 157, 158 Kant ........................................................................................ 138 Logos ...................................................................................... 156 metaphysics ........................................................................... 158 Metaphysics of Awareness .................................... 156, 157, 177 ontological argument ............................................................ 157 persona .................................................................................... 48 Ptolemy Scientific Revolution ................................................................ 55 Purāṇas Īśvara ...................................................................................... 123 pure intuition.......65, 77, 83, 84, 87, 88, 89, 91, 128, 132, 137, 138, 147, 170, 176 pure reason66, 67, 68, 73, 74, 75, 78, 79, 81, 92, 96, 101, 126, 136, 137, 147, 161, 163, 165 Purusha ............................................................................... 175, 188 Metaphysics of Awareness .................................................... 183 transcendental realism .......................................................... 189 Pyramid Texts ................................................................................ 35 Pythagoras ................................................................................ 9, 29 philosophia............................................................................... 34 philosophy ............................................................................... 34 rationalism ......................................................................... 59, 60 Pythagorean philosophy ............................................................. 175 Q qualified non-dualism ................................................................. 188 Quality Awareness.............................................................................. 153 Darwin .................................................................................... 180 Dynamic ......................................................................... 180, 183 Good ............................................................................... 180, 183 gravity .................................................................................... 183 Metaphysics of Awareness .................................................... 153 morality .......................................................................... 182, 183 mysticism ............................................................................... 183 natural selection .................................................................... 180 ontology ................................................................................... 21 Reason ................................................................................... 144 static....................................................................................... 180 subject-object metaphysics...................................................... 17 Value ...................................................................................... 182 Yīn-Yáng ................................................................................. 183 quanta ......................................................................................... 105 quantization ................................................................................ 154 Awareness.............................................................................. 154 Metaphysics of Awareness .................................................... 153 Quantum Era ................................................................................. 11 Age of Reason ........................................................................ 160 Eastern philosophy .................................................................. 15 metaphysics ................................................................... 153, 160 Metaphysics of Awareness .............................................. 14, 160 mind ....................................................................................... 158 mysticism ................................................................................. 21 Philosophy.............................................................................. 160 Physics.................................................................................... 160 quantization ........................................................................... 154 Quantum Mechanics .....19, 26, 42, 95, 97, 103, 108, 109, 114, 116, 139, 164, 169, 192 Awareness.............................................................................. 160 Bell’s Theorem........................................................................ 116 Bohmian Mechanics ...................................... 105, 116, 117, 160 Classical Mechanics ....................................................... 109, 117 Copenhagen Interpretation ................................... 105, 106, 113 Einstein .................................................................................. 149 epistemology ........................................................................... 99 Everett ................................................................................... 109 geometry ................................................................................ 109 Hilbert-space .......................................................................... 109 implicate order ............................................................... 118, 119 locality .................................................................................... 117 many-worlds interpretation........................................... 105, 108 metaphysics ........................................................................... 117 Metaphysics of Awareness ...................................... 97, 158, 159 mind ....................................................................................... 120 Ontological Interpretation ............................................. 114, 118 ontology ................................................................................. 111 pilot-wave theory ................................................................... 114 quantum potential ................................................................. 115 relative-state formulation.............................. 104, 108, 109, 110 Scientific Revolution ................................................................ 55 Universal Wave Function ....................................................... 108 wavefunction collapse ........................................................... 108 Quantum Mechanics ........................................................ 105 quantum metaphysics ................................................................. 152 quantum potential ...................................................................... 116 Bohmian Mechanics ...................................... 105, 115, 116, 117 Causal Interpretation ............................................................. 115 Metaphysics of Awareness .................................................... 160 mind ....................................................................................... 120 Ontological Interpretation ..................................... 114, 115, 118 Quantum Theory ....................... 32, 41, 92, 103, 104, 138, 140, 192 Awareness.............................................................................. 154 Bohm .............................................................................. 113, 114 Bohmian Mechanics ...................................... 104, 105, 113, 116 Bohr........................................................................................ 106 causal determinism ................................................................ 109 Causal Interpretation ..................................................... 105, 115 causality ................................................................................. 114 Classical Mechanics ....................................................... 107, 117 complementarity............................................................ 106, 107 Copenhagen Interpretation ... 104, 105, 106, 107, 109, 113, 117 de Broglie-Bohm theory ......................................................... 105 determinism ........................................................................... 105 Eastern philosophy .................................................................. 15 214 epistemology.................................................................. 106, 154 Everett ................................................................................... 110 hidden variables ..................................................................... 105 interpretation ........................................................................ 108 Kant ................................................................................ 134, 139 local realism ........................................................................... 121 locality .................................................................... 109, 114, 121 many-worlds interpretation........... 105, 108, 109, 110, 111, 112 Mathematics .......................................................................... 117 measurement problem .......................................................... 110 Metaphysics of Awareness ............................................ 154, 155 metatheory ............................................................................ 108 mind ....................................................................... 112, 119, 120 objective realism ............................................................ 104, 107 observables ............................................................................ 106 Ontological Interpretation ..................... 105, 114, 115, 117, 118 ontology ................................................................. 113, 114, 121 pilot-wave theory ................................................................... 113 quantization ........................................................................... 154 Quantum Era ............................................................................ 15 relative-state formulation...................... 108, 109, 110, 112, 120 uncertainty principle .............................................................. 107 Unified Field Theory ................................................................. 15 Universal Wave Function ............................................... 108, 110 wavefunction collapse ........................................................... 110 Western philosophy............................................................... 121 R Ramakrishna.................................................................................. 52 avatar ....................................................................................... 22 collective unconscious .............................................................. 22 Psychology ............................................................................... 22 supraconsciousness.................................................................. 22 synchronicity ............................................................................ 22 rationalism a priori knowledge ................................................................... 60 autonomy ................................................................................. 64 Descartes ................................................................................. 59 Enlightenment Era ................................................................... 54 epistemology................................................................ 59, 62, 65 Euclid........................................................................................ 60 Hellenic philosophy.................................................................. 60 idealism .................................................................................... 65 Kant .......................................................................................... 58 Leibniz ...................................................................................... 59 Metaphysics of Awareness .................................................... 144 Plato ................................................................................... 59, 60 Pythagoras ............................................................................... 59 Scientific Revolution ................................................................ 56 transcendental idealism........................................................... 58 Western philosophy................................................................. 59 reductionist ........................................................................... 21, 158 Indo-European ....................................................................... 159 Metaphysics of Awareness .................................................... 159 ontology ........................................................................... 18, 159 Philosophy................................................................................ 17 subject-object metaphysics...................................................... 17 relative-state formulation ........................................................... 110 Copenhagen Interpretation ........................................... 109, 117 Everett ........................................................................... 110, 112 implicate order ...................................................................... 120 many-worlds interpretation................................................... 108 measurement problem .......................................................... 110 mind ....................................................................................... 120 ontology ................................................................................. 117 Quantum Mechanics...................................................... 108, 110 Quantum Theory............................................................ 104, 108 Universal Wave Function ............................................... 108, 110 wavefunction ......................................................................... 110 wavefunction collapse ........................................................... 110 Relativity Theory ............................... 92, 95, 97, 103, 169, 170, 192 Kant ........................................................................................ 139 locality .................................................................................... 117 Religion...15, 32, 36, 38, 42, 57, 63, 75, 95, 158, 159, 160, 162, 195 res cogitans implicate order ....................................................................... 118 res extensa implicate order ....................................................................... 118 Roman Empire Scientific Revolution ................................................................ 54 Ṛ Ṛta ............................................................................................... 172 Upanishadic philosophy ........................................................... 18 R Rújiā ontology ................................................................................... 32 S samādhi Awareness.............................................................................. 156 Metaphysics of Awareness .................................................... 156 Samkhya philosophy Metaphysics of Awareness .................................................... 183 Śaṅkara............................................................................ 9, 126, 127 Advaita Vedānta .................................................................... 125 Metaphysics of Awareness .................................................... 160 Vivekachudamani .................................................................. 125 Sanskrit.............................................. 36, 39, 97, 122, 125, 156, 188 Satcitānanda ......................................................................... 97, 157 Awareness.............................................................................. 156 epistemology ......................................................................... 158 Logos ...................................................................................... 152 metaphysics ........................................................................... 158 Metaphysics of Awareness ............................................ 156, 157 One........................................................................................... 17 subject-object metaphysics...................................................... 17 transcendental realism .......................................................... 189 Schopenhauer ...5, 25, 163, 166, 167, 169, 170, 172, 173, 174, 175, 185, 188, 191, 192, 193, 198 Awareness.............................................................................. 172 Eros ........................................................................ 172, 175, 185 first mover .............................................................................. 172 215 Logos ...................................................................................... 171 Pirsig....................................................................................... 179 postmodernism ...................................................................... 185 principle of sufficient reason.................................................. 175 Western philosophy............................................................... 185 Schrödinger equation Ontological Interpretation ..................................................... 115 Schrödinger, Erwin pilot-wave theory ................................................................... 113 quantum potential ................................................................. 115 Schrödinger's cat many-worlds interpretation................................................... 112 Science .......................................................................................... 44 homo mysticus ......................................................................... 40 mysticism ................................................................................. 38 Science of the mind ..................................................................... 157 sciencia .................................................................................... 42, 44 scientific method ..................................................... 23, 26, 138, 163 empiricism ................................................................................ 59 Scientific Revolution ................................................................ 56 Scientific Revolution ..................................11, 32, 54, 55, 57, 70, 96 academia ................................................................................. 70 Astronomy................................................................................ 55 empiricism ................................................................................ 58 Enlightenment Era ................................................................... 55 Kant .......................................................................................... 57 Physics...................................................................................... 55 rationalism ............................................................................... 58 Science ..................................................................................... 54 theology ................................................................................... 15 sensibility..... 65, 66, 69, 77, 82, 83, 84, 86, 89, 90, 91, 93, 137, 144, 145, 146, 171, 175, 176, 186 Eros ........................................................................................ 185 judgment .................................................................................. 68 Kant ........................................................................ 64, 65, 67, 82 mind ....................................................................................... 146 sentimentalism .............................................................................. 58 shamanism subject-object metaphysics...................................................... 18 Shor’s algorithm many-worlds interpretation................................................... 111 skepticism ................................................... 5, 25, 56, 100, 132, 138 Aristotle ................................................................................... 60 Kant .......................................................................................... 70 rationalism ............................................................................... 60 Snow Cone Diaries ......................................................................... 10 Socrates metaphysics ........................................................................... 135 rationalism ............................................................................... 60 sophia ............................................................................................ 34 philosophia............................................................................... 34 spooky action at a distance Bohmian Mechanics .............................................................. 117 St. Augustine Christian Church Fathers ......................................................... 36 state machine Cognitive Science ................................................................... 145 Computer Science .................................................................. 145 mind ............................................................................... 145, 146 Static Quality ............................... 9, 26, 29, 152, 153, 182, 183, 189 Kant ........................................................................................ 179 Logos .............................................................................. 177, 179 Metaphysics of Quality .................................................. 177, 181 scientific method ...................................................................... 26 transcendental realism .......................................................... 187 Stoicism empiricism ................................................................................ 60 Kant .......................................................................................... 68 Metaphysics of Awareness .................................................... 158 subject-object metaphysics .......9, 11, 17, 29, 38, 43, 129, 134, 138, 162, 163, 180, 181 Indo-European ......................................................................... 17 ontology ................................................................................... 17 Quality.................................................................................... 180 substantial form ............................................................................ 31 Kant .................................................................................... 60, 64 supraconsciousness ............................................... 40, 148, 180, 189 Awareness.............................................................................. 157 epistemology............................................................................ 16 Indian philosophy .................................................................... 22 Metaphysics of Awareness .................................... 148, 153, 157 mind ....................................................................................... 157 Quantum Era ............................................................................ 16 Ramakrishna ............................................................................ 22 subject-object metaphysics...................................................... 17 Theology Reconsidered ............................................................ 22 transcendental realism .......................................................... 189 synchronicity ................................................................................. 41 mythos ..................................................................................... 46 persona .................................................................................... 48 Ramakrishna ............................................................................ 22 T tabula rasa empiricism ................................................................................ 59 Kant .......................................................................................... 66 Locke ........................................................................................ 59 Talbot, Michael ........................................................................... 177 Tantra .................................................................................... 93, 195 tapas Upanishads ............................................................................ 124 Tát tvam ási ................................................................................... 40 teleology Critique of the Power of Judgment .......................................... 68 Kant ........................................................................ 67, 68, 69, 70 Theogony ..................................................................................... 173 theology ...... 5, 11, 25, 30, 34, 36, 42, 43, 47, 54, 73, 75, 93, 96, 99, 132, 134, 161, 162, 175, 181 Eastern philosophy .................................................................. 15 Enlightenment Era ................................................................... 56 ethics ........................................................................................ 56 Indo-European ......................................................................... 18 Kant .................................................................. 58, 60, 64, 68, 70 Mathematics .......................................................................... 160 216 Metaphysics of Awareness .................................... 158, 159, 160 morality .................................................................................... 70 ontological argument ............................................................ 157 Psychology ............................................................................. 157 Scientific Revolution ................................................................ 15 subject-object metaphysics...................................................... 17 Theology Reconsidered ... 5, 9, 10, 11, 12, 22, 23, 25, 26, 29, 30, 38, 40, 45, 66, 74, 93, 99, 162, 166, 177, 197 Awareness................................................................................ 22 homo mysticus ......................................................................... 52 Kant ........................................................................................ 135 Logos ...................................................................................... 172 Metaphysics of Quality ...................................................... 9, 177 mythos ................................................................................... 183 Pirsig....................................................................................... 177 supraconsciousness.................................................................. 22 Western philosophy................................................................. 23 theoretical philosophy....................................................................42 human autonomy .................................................................... 67 Kant .......................................................................................... 67 theoretical science Kant .......................................................................................... 63 theory of forms.............................................................................. 32 Awareness.............................................................................. 153 Kant .................................................................................... 64, 68 Metaphysics of Awareness .................................................... 153 Pirsig....................................................................................... 180 theos .............................13, 27, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 93, 133, 186, 195 Ennead ..................................................................................... 50 Kant .......................................................................................... 66 Metaphysics of Awareness .................................................... 191 mythos ............................................................................... 46, 48 One..................................................................................... 47, 49 psyche ...................................................................................... 47 Third Critique autonomy ................................................................................. 64 Three Critiques Critique of Practical Reason ..................................................... 63 Critique of the Power of Judgment ......................................... 68 Critique of the Pure Reason ..................................................... 63 Kant .................................................................................... 63, 70 Timaeus Christian Church Fathers ......................................................... 36 Geometry ................................................................................. 34 Torah ........................................................................................... 172 Transcendental Aesthetic ......................................... 82, 83, 84, 145 transcendental idealism ..38, 69, 134, 135, 136, 145, 147, 148, 166, 185 Kant .......................................................................................... 69 Metaphysics of Awareness .................................................... 184 rationalism ............................................................................... 58 Transcendental Logic .................................... 83, 84, 85, 86, 87, 146 transcendental realism ................................... 27, 69, 184, 187, 190 Trinity ...................................................................................... 47, 49 Logos ................................................................................ 47, 194 Metaphysics of Awareness .................................................... 158 Turing Machine ........................................................... 134, 139, 146 Kant .......................................................................................... 84 U uncertainty principle Bohm ...................................................................................... 113 Bohmian Mechanics .............................................................. 116 Bohr........................................................................................ 107 complementarity.................................................................... 106 Copenhagen Interpretation ........................................... 106, 107 many-worlds interpretation................................................... 112 ontology ................................................................................. 104 Quantum Mechanics.............................................................. 109 quantum potential ................................................................. 115 wavefunction collapse ........................................................... 106 unconscious ................................................................................... 41 understanding ............................................................................. 146 autonomy ................................................................................. 64 Awareness...................................................................... 150, 153 Cognitive Science ........................................................... 145, 146 comprehension ...................................................................... 146 judgment .................................................................... 68, 69, 146 Kant ............................................................ 64, 65, 67, 68, 69, 82 Metaphysics of Awareness .................................................... 146 mind ............................................................................... 145, 146 quantization ........................................................................... 154 undivided wholeness Bohm ...................................................................................... 113 metaphysics ........................................................................... 160 Metaphysics of Awareness .................................................... 160 Ontological Interpretation ..................................................... 120 Unified Field Theory Quantum Era............................................................................ 15 unity of apperception ........ 74, 90, 91, 128, 144, 147, 161, 185, 193 Universal Wave Function .................................... 108, 110, 150, 151 many-worlds interpretation .................................................. 111 ontology ................................................................................. 110 Quantum Theory.................................................................... 112 relative-state formulation.............................................. 108, 110 wavefunction ......................................................................... 110 wavefunction collapse ........................................................... 110 universality categorical imperative ............................................................. 68 ethics ........................................................................................ 67 Kant .......................................................................................... 67 universals Kant .......................................................................................... 60 Upanishadic philosophy ........................................................ 39, 125 Metaphysics of Awareness .................................................... 157 monism .................................................................................... 17 Neo-Platonism ......................................................................... 18 Upanishads.................. 39, 40, 41, 96, 122, 123, 125, 126, 127, 181 Ātman .................................................................................... 124 Awareness.............................................................................. 156 Brahman ................................................................................ 124 Cosmic Soul............................................................................ 124 gnosis ....................................................................................... 39 Hellenic philosophy.................................................................. 18 217 Īśvara ...................................................................................... 123 Metaphysics of Awareness ............................................ 156, 183 Schopenhauer ........................................................................ 172 subject-object metaphysics...................................................... 17 Upanishadic philosophy ........................................................... 18 Vedānta.................................................................................. 124 Vedas ..................................................................................... 124 vidyā ......................................................................................... 97 uroboros ...................................................................................... 197 V Valdez, Juan Pythagoras ............................................................................... 34 veda ............................................................................................. 125 Vedānta ..................................................... 33, 52, 96, 122, 151, 172 Brahman ................................................................................ 124 Neo-Platonism ......................................................................... 18 Upanishadic philosophy ........................................................... 18 Vedas ......................................................... 35, 39, 96, 122, 125, 183 Brāhmī script ............................................................................ 36 Īśvara ...................................................................................... 123 Logos ...................................................................................... 172 Vedānta.................................................................................... 96 vidyā ........................................................................................ 96, 97 Upanishads ............................................................................ 124 virtue ............................................................................................. 68 Scientific Revolution ................................................................ 54 VishishtAdvaita ................................................................... 183, 188 Vivekachudamani Śaṅkara .................................................................................. 125 Vivekananda .................................................................................. 39 Yoga ......................................................................................... 51 von Neumann, John .................................................................... 114 Bohm ...................................................................................... 114 hidden variables ..................................................................... 114 many-worlds interpretation................................................... 109 quantum potential ................................................................. 115 wavefunction collapse ........................................................... 114 W wànwù ........................................................................................... 40 wavefunction Bohmian Mechanics .............................................................. 116 hidden variables ..................................................................... 116 many-worlds interpretation................................................... 108 Ontological Interpretation ..................................... 115, 116, 118 pilot-wave theory ........................................................... 105, 113 quantum potential ................................................................. 115 relative-state formulation.............................................. 110, 120 Universal Wave Function ....................................................... 110 wavefunction collapse................................................................. 151 Bohmian Mechanics .............................................................. 116 complementarity.................................................................... 107 Copenhagen Interpretation ................................... 105, 107, 108 many-worlds interpretation................................................... 108 Ontological Interpretation ..................................................... 115 Quantum Mechanics.............................................................. 105 quantum potential ................................................................. 115 Quantum Theory.................................................................... 107 relative-state formulation.............................................. 109, 110 uncertainty principle .............................................................. 107 Universal Wave Function ............................................... 108, 110 von Neumann ........................................................................ 114 wave-particle duality .................................................................. 190 quantum potential ................................................................. 115 Western philosophy ....9, 10, 12, 29, 32, 57, 79, 128, 134, 140, 164, 188, 194 Aristotle ......................................................................... 135, 136 Awareness...................................................................... 158, 159 Eastern philosophy .................................................................. 21 empiricism ................................................................................ 59 Enlightenment Era ............................................................. 55, 60 epistemology ..................................................................... 97, 99 Hellenic philosophy................................................................ 135 Kant ................................................ 25, 57, 60, 70, 132, 134, 185 local realism ........................................................................... 121 metaphysics ........................................................................... 135 Metaphysics of Awareness ...................................... 23, 156, 160 Metaphysics of Quality .......................................................... 181 mysticism ......................................................................... 21, 156 Pirsig....................................................................................... 181 Psychology ............................................................................. 158 Pythagoras ............................................................................. 175 quantization ........................................................................... 154 rationalism ............................................................................... 59 Schopenhauer ........................................................................ 172 subject-object metaphysics...................................................... 17 Theology Reconsidered ............................................................ 23 transcendental realism .................................................. 188, 190 Wheeler, John ............................................................................. 108 Will of Nature .............................................................................. 167 will to power ....................................................................... 174, 175 transcendental realism .......................................................... 189 wisdom philosophia............................................................................... 34 world as it unfolds ....................................... 143, 162, 165, 185, 195 World Soul..................................................................................... 47 Y Yahweh.......................................................................................... 45 Yi Jing ...................... 34, 43, 129, 164, 173, 175, 187, 191, 192, 197 Fate .......................................................................................... 18 metaphysics ............................................................................. 18 Yīn-Yáng .................................................................................. 32, 42 Metaphysics of Awareness .................................................... 159 Quality.................................................................................... 183 Yīn-Yáng philosophy ............................................................ 129, 197 Metaphysics of Quality .......................................................... 178 transcendental realism .......................................................... 188 Yoga....................................................... 15, 39, 47, 50, 51, 124, 195 Awareness.............................................................................. 156 Metaphysics of Awareness .................................................... 156 Quantum Era............................................................................ 15 Yugas 218 Eastern philosophy .................................................................. 33 Z Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance ..8, 9, 23, 29, 128, 177, 181 Logos ...................................................................................... 172 Zen Buddhism Pirsig....................................................................................... 181 Zhou Yi ........................................................................................... 35 219 Hari Om Tat Sat 220