Questions of Methodology and Procedure

          There are three avenues of approach –all of which need to be taken. First is an urgent need for a reinstatement of the discipline of ‘systems’ philosophy

          Answers to many –if not most- of those Great Questions lie beyond the purview of the secular, positivist paradigm. They can only be approached through a return to a largely a priori discourse of traditional ‘systems’ philosophy:

           How is the soundness and acceptability of a systematic philosophical weltanschauung to be judged? Evidently not –for the most part- by the scientific acid test of empirical interrogation. This latter is appropriate only for those regions of discourse that are ‘out there’ in the ‘Real World’. But the greater part of the field of philosophical enquiry lies elsewhere; much if not most of it has to do with what’s ‘in here’, or in what lies ‘beyond’ in the abstract and mysterious realm of Transcendence. This makes of the philosophical enterprise largely an a priori discipline –however much the modern intellectual may balk at the notion. As we have seen, very much to the contrary, he has sought to recast philosophy within the scientific-empirical mould –with disastrous consequences.

          Above all, its coverage should be global, in which no regions or domains or aspects of the larger Reality, though it is too much to ask that all areas must be addressed in depth. One might say that here –as in many other situations, the chain is only as strong as its weakest link.

          Next come those important matters of epistemological resilience and parsimony. Is it tidy and formally compact –in which a lot is explained by a little? Does it hang together? Is it organized in an elegant and aesthetically pleasing way? And does it shrink as it develops or are added patches needed to take care of inconsistencies. Is it sometimes found that advances made in some fairly circumscribed domain turn out to smooth the passage elsewhere –in regions that played no part in the formulation of the improvements in question. How much does ad hocery have to be resorted to? Ideally, the emerging body of thought should take on a life of its own in which the focus and coherence are self-improving. Successful authors have reported that at a certain stage in the putting together of a novel, the characters take on a life of their own –at which point the author may find himself standing back to observe what happens. Something of the kind is perhaps the hallmark of creativity at work in any field of human endeavor. All of these measures are essentially independent of the actual content of the system –what it posits, affirms and proclaims.

          However -as any survey of the history of modern and classical philosophy makes clear, this whole approach falls all too easily into the error of cognitive overstatement. This kind of extrinsic top-heaviness is apt to overlook the numinous interior:

          Hegel provides the most sobering example -a monstrous abstraction destitute of warmth, vitality and any trace of the numinus.-not to mention its brutal disregard of the sometimes horrendous human condition. Historically, this was to trigger the Existentialist backlash of Soren Kierkegaard. This makes a lot of sense, when you consider that this is the one and only place at which Value is actually manifest

          Unfortunately, he himself –and many disciples who were to follow- went no further. Systems philosophy was not so much complemented as abandoned. Much the same is true of Buddhism that constrains the whole of Reality to passing moments. In so doing they create a vast plethjora of ontological danglers; each such experienced moment is taken to be ontologically self-sustaining. .

          The sketch alongside suggests a more egalitarian compromise where each is given equal weight. This being said, I think that ‘systems building’ retains a certain procedural priority for the way in which it gives us an articulate platform upon which to stand while exploring complementary approaches

          But even this isn’t quite all. While existentialism is reflexive in its starting with a glance in the mirror, we also need to access Reality inwardly by the inwards-turning eye. For it is in this act –quintessentially by those who have devoted their lives to acquiring the needed discipline- that Reality is directly and immediately encountered, face to face. This raises the matter above discussion; it is the ultimate justification –for them. However, a good reason may be a bad argument; it is reason enough for those who mastered the difficult art of turning the eyes inward towards the Source of their being. But of what use is this to us? Much is made of the ineffability of mystical experience –that there’s no way in which this reportage can be communicated and made available to the rest of us. I would wish to argue to the contrary; I take access such to be a part of our natural heritage of which, however, we may be all too easily deprived by the corrosive nihilism of the times. What the mystics encounter head-on, the rest of us glimpse only marginally, out of the corner of our eye, so to speak, in (typically) unbidden flashes of Enlightenment –‘golden moments’ as we might call them. They may be evoked by a sunset; heard within the concert hall or even tasted in sipping a martini after in hard day on the ski slopes; eternity may be caught in the eyes of one’s beloved.

          In other words, it is not true that mystics are a special breed who can talk only to one-another; the difference between them and the rest of us is a matter of degree and not of kind, -even though this offset be a large one. If it were not for this, Plotinus and Eckhart would make little or no sense to us. We may not be able to plumb their depths, but there's no mistaking what they are talking about. (it is worth a mention in passing –because of the way it is so frequently overlooked- that even in ordinary everyday conversation, we can never say what be mean; words are bloodless symbols that are destitute of the meanings to which they point; these can only be creatively evoked in the mind of the listener)

          The familiar Yang-Yin figure alongside may be regarded as a deeper counterpart of that just given. It polarizes the distinction between Transcendence and Existence –or, in Hindu terms, between the ‘Higher’’ and the ‘lower’ knowledge.

          Yet there is one further skill or resource of which the dedicated enquirer may find himself in need. It has long been the tradition of Western philosophy that its architects have brought the skills of a mathematician –to a greater or lesser extend- with them. One has but to mention Leibniz (co-inventor –along with Newton- of the calculus); Descartes who conceived coordinate geometry; and Pascal’s pioneering work on probability theory. But the problem at hand calls for a different mathematical mind set –of the kind to be found in Plotinus, Cusanus and Böhme, to whom we might add Hegel –that bệte noire of the intellectual establishment. They call for a mathematics that starts from a holistic source from which its sequestered contents hangs, rather that a parsimonious grounding of axioms, postulates and other primitive sets upon which it stands.

         The paragraphs that follow were written after I had largely brought my own odyssey to its destination. Although vague intuited in advance they are actually ‘reverse engineered’ from where I have now come to stand. What I have done is to try to back away as far as possible from my particular beliefs, vales and judgments without transgressing any ‘hard lines’ or ‘non-negotiables’. Where even some of the strongest beliefs are concerned, it is not always easy to determine whether they carry the authority of logical imperatives or are just value judgments too strong and intuitively grounded to be denied. I’m quite sure that few of demands that I have suggested must be acceded to by all can actually be driven home as valid necessities. Important exceptions here include the many false claims made by scientists within their own domain, particularly as they have attempted to account for the phenomena of mind, life and phylogeny, armed with no more than the lex naturalis currently in force. I am also very anxious to allow room within which to maneuver for those whose philosophical temperaments differ from my own. Unlike science that aims towards a single universal set of discoveries, arguments, laws and principles that are to be granted universal acceptance, a diversity within the nominally conflicting philosophical initiatives, should be a source of strength rather than suffered as an embarrassment. We need mystics, poets and architects –and those who straddle these disciplines in any of a variety of ways- to take their hand in the game. To enter the arena of discourse with a tabula rasa is simply not an option; this being said, it is to be hoped that all of us will be using a similarly structured ‘truth table’ –within which our differences will be expressed in the various orderings and weights that we enter into its cells.

           But methodologies apart, it is essential that all enter with a carpe diem mentality with a conviction that the larger reality is profoundly and positively meaningful and that we are up to finding answers to all p0ofthe ‘great questions which are at least marginally satisfying. And I think, however, that in looking towards the future we can hope to find a growing degree of consensus. When we reach this point we shall truly believe ourselves to be on our way.

           Paramount at the onset must be an immediate and absolute demand to be very clear about what is wrong about what we are being offered by the current positivist world-view; there are three issues that are principally at stake here. Principally must come its ontological grounding (better described as a nontological); their larger Reality is totally circumscribed by the realm of Existence; there is no eternal complement or counterpart of a Transcendence ‘beyond’ from which Existence takes its origin. Next –and closer to home in its attempts to account for natural phenomena is its turning of a blind eye to the bankruptcy of both the Artificial Intelligence movement and of Neodarwinism as a sufficient explanation of evolution; truly, the creationists and the neoDarwinians thoroughly deserve each other and finally its continuing acceptance of the epistemology of naïve realism. Finally, the most elementary of the findings of neuroscience make it clear that ‘Naïve Realism’ is just about as disconfirmed as it is possible for a hypothesis to be. Yet, such is its overwhelming appeal to the intuitions of commonsense and of everyday gumption, that any question of its dismissal is ruled out as an absurdity. This issue is my candidate as the most extreme instance of a ‘veridical’ paradox –i.e. a statement that is obviously and clearly true- is actually false. In point of fact, the entrenched intelligentsia –while conceding its falsity- continue to accept the thesis –soto voce as it were- in all of their subsequent speculations about the mind/brain relationship.

          But perhaps more important, it is to be clear about the liberties that the present regime is taking over those domains, categories and modalities that lie beyond the mandate supported by the scope of the ongoing lex naturalis to which they have chosen to delimit themselves. They have resorted to a number of ambiguous stratagems that combine omission with confabulation; the weltanschauung to which they lead is closer to a nachtansicht than the age of enlightenment which they take it to be. It is responsible for the alienation –and at times to nihilism- that so disfigure the culture in which we are embedded.

          Central within the concerns of Ontology is the relationship between the Sacred and the Secular, or that of Transcendence versus Manifest Existence. This issue is usually presented in terms of the ‘God Question’ –a most unfortunate concept in urgent need of reformulation. What we are being offered is a case-hardened choice between a more or less classical Theism and a Secularism -or Positivism- with atheistic implications. These latter are at times boldly and stridently declared while at others clearly implied or intended. Each of the alternatives is –to a degree at least- demonstrably false, and each carries with it unfortunate implications. What is principally wrong with the question is the way in which it forecloses upon most of the very broad envelope of options that is truly open to us. It imposes a severe limitation upon what is to be tabled for discussion; one might say that it jumps the gun. To put it another way, ask the wrong question, and the answers you get won’t even be wrong (with apologies to Wolfgang Pauli). –And that’s exactly what one hears in learned discussions on the subject –e.g. in PBS programs o the subject. If the Question be accepted upon the terms in which it is virtually always offered, the consequences are unfortunate, no matter which of the two options is exercised. Each is burdened by errors of every kind –logical, existential and cultural. It is important to be clear about the nature of these difficulties to which we shall now turn. This being done, an attempt to reformulate the question will be attempted. The closing sections of this chapter describe how the issue may be resolved and focused within my Ontology of Neutral Monism.

          Four of the matters needing to be given close attention by all are these

O That the Foundations of Reality are Secure; this is the Ontological Problem

O That Horrendous Suffering can truly be Justified whether not conceived as the theodicy Problem.

O Closely Related is the Need to Demonstrate that we Humans (or intelligent beings anywhere are more than After-thoughts, or something thrown up by noisy doings within the Germplasm

          To demand that any proffered weltanschauung be something that can be lived within –and by- as well as known about really stops short of what needs to be delivered; it is essential that one feel comfortable and at ease in one’s new surroundings. But in itself this is little more than a nihil obstat –a confirmation that one’s edifice of ideas is sound and unlikely to befall the fate of a house of cards or an appropriately spaced line of dominos. Much more than this, it should be something that one can enter with one’s whole being. One should not exit the exercise in the same spiritual condition with which one entered. There should be a regeneration, a deepening of personal authenticity at the end of which one should end up knowing who one truly is. Ideally, one should find one’s self standing sub specie aeternitates; as the Bhagavad Gita would put it, the ‘lower’ knowledge of cognition should lead to the ‘higher’ knowledge of Reality

          The acceptance of any proffered framework of ideas –as presented in a ‘systems’ philosophy can never be a passive process; If it is to discharge its function, any individual attracted to it must creatively reshape it to ensure its compatibility to one’s deepest intuitions; there must be no violation of the ground of unique individuality upon which one stands.

          A Philosophical System Viewed as an Intellectual Framework –and as an Edifice of Ideas -may be regarded as the first step in this direction. Creativity doesn’t end with the author; anyone wishing to adopt a world-view must adapt and integrate it into his own persona. There must necessarily be a sea change in the way in which the acquisition of a contemplated ‘systems’ philosophy’ is approached. Much more is demanded of the reader –that a drive towards the deepening of personal authenticity is a part of the deal. Clearly we are about as far away as can be imagined from what is currently going on in the halls of academia – where students entering the arena are offered ‘readings’ in philosophy’.

         The kind of personal regeneration of which I am speaking is but the special case of the needed step up of the culture from its present nadir of Homo caducus from its immediate terminus of authenticity –namely, Homo verus. What one might reasonably hope for is a substantial shift in psychic stance corresponding, roughly, to Eckhart’s ‘abgescheidenheit’ In such a posture, one lives in the stillness of the moment, so that one’s ethics become 'deontological' This means, first, that one does things because they are known to be right, even though this rightness will be teleological in nature, having to do with the achievement of ethically valuable goals. As a consequence, one's ontological centre of gravity remains undisturbed, not being dragged off base in the pursuit of the goals in question. "Live within the present moment, perform every act sacramentally and be free from the results of action".

          This latter exhortation has been widely misunderstood as an aloofness and lack if real concern, but exactly the reverse is the case. It is an appeal to adopt an ethic of deontology in which the motive emanates from the intrinsic worth of the act, this detracting nothing from ones commitment to the teleology typically involved –e.g. the exercise of compassion in some very urgent and pressing situation. Paradoxically, teleology is more effective when reached through the indirection of deontology. In allowing oneself to be teleology-centered, one gets dragged away from one's own centre of gravity with the net outcome of undermining one's effectiveness with respect to the matter at hand. The back away into deontology does not signal a weakening of concern, as is widely believed.

          Here is how Eckhart puts it, speaking as ever from the ambiguity of his theist-monist ontology or ground of Being:

          I have found it reassuring to note the way in which the metamathematics I am proposing provides a formal substratum for both the abgescheidenheit posture and its elevation into the Trahernian experience. To be poised in the immediacy of the moment is to stand fast up against the parabolic singularity –across which we are begotten at every conscious moment. This is absolutely as close as one can get, at each moment of existence, to the eternal lifestyle to come. What is unavoidably missing is the ‘closure’ link of self-consolidation that maintains the stream of consciousness within an expanding ‘Now’

         Ideally, one should live through each moment –no matter what form it may take- in a spirit of acceptance. This follows because a commitment to 'living in the present' is necessarily matched by one of 'living here and now'. This is because it is the duty of the creature to do the best he can where he is and not to wish he were somewhere else. To wish to be somewhere else is to deny that being is always here and now. The position in which we come to find you is not of our choice or making, but being there, we should rest content to play the hand that, Willy nilly, we have been dealt. But again, an unqualified acceptance by no means implies any corresponding indifference. Situations must inevitably arise, from time to time, that cry out for instant rectification.

         It must be clear that an acceptance of a deontological ethics is automatically to imply an acceptance of an axiological absolutism, though this is very far from implying that the discipline is a normative one which is reducible to a clean and clear catalogue of ‘dos’ and ‘don’ts’. More than this –as again, Berdyaev has insisted- ethics must be an ongoing creative process in which one is required to come up with unique solutions carefully ‘impedance matched’ .to the situation at hand. Evidently, any proposed deontological ethics must be at odds with the present-day political rectitude over the matter; The mindless ‘one liner’ is to be heard on all sides: "-----everything is all right if it doesn’t do anyone any harm". no harm" Of course, one could do a great deal worse, but also, I am urging, a great deal better. Even on its own teleological turf it is found wanting because of its truncation. We have the notion of progress –of a moving forwards to a better future, but there is no ultimate goal –in the present-day scheme of things- to be envisaged. Quite the reverse; in almost all of the scenarios contemplated by physicists and cosmologists, the future shall be grim; it’s only a matter of time before the last vestiges of life, mind and consciousness shall be wiped out. This truncates the most exciting half of teleological ethics –a ‘thou shalt’ that is directed towards our reason for being –that of taking charge of organic evolution and converging it to the terminal single being of Omega. The half that is left is concerned less with positives than the cancellation of negatives –of alleviating needless suffering wherever it may be found.

          I have spoken above of the need for a systems philosophy to be something more than an edifice of ideas. It must also be a mansion that is found to be congenial as a life-long residence. If it isn’t, then something is very wrong somewhere. But it really goes very much deeper than that. More than intellectual labours are required of anyone undertaking the task. One should not exit the exercise in the same spiritual condition with which one entered. There should be a regeneration, a deepening of personal authenticity at the end of which one should end up knowing who one truly is. Ideally, one should find one’s self standing sub specie aeternitates As the Bhagavad Gita might put it, the ‘lower’ knowledge of cognition should lead to the ‘higher’ knowledge of Reality.

          Something of the same demands are laid upon any student contemplating the acceptance of a philosophical paradigm that he finds attractive. This can never be a process of passive imbibition. If it is to discharge its function, any individual attracted to it must creatively reshape it to ensure its compatibility to one’s deepest intuitions; there must be no violation of the ground of unique individuality upon which one stands.

          The times are I believe, propitious for bringing about the sorely needed paradigmatic shift. Most important have been the advances in logic and transfinite mathematics during the past century. They should supply the minimum of what is needed to sketch in the outlines of the discipline of metamathematics. Anyone seeking to put together a systematic philosophical weltanschauung is in need of such a formalism as a framework or scaffolding within which to erect the edifice. In their absence it is hardly possible to conceive of a Process of Reality. More properly termed a metaprocess, it must embody some notion of the relation of time to eternity, finitude to infinity, and how these are somehow infolded within an origin of the Invariance of Being lying at the heart of the larger reality. Hints of the kind of thing which is needed have been offered by such historical figures as Plotinus and Cusanus; I think we are now in a position to bring their intuitions into better focus. In its absence, both ‘process’ theologians and the science of cosmology alike have come to substitute an authentic ‘closed’ infinity and eternity by the bastard substitute of its ‘open’ or ‘unfinished’ form. Both finitude and infinity have become embedded within an over-riding linear sequence –with all of the unfortunate consequences that this engenders. My own speculations on the matter assume a metamathematical configuration is a manifold of subtle topology that enables ‘Process’ schema so be carried to a paradox-free and altogether more satisfying conclusion. Something of the sort is absolutely demanded if there is to be any hope of making sense of the larger Reality ‘out there’.

          Second, the new ‘molecular’ biology has given us a very articulate close-up view of how living protoplasm manages its affairs. Yet, though it tells us what is happening it fails to account for the robustness, efficiency, and reliability of its operations. They point to the need for extensions to the lex naturalis needed to account for the performance delivered by life, mind and the cornucopia of phylogeny.

          Finally, recent developments in neuroscience have driven the last nail into the lid of the coffin of the epistemology of naïve realism. The consequent tilting back of the mind/brain playing field ought to restore the priority of mind within the human organism –or for that matter, everywhere within the organic realm.

          As ever, the greatest obstacle is the dogmatic finalism with which the present weltbild is upheld –regardless of the problems, insufficiencies, inadequacies and contradictions that beset the weltbild that it offers. Somehow, this massive road block must be shifted or circumvented.

          Just one final reflection. At the moment of writing (Anno domini 2005) no one doubts that we face a crisis immediately ahead of gigantic proportions on so many fronts. One has but to mention dwindling natural resources, the degradation of the climatic environment, the dangers of nuclear weaponry, and above all, of the out-of-control population explosion. One thing is absolutely certain, namely that the most drastic changes are called for. Many scenarios have been contemplated, but I am prepared to guess that what is actually going to happen will bear little resemblance to any of these. It is possible that that when the crises truly breaks upon us –certainly sometime long before the end of the present century, it might provide just the kind of latter-day ‘koan’ shock beloved of the Buddhist tradition needed to jolt the culture free of the lingering paradigm in which we are currently embedded. A new paradigm might render the just-in-time service of doing more than correcting the negative of a bad situation. It would do so by embedding this correction within a larger and exciting positive. It will be seen that a correction is needed, not to restore an earlier status quo when the world of humanity was smaller, before things started to get out of control, but to move forwards within a mission-dominated culture that sees why we are here and how we should move forwards into a future which is absolutely no part of the present weltbild.