PHILOSOPHY : Criticosynthesis : Waymarks for a ... - SOFIATOPIA

•
Criticosynthesis
waymarks for a critical philosophy
prolegomena to a possible metaphysics of process
by Wim van den Dungen
"Human reason is by nature architectonic,
i.e. it regards all cognitions as parts of a possible system ..."
Kant, I. : Critique of Pure Reason, B501 (A473)
Dedicated to Erik Oger, doctor subtilis, who, without ado, hit me with the criticism of Kant. Honi
soit qui mal y pense !
Introduction
Chapter 1
Philosophy : Theory & Practice
Chapter 2
Clearings
Chapter 3
Behaviours
Chapter 4
A Neurophilosophy of Sensation
Chapter 5
A Philosophy of Mind & Brain
Chapter 6
Sensations

Is true conceptual knowledge possible ?
Is valid metaphysics possible ?
Does the Divine exist ?
Chapter 7
Intelligent Wisdom
Chapter 8
Does the Divine exist ?
Introduction
These three questions underline the present exercise in Criticism, organized in
eight Chapters. This work serves as a prolegomena to a Metaphysics of Process
(2010).
Answering these questions has an irreversible & immediate impact on the
unfolding architecture of thought, attributing parameters to its cognitive buildup,
adjusting its extensions.
Adjacently, we inquire how rationalism and irrationalism can be defined ? What
is a true proposition ? When is an action good ? Or a sensate object beautiful ?
How is sensation possible ? How does the mind change and grow ? Does the
Divine exist ? Does It necessarily entail a Supreme Being, a Creator-God ? Or
does an Author suffice ? An Anima Mundi ?
1. Normative philosophy.
Criticism plots clear & functional demarcations between philosophy and science,
between valid & invalid propositions, between science & metaphysics. It is not
dogmatic (positing a truth without good reasons), nor skeptical (negating with
dogma's in disguise). It is not eternalist (rooting thought in the eternal & the
permanent), nor nihilist (clearing thought from all positive, permanent spheres,
only inviting the impermanent, the fugal & the transient). It tries to define
borders, mark them, signal their presence, designating the necessary
conditions of thought, knowledge, goodness & beauty. It has relinquished real
or ideal concept-realism, is thoroughly nominalistic and anti-foundational.
Valid empirico-formal propositions are considered to be true by all concerned
sign-interpreters, but this truth is only conventional and in no way a priori

identical with absolute truth, namely the ultimate, noumenal nature of
phenomena. This conventional truth is established by the application of the
"realism" of experimental work, listening to the monologue of Nature hand in
hand with the "idealism" of theoretical work & dialogue, argueing with all
concerned to reach consensus.
Normative philosophy uncovers a set of principles, norms & maxims in
epistemology, ethics and esthetics, summarized by Immanuel Kant in his
famous three questions :
Epistemology : What can I know ?
Ethics : What must I do ?
Esthetics : What can I hope ?
This in-depth delving into the conditions of cognition does not produce facts,
which is the exclusive arena of the empirico-formal sciences, but generates
insights into the conditions of the production of facts. Normative philosophy is
not a science.
Nevertheless, transcendental analysis & synthesis imply a meta-science of
science, critically discovering (unearthing) the principles, norms & maxims of
possible thought & knowledge. These rules are indeed not random and
impermanent, but express regularity on the side of the subject of thought.
Because normative philosophy cannot change these self-evident discoveries, it
must -saving the possibility of thought from any harm- confront, without the
ability to alter them, the conditions pointed out by this transcendental work.
These conditions are the "meta-facts" of meta-science, giving normative
philosophy what the imperative side of the discipline needs.
This said, note normative philosophy is a special meta-science, not one taking
part in a possible description of the world, but actively pointing out the
demarcations necessary to do so. The application of these normative rules
keeps the boundaries of valid thought, knowledge, action & sensation intact.
Insofar this critical function is properly applied, creative issues may rise,
pointing to "the other side", to the unknown. Then, this meta-science of
science is the discipline channelling valid speculative creativity. This acts as a
vitalizing heuristic for the empirico-formal sciences dealing with actual facts.
The latter are produced by way of monologue with Nature and by way of
dialogue with all concerned sign-interpreters, i.e. intersubjective
consciousnesses delineating states of matter sealed by meaningful regularities,
conditions & determinations.
Normative philosophy aims to reflect the necessary conditions of truth,
goodness & beauty. This is the normative, transcendental (not transcendent)

pole of the discipline of philosophy, characterized by theory (normative &
descriptive philosophy) and practice (philosophy of the practice of philosophy).
Transcendental insights call for a logic of the meta-level, manifesting what has
always been done by scientists (producing facts), moralists (doing good) &
artists (making beauty).
As a normative meta-science, philosophy discovers the principles, norms &
maxims involved in the production of true knowledge (epistemology - Chapter
2), good actions (ethics - Chapter 3) and beautiful sensate object, in casu
works of art (esthetics - Chapter 5).
Of these three, epistemology comes first, for by knowing the true possibilities
of cognition, we are equipped to designate all other possible cognitive activities
and the multitude of views these bring about. Each of these has proper
distinctions, proposing demarcations and establishing landmarks, keeping
relative, conventional reality and absolute, ultimate reality apart, but also
together. Criticism is there to establish & sustain borders, frontiers, thresholds,
not to abolish or negate them.
2. The descriptive speculations of (immanent) metaphysics.
Why is there something rather than nothing ?
What about the cosmos ?
How did life become possible ?
What is consciousness ?
Traditional philosophy aimed at wisdom, revealing the true nature of reality,
the question of being. This ultimate, absolute nature of all phenomena was
deemed knowable in conceptual terms, in knowledge unveiling the substantial,
essential core of things. This heart of the matter remained identical with itself,
permanent and established its nature from its own side, independent of all
other substances. In Plato's World of Ideas, a hierarchy of such substances
emerged, with "the Good" as summum bonum.
Indeed, the descriptive metaphysical intent of traditional philosophy was not
restrained by its normative side. Moreover, ideas about the nature of reality
preceded epistemology, rooting knowledge in a sufficient ground outside
knowledge, causing the perversion of reason (cf. Chapter 2).
Criticism corrects this mistake, and so the study of existence is impossible
without a painstakingly careful and accurate investigation of the limitations of
our capacity to know. This thoroughness invokes the distinction between
immanent and transcendent metaphysics, between (a) an arguable, untestable,
totalizing picture of the world, assisted by logic and the facts produced by

science and (b) untestable and unarguable statements. Immanent metaphysics
is not scientific but speculative, its results are not factual but heuristic, its
method is not experimental but argumentative.
3. The poetical speculations of transcendent metaphysics.
Questions regarding the totality & infinity of things may be approached in two
ways : either one may take logic & the results of science into account, or, one
may try to say something about the ineffable, about which only silence is gold,
and explain "the world" from this "higher" perspective. The first approach is
conventional & immanent, the second absolute & transcendent. Insofar creative
conceptual thought is used to eliminate conceptuality (as in ultimate analysis),
immanent metaphysics assists in introducing transcendence. It focuses on the
functional interdependence of things, while transcendent metaphysics
articulates their un-saying beyond conceptualization. Therefore, it can be
nothing more than speculative poetry.
To facilitate answering the question of Divine existence (Chapter 8), a relative
treatment of the subject, i.e. one posited from the perspective of a single
theological system of beliefs, is avoided. The word "Divine" is extended beyond
the exclusive milieu of Abrahamic monotheism (Judaism, Christianity, Islam).
We ask not : "Does the God of Abraham exist ?", "Does the God of Akhenaten
exist ?", "Does the God of Shankara exist ?", etc. but : "Does the Divine
exist ?".
My first philosophical text, written in Dutch in 1981, was entitled : Schetsen
van een Absurde Wereldbeschouwing (Sketches of an Absurd World View). It
was rather absurdist & nihilist. At that time, studying Applied Economics, I got
taken by this love of wisdom. In 1984, just before receiving my second
bachelor's degree, College Tractaat (College Tractate) was written. The nihilist
view was out and the urge to manifest a philosophical system poignant.
In 1987, my Proto-Tractatus Logico-Comicus emerged. This English text
sketched the contours of this system-to-be. In 1992, integrating mysticology,
the Tractatus Logico Trago-Comicus emerged. Besides a considerable
reorganization of themes, this text pointed to decennia of study ahead. In both
works, the principle of the non-reduciblility of the cosmic operators matter,
information & consciousness pertains. From 1993 onward, my Dutch Studies
were privately published in book-format (a total of 2064 pages).
Around 1995, the issue of being read, and therefore interact with a community
of sign-interpreters, was solved by the WWW. From the 9th of April 1996

onward, my ongoing Philosophical Studies were and have continued to be
freely available on the internet. This is rather unique.
Between 2005 & 2007, the chapters of the present text were published as a
series of separate, hyperlinked papers. Reworked, they are brought together
here as a single text.
Chapter 1 : www.sofiatopia.org/equiaeon/philo_study.htm
Chapter 2 : www.sofiatopia.org/equiaeon/clearings.htm
Chapter 3 : www.sofiatopia.org/equiaeon/behaviours.htm
Chapter 4 : www.sofiatopia.org/equiaeon/brainmind_sensation.htm
Chapter 5 : www.neuro.sofiatopia.org/brainmind_philo.htm
Chapter 6 : www.sofiatopia.org/equiaeon/sensations.htm
Chapter 7 : www.sofiatopia.org/equiaeon/intelligent_wisdom.htm
Chapter 8 : www.sofiatopia.org/equiaeon/divine.htm
Chapter 1 maps the discipline of philosophy. Besides the theoretical approach
cherished by the academia, the practice of philosophy is also given space. The
theory of philosophy is divided in normative & descriptive philosophy. The
former involves logic, epistemology, ethics & esthetics, the latter metaphysics,
both immanent & transcendent. The practice of philosophy is applying
philosophy to the domain of everyday life, providing the discipline its vital
input.
Chapter 2 is about critical epistemology. Rooted in transcendental logic,
unveiling the principles of thought, theoretical epistemology unearths the
objective & subjective norms covering the possibility & expansion of true
knowledge. These define science as producing fallible but valid empirico-formal
propositions by way of methodical experiments & discourses. By contrast,
metaphysics is fallible & non-empirical. The validity of its propositions is
established by way of arguments only. Irrationality is then invalid metaphysics,
or the set of non-empirical, unarguable propositions, often blatantly producing
contradictions. Theoretical epistemology, unearthing the Quid Iuris ?, the
statute aspect of the study of knowledge, is complemented by the question
Quid Factis ?, the casus aspect. To the "theoretical" a priori norms are added
the "practical" a posteriori rules of thumb of a particular research-cel. An
opportunistic logic is at work and "as if" methodologies are adopted. Facts are
produced by confronting experiments with theory and vice versa. Theory cogenerates
the observed facts and facts point to necessary changes in theory. In
the manifacture of knowledge, the dynamism of this process is pivotal.
Chapter 3 deals with critical ethics. Rooted in transcendental logic,
demonstrating the necessity of coordinated movement and the presence of

conscious intent a priori, theoretical ethics unearths the objective & subjective
norms ruling the possibility & realization of goodness. Ethics, aiming at good
behaviour, is a normative system, implying a quaternio of factors : intent,
duty, conscience & calling. On the side of the subject of ethics, intent &
conscience define the private, personal aspect of ethics. Objectively, duty &
calling rule public life. Practical ethics or morality is an application of these
norms. Maxims covering persons, health, family, property, the secular state &
death ensue.
Chapter 4 studies the neurophilosophy of sensation, preluding the study of
beauty. This is needed for two reasons. Firstly, science is defined as "empiricoformal",
stressing the importance of the senses, the substantial causes, so we
must think, of the changes caused by the stimulation of the sensitive surfaces
of the receptive parts of the sensory organs, by an outer chemical (smell &
taste), mechanical & chemical (touch), mechanical (audition) or
electromagnetic (sight) source. Perception (the work of the senses) and
sensation (the work of the neocortex) are not identical. Conventional truth
always calls for symbolization (designation, imputation), and so P(erception) =
S(ensation) . C(onceptual)I(nterpretation), with CI ≠ 1, pertaining. Secondly,
sensate objects are the object of esthetics. Without clearly defining their status
beforehand, no progress in understanding beauty can be made.
In Chapter 5, the philosophy of neurology is at hand, focusing on a
panexperiential settlement of the brain/mind-problem.
Chapter 6 brings in critical esthetics. Rooted in the transcendental logic of
creativity, positing sensate objects and a creative subject bringing about
excellence of craft worthy of imitation, theoretical esthetics delimits both
subject & object of esthetics, differentiating between the pleasant, the
satisfying and the tasteful. The latter gives rise to excellence, exemplarity &
sublimity. By the power of their esthetic meaning, exquisite sensate objects are
excellent. As examples of the rules of harmony they are exemplary. Pointing to
a totalizing integration they are sublime, integrating disharmonization at a
higher level. Applied esthetics is the study of the factors of creativity and the
way the keys of harmony emerge in practice. Noted are : objective, subjective,
social, personal, revolutionary, psycho-dynamic, holistic & magisterial art.
Chapter 7, sketching the cognitive continuum from myth to nondual thought,
brings the foregoing together. Human cognition is a dynamical process
involving "instinct", "reason" & "intuition". Instinct or ante-rationality (cognition
at work before the advent of reason) is stratified. First there is myth and its
notions. These are, by absence of concepts, irrational. Then the pre-concept of
pre-rationality arises and after this the concrete concept of proto-rational
thought. Despite local exceptions, ante-rationality is typical for pre-Hellenistic

Antiquity as a whole. Reason or rationality, initiated by the Greeks, calls for
formal and critical thought. The former is able to decontextualize, while the
latter is transcendental. Intuition or meta-rationality is the domain of creative
thought, the mode of cognition prevalent in immanent metaphysics. Valid
metaphysics is the heuristic of science, and answers the three fundamental
questions of immanence : Why something rather than nothing ? How did life
come about ? What is consciousness ? The intuitions of transcendent
metaphysics, moving beyond the world, are nondual and so ineffable. Anything
said at this level is, at best, sublime poetry. The difference with irrationality is
not a concept. Direct, nondual cognition of the absolute is possible.
In Chapter 8, to answer the question "Does the Divine exist ?" the various
historical "proofs of God" are studied. The a priori argument is based on the
ontology of the supposed "nexus" between, on the one hand, intra-mental
universals and, on the other hand, an extra-mental, absolute, ultimate reality
or "Being" ("Dasein"). In this semantic adualism, the word "existence" does
more than only instantiate the whole set of characteristics attributed to an
object. Although nominalism requires "existence" cannot be a predicate, this
Platonic ontology deems otherwise. As nominalism is consistent with criticism &
science, the ontological proof of the Divine fails. The a posteriori arguments
also fail insofar they work with an infinite regress in time (horizontal). As
infinite time was deemed impossible, the sequence had to end by jumping
outside the limitations of possible knowledge, positing a transcendent Being,
explaining begin & end by the extra-mundane (root the relative in the
absolute). If and only if the infinity of all objects hic et nunc is posited, a
blatant absurdity, can an immanent First Conserving Cause be logically
rejected. Moreover, only by adhering to permanent mathematical miracles can
certain features of the design of the world be explained without an immanent,
Intelligent Designer or "Anima Mundi" ... Conservation and design are valid
grounds for a possible religious philosophy. Can a direct experience of this Soul
of the World be accommodated ? Or should be only know how to properly
Wait ?
This book serves as a prolegomena to my Critique of a Metaphysics of Process.
The latter ends what started three decennia ago.
Wim van den Dungen
Antwerp, the 12th of September 2011.

Chapter 1
Philosophy : Theory & Practice
"for what the natural light shows to be true can be in no degree doubtful ..."
Descartes : Meditations, III.9, my italics.
TABLE OF CONTENTS
I : The Spirit and Way of Life of the Philosopher.
7
01. Ancient Egyptian sapience.
02. Greek spiritual exercises.
03. Christian philosophy ?
04. Montaigne & Descartes.
05. Kant and the "Copernican Revolution".
06. From the academy to Achenbach & C°.
07. The philosophy of spiritual exercises.
II : A Critical Approach of Philosophy.
08. Pre-critical substantialism.
09. The subject of sensation, action, affect & thought.
10. Determined & nondetermined events.
11. Normative philosophy : cognition, behaviour & sensation.
12. Descriptive philosophy : the world, life, man & the Divine.
13. Applied philosophy.
14. Towards a practicum of philosophy.
Suggested Reading
I : The Spirit and Way of Life of the Philosopher.
Pushed by the love of wisdom, the philosopher is called to think, feel & act in a way serving
philosophy to the full measure of his capacities. Whatever happens, philosophical activity
must be ongoing. This calls for a discipline of its own.

The shipwreck of philosophy being a total loss, there are some who claim such a path no
longer exists. Obviously, for humans, this can never be so, for thoughts, feelings and
actions always lead to ideas regarding the world -its existence, life & consciousness- and
the transcendent.
In the thesis advanced here, theory and practice of philosophy form a unity. Integral part
of society, the practice of philosophy is an integral part of the philosophical life. This life
involves theory, practice and spirituality.
For different reasons, the sapiental "systems" of Antiquity cherished an organic, natural
wisdom. Their leading notion of the Golden Mean, the middle between all extremes (of
thought, emotion and action), is present in Egypt (cf. the Balance of Maat), in Judaism (cf.
Qoheleth, 7, 15-18), in Greece (cf. Aristotle in Nichomachean Ethics), in Christian
philosophy (cf. Boethius in The Consolation of Philosophy) and in Islam (Koran 25:67). It
can also be found in Taoism, Hinduism & Buddhism. In all these traditions, wisdom has "the
other answer" escaping conceptual thought. Wisdom is found when extremes are avoided
and the true nature of things is perceived. Limiting ourselves to the Mediterranean
civilizations, let us trace the highlights of this wisdom.
The use of capitals in words like "Absolute", "God" or "Divine" points to abstraction and reason.
Hence, throughout this book, in the context of ante-rational thought, words such as "god", "the
god", "gods", "goddesses", "pantheon" or "divine" are not capitalized.
01. Ancient Egyptian sapience.
In Ancient Egypt, ca. 2.300 BCE, the wisdom of the divine king of Egypt ruled. The
uncorrupted, original text of the main ritual of this wise Horus-king was carved in stone
and, for over 4 millennia, left untouched (cf. Cannibal Hymn in the Pyramid texts of Unas).
This divine king was the "power of powers", the "image of images", the "slayer of the
gods". He spoke the Great Word.
The direct influence of Egyptian sapience on Greek philosophy, affirmed by more than one
classical writer, can be argued. The "Greek miracle" is unmistaken. Introducing formal
thought, the Greeks worked with abstract connections between systems of concepts &
meta-concepts, and used their inquisitive mind to seek the harmony between theory &
practice. But like all other pre-Greek civilizations, Ancient Egypt thought never
decontextualized its concepts, and so could not operate the advantage of meta-concepts
and formal architectures between concepts and series of meta-concepts (C, C", C'" ... ).
Because of the power of rationality, it took ca. six centuries of Hellenization to identify the
ante-rational mentality, solving problems by raising Mediterranean thought to the level of
the formal operations (cf. Chapter 2).
In the Ptolemaic Period, the Greeks reshaped Egypt. Mixing Egyptian thought with their
own philosophies, they created new, original mystery cults (cf. the popular Cult of Serapis

and esoteric Hermetism). The Greek Corpus Hermeticum influenced Christian as well as
Islam theology, while Coptic (the last stage of Ancient Egyptian) remained the liturgical
language of the Egyptian Coptic Church. The latter adopted its own, original interpretation
of the nature of Jesus Christ.
"Along with the Sumerians, the Egyptians deliver our earliest -though by no means
primitive- evidence of human thought. It is thus appropriate to characterize Egyptian
thought as the beginning of philosophy. As far back as the third millennium B.C., the
Egyptians were concerned with questions that return in later European philosophy and that
remain unanswered even today - questions about being and nonbeing, about the meaning
of death, about the nature of the cosmos and man, about the essence of time, about the
basis of human society and the legitimation of power."
Hornung, 1992, p.13, my italics.
Prince Hordedef, son of king Khufu (ca. 2571 - 2548 BCE), vizier Kagemni, serving under
kings Huni & Snefru, ca. 2600 BCE, and vizier Ptahhotep (ca. 2200 BCE) were the first men
on record to have "lived their wisdom".
This "sAt, "sAA" or "sArt", representing the rule of Maat (justice & truth), animated more
than 2000 years of Egyptian sapiental literature.
The Instruction of Hordedef (ca.2487 - 2348 BCE, fragment)
Instruction to Kagemni (ca.2348 - 2205 BCE, fragment)
The Maxims of Ptahhotep (ca.2200 BCE, complete)

The Instruction to Merikare (ca.2160 - ?, incomplete)
The Instruction of Amenemhat (ca.1919 - 1875 BCE, nearly complete)
The Instruction of Amen-em-apt (ca. 1292 - 1075 BCE, complete)
The manuscripts of Ptahhotep (ca. 2200 BCE) and Amen-em-apt (ca. 1200 BCE), both
complete, represent beginning and end of the "royal" sapiental tradition. After Amen-emapt,
more popular, less elitist forms of discourses take over, and the texts are no longer
available in hieroglyphs or cursive hieroglyphs (but in Demotic & Coptic). With the end of
the New Kingdom (ca. 1075 BCE), it took Pharaonic Egypt another thousand years to cease.
In Egypt, ritual and devotion were always part of these sapiental discourses, for the wise
was loved by the deities, the million faces of the Great One Alone (cf. the New Kingdom
theologies of Ptah & Amun).
In Ancient Egypt, between ca. 3000 and 1800 BCE, five major state theologies emerged.
Their literature was always linked to a deity, its temple and province (nome) : Osiris for
Abydos, Re-Atum for Heliopolis, Thoth for Hermopolis, Ptah for Memphis and Amun for
Thebes. In the New Kingdom, Amun, the "king of the gods" manifested as a body (Ptah) in
Memphis, as divine speech (Thoth) in Hermopolis and as divine power (Re) in Heliopolis. He
was deemed "one & millions", before and beyond the deities. Despite the sophistication of
this Theban answer, the fundamental paradox between unity (one) & plurality (many)
cannot be solved in proto-rational terms, for the system of relationships is not formal but
concrete (applied). Godhead remained confused, for bound by the limitations of the "fieldof-action"
of each deity.
Ancient Egypt culture never adopted decontextualized, formal, theoretical rules. In
theological terms, the deities always operated together, in constellations or groupings.
Connections between other "families" were established as in myth, and regularly reenacted.
The divine king was a very special "god", for his spirit (Akh) was on Earth, not where it
belonged, namely in the "sky" of Re, its father. Because of the divine presence of the king,
equilibrating truth & justice (Maat), the Nile was "good" and the deities could interact with
the living.
When the first formal operations emerged in the minds of the Egyptian royal elite, namely
decades before and under the 18-year rule of Akhenaten (ca. 1353 - 1336 BCE), they were
swiftly erased from cultural memory, becoming a subreptive stream of "forbidden" literary
themes and images (cf. Assmann, 1999). The monotheist singularity of sorts of the Aten,
before, above & against other deities, could not be accepted by the Egyptians. The
"mechanism" of their spirituality could not overthrow the Duat and Osiris.
The presence of an ante-rational sapiental tradition is attested as early as the Old
Kingdom. Was Egyptian wisdom the flower or fruit of Ancient Egyptian spiritual practices
and rituals ? Did it attain the level of excellent exemplarity within the boundaries of a
profound closure of millennia of proto-rational thinking ?
02. Greek spiritual exercises.
Both in Egypt and Greece, the wise fostered an integrated approach of wisdom. They knew
how to apply sapience in everyday life (practical philosophy, "praxis"). Moreover, their

spiritual exercise addressed both cognition, affect, volition and sensation. These skillful
means allowed philosophers to "orient themselves in thought, in the life of the city, or in
the world" (Hadot, 1995, p.21.).
"The Socratic maxim 'know thyself' requires a relation of the self to itself that 'constitutes
the basis of all spiritual exercises'. Every spiritual exercise is dialogical insofar as it is an
'exercise of authentic presence' of the self to itself, and of the self to others."
Hadot, 1995, p.20.
The particulars of the Greek style involved more than youth, keen interest, opportunism,
individualism and anthropocentrism. With the introduction of formal thought and its
application to the major problems of philosophy (truth, goodness, beauty & the origin of
the world, life and the human), a completely new kind of sapiental thinking was set afoot.
Theory, linearization and abstraction were discovered and applied to the new Greek
mentality. The immediate was objectified in discursive terms, and this in a script
symbolizing vowels.
As Indo-Europeans, the Ionians had a couple of typical features of their own :
● individuality / authority ;
● exploring mentality ;
● unique dynamical script ;
● linearizing, geometrizing mentality ;
● anthropomorphic theology.
Starting with the Ionians, in particular Pythagoras (ca. 580 BCE - ca. 500, Metapontum,
Lucania), philosophy was a way of life summoning the person as a whole. Although in
Greece cognition was privileged, philosophy also implied the training of affects, volitions &
sensations (cf. the four elements of creation). Moreover, to effectively master these, a lot
of effort was required. Besides cognitive tasks, imagination, music, ritual, meditation,
martial arts, dance, singing, role-playing etc. were also practiced, addressing the entire
spirit and "one's whole way of being" (Hadot, 1995, p.21.). This "intuitive" aspect of Greek
philosophy is visible in the mysteries, with its integration of poetry, dance & song.
After the Persian Wars, starting with the Sophists, Greek philosophy displayed the
supremacy of reason & the subsequent liberation of thought from immediate context &
geosentimentalities. Before, ante-rationality ruled and the latter had always been bound to
its milieu. Greek civilization changed all of this forever. With the introduction of abstraction,
thought was finally liberated from its trusted local horizon, envisaging a "global"
perspective. This is grasping at a universal, a "genus" instead of a "species", i.e. a nonconcrete,
abstract, decontextualized, formal concept, acting as a meta-concept for all
possible concrete concepts (namely those ruling ante-rationality). This new élan of
Hellenism embraced all nations and dreamt of a Greek pan-humanism, and later a Pax
Romana.

Formal rationality is abstract and able to overstep the limits of old. It needs no references
outside its own conceptualized duality of a knowing subject and an object known. Applying
labels on a previously coded incoming primary data-stream, transforming "perception" into
"sensation" (cf. Chapter 4), the conceptualizing mind creates and maintains a difference
between object-possessor (the subject) and mental and/or sensate events (the object).
The "young" Greeks emerged out of their Dark Age as curious individualists able to make
fundamental abstractions. Moreover, most pre-Socratics were also travelers & wanderers,
eager to investigate other cultures. The emergence of the city-state and colonization
walked hand in hand.
The emerging Greek mysteries, contrary to the Egyptian, aim at the illumination of thought
through the bridling of emotions & uncontrolled volitions, and this while the body remained
passive. Greek spiritual practices point to the transformation of one's view of the world,
deemed possible only after a radical subjective change. In Greek philosophy, reason is
nearly always placed above passion & volition. Conscious mental states master sensate,
affective & volitive states.
For Plato, the way of life of a philosopher was given with Socrates (470 - 399 BCE), the
only "prophet" the Greeks produced. He sought universal, eternal truths by way of
dialogue, criticizing established views and inviting his listeners to discover the truth by the
use of their own minds. Although Socrates is Plato's great example, his own philosophy had
two aims : the transcendent and the political. Not only did the wise participate in the world
of ideas, but he does so to return to the world to liberate and remind people of their
original, transcendent origin (cf. the allegory of the cave in book VII of The Republic).
Plato, an Athenian aristocrat, depicts the philosopher as a liberator, a king who guides his
own out of the cave of shadows & illusions. As such, the physical world of becoming is
rejected. Impermanent, not as it appears, it is a discontinuity tending towards chaos,
giving in to the everlasting yawning space of oblivion. In humans, this manifests as a
display of afflictive passions, affects, emotions and negative volitions.
For those gone astray, the philosopher is a wandering light ... He participates in a higher
world and so for those caught in illusions, his wisdom is salvation. Hence, the human needs
to "build" himself in the light of who he truly was, is and always will be. The Platonic school
tries to help people remember their Divine, transcendent essence, existing from their own
side.
The process of institutionalization, starting with the Eleatics, had run its course. With Plato,
the first comprehensive "system-school" emerged ; a graded, gradual approach scattered
in a corpus of dialogues. In it, formal thought had duly linearized "the life of a philosopher".
It had, in effect reduced "practical philosophy" to teaching, writing & politics. After Plato,
Greek philosophy remained school-bound and in tune with power. Although we remember
Plato for his "spiritualism" (or idealism), it should be clear his interests lay in the
organization of the "perfect" city-state, one which would allow its citizens to "escape" the
shadows and turn towards the light of their own substantial and eternal "idea" or
substance : the World of Ideas, eternal and ruled by the Idea of the Good.
Let us return to Socrates, who wrote nothing and is described by Plato, Xenophon &
Aristophanes. We hear of an original, unique, civilized but non-conformist individualist,
ironical, brave, dispassionate and impossible to classify, belonging to no school. In this

person, the ideal of Greek philosophy seems fully embodied, and what Socrates teaches,
allows, in terms of Hellenistic culture, this characterization of philosophy :
1. philosophy is a radical, uncompromising, authentic search for understanding, insight &
wisdom ;
2. philosophy is never an intellectual, optional "game", but demands the enthusiast arousal
of all faculties, addressing the "complete" human and giving birth to a practice of
philosophy ;
3. philosophy equals relative, conventional, approximate truth, but never absolute truth.
Greek philosophy, accepting meta-rational intuition, never eliminates reason.
For Socrates, the practice of philosophy helps to understanding the role of the human being
as part of the "polis", a designated community. In Plato's dialogues, there is a ongoing bidirectional
flow between the issue at hand and Socrates's continuous search for rational
answers to fundamental problems by posing questions, opening up the space to new
possibilities and creating the conditions for some insight or higher understanding to be born.
The rationality of Socrates was unsystematic, but not confused. Returning to key questions
concerning reality, truth, goodness and beauty, gave body to numerous spontaneous
conversations. Variations on these themes were common, but their motifs recurrent.
Socrates intended not to know more about the good, but wanted knowledge committed to
work for the good.
This knowledge of values is charged with affectivity. This explains Socratic determinism :
"to know good is to act good". The knowledge of the philosopher is not exclusively abstract,
distant and theoretical. For this indifference will never cause me to take it serious. But
committed knowledge is taken serious. Born out of insight, born in those standing between
intellect and folly (Plato : Symposium, 204 a-b), calling for both reason & intuition, such
knowledge is Divine but also dangerous (cf. Plato's Apology).
03. Christian philosophy ?
Although the thinkers of Late Pagan Hellenism (neo-Platonism, Stoicism, Skepticism &
Epicurism) had already considerably lost the free spirit of city-states philosophers like
Socrates, they continued to seek personal transformation, but more and more failed to find
it in terms of Pagan philosophy and its religious practices.
Particularly in Stoicism, language became an independent area of study. Logic was not
longer embedded in metaphysics, but a science of language, or linguistics. Physics studies
things ("pragmata" or "res"'), whereas dialectica and grammatica study words ("phonai" or
"voces").
"Messianism or millenarianism is the belief in the imminent arrival of a new order or
millennium of harmony and justice when the Messiah and the saints 'go marching in'. It is a
frequent response to distress of all sorts, but especially to military conquest and economic
and cultural dominations by foreigners. Indeed, the idea that some outside force will sweep
down and overthrow the present illegitimate rulers so that 'the first shall be last and the
last shall be first' has been fundamental to Judaism, at least since the captivity in Babylon
in the 6th century BC. It is clear, however, that this feeling intensified after about 50 BC
and was very prominent for the next 200 years ; furthermore, the sense of apocalypse was
not restricted to Jews. The crisis can be partially explained by a number of political and

economic changes. There were the unprecedented success of the Romans in uniting the
Mediterranean, the savage civil wars between the Roman warlords ; and finally, in 31 BC,
the establishment of the Roman Empire -often portrayed as a new age- under Augustus."
Bernal, 1987, pp.124-125.
The intellectual climate of Late Hellenism was characterized by a feeling of disquietude and
fatalism, and from the beginning of the 4th century, a release of talent and creativity is
witnessed. The empire was in a deep crisis and the reforms of Diocletianus (284 - 305)
tried to "solve" the issues by transforming the Roman civil state into a despotic empire (he
professionalized the army, introduced a hierarchical bureaucracy, raised the taxes and put
into place a repressive legal system and a secret state police, the "agentes in rebus", as
Augustine would call them). These changes were consolidated by Constantine the Great
(306 - 337), who adopted Christianity as the ideology of the state, turning the monarchy,
by introducing hereditary succession, into a system ruled by the grace of the God of Christ
(he himself was baptized on his dead bed). After Theodosius I (346 - 395), the "imperator
Christianissimus", the empire was divided and the Western part was invaded by the
"barbarians" ... In the East, the Byzantines recovered from the Gothic inroad and, throwing
back the Persians and the Arabs, they would hold out until 1453.
In Late Hellenism, Christianity represents the new view on the world, man & salvation,
advancing parallels to Paganism, but outstripping the latter in ultimate rejection of the
classical concepts. As early as 95 AD, Roman centrists as Clement I defined Papal
authority, and by the time of Constantine, Greek philosophy is used to solve major
theological disputes (namely those concerning the nature of Christ).
Gathering bishops to solve problems had been done before. Especially to counter early
heresies (choices unacceptable to the orthodox Christian centrists) and the rapid rise of
counter-churches, "regular" bishops deliberated together (the so-called "synod" or
"concilium") to constitute a dogma (the first Catholic synods were as early as 197, 256 &
314 CE). Episcopalism was born. This episcopalism would be the political tool used to
realize the "universal" church of Christ.
The first "holy" synod, held under the aegis of emperor Constantine in 325 CE (Nicænum),
initiated a deposit of faith, a magister and a "sacred" tradition to be kept by the Papal
court. Curialism was born. Next, Catholic dogma would rule all higher learning for more
than a millennium.
Indeed, a synod of only ca. 220 bishops (i.e. a small fraction of the total episcopate !), was
urged by Constantine in person to canonize dogma's pertaining to the nature of Jesus
Christ, the founder of Christianity. Regarding this nature of Christ, a lot of serious conflicts
had arisen between the Roman position and the bishops of the East. These problems
pertained to the relation of Jesus Christ to God (Trinitarian) and to the two natures of
Christ (Christological). This clever "spiritual putch" would eternalize the Roman view and
save imperialism.
Was Christ "created" ("factum") or "generated" ("natum") ? If created, Christ is the
subordinate of the Father and therefore not God as He is. The substance of "1" (unity)
differs from the substance of "2" (duality). If generated, Christ, born out of the Father,
was, is and will always be part of the Father and so in the same way "God" as He is. How to
understand this God-status of Jesus Christ ?

Tritheism (Father, Son & Holy Ghost as three independent Gods) & modalism (One God
with three Divine modi) had to be refuted. The canons reached at during the ancient
synods had to solve the spirito-political tensions between the bishops and to allow the
imperial order to identify with an evangelical "Divine" order. Jesus Christ, the Son, was
deemed "generated" not "created", born out of the Father and consubstantial
("homoousios") with Him. The Holy Spirit came from the Father and the Son (in the East,
the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father only and the phrase "and the Son" or "filioque" is
absent). Compromizes such as "analogous in all with the Father" or "resembling the Father
in being" ("homoiousios") were rejected.
The Roman Trinitarian formula became : "one essence and three Divine Persons". This
Nicæan formula became the leading dogma of the Roman Church.
When concentrating on the Person of Christ, parties disagreed about the proper balance
between Christ's humanity and His Divinity. Too much humanity could loosen the
ontological bond with the Father (as "God" -like the Father- or as First Creation next to
Him). Too much Divinity could endanger universal redemption in the name of the Godman
Christ. Deny His humanity and our bond with Him as Son of Man is gone. Deny His Divinity
and Christ can no longer save us, but only the Father can.
In the Latin West, the formula : "One Divine Person with two natures (human & Divine)",
became the ruling formula promulgated by Constantine's bishops.
The Council of Nicea, deciding in favour of co-substantialism, the two natures of Christ, and
the Filioque, effectively divided Christianity, allowing each to position its own theological
system.
"Credimus in unum Dominum nostrum Iesum Christum Dei, natum ex Patre unigenitum,
hoc est de substantia Patris, Deum ex Deo, lumen ex lumine, Deum verum de Deo vero,
natum, non factum, unius substantiae cum Padre ..."
19th of June AD 325 - my italics
Compared to Paganism, Christianity adopted four major novelties :
1. the idea of a World Savior:
a perfect human and a perfect God, called "Jesus Christ", lived, died and rose
again within historical time, acting as a savior-figure, founding a totally new
cult ;
2. the theology of the person :
humans are persons endowed with a free will and so able to make a positive
choice. To find salvation, the despondent men of the empire could come one by
one ;
3. the spiritual equality of all humans :
although the social system distinguished ever more sharply between aristocrats
and commoners, the new religion offered salvation to all human beings ;
4. the emperor as the protector of the new order :

already at the end of the first century, Clement I had stressed the centrist
approach and placed himself at the head of the Church of Christ (for Rome "had
the bones" of Peter & Paul). Constantine would finalize this move, and declare
himself as the protector of the Universal (Catholic) Church, while manipulating
the outcome of crucial Christocentric & Trinitarian issues.
With Gregory of Nyssa (ca. 335 - 399), Gregory of Nazianzus (329 - 389), Basil of
Caesarea (ca. 329 - 379) and Augustine (354 - 430), etc. we see the emergence of a
Christian philosophical school, raising the issues of Platonic and neo-Platonic thought and
dealing with them in terms of Christian theology. They devised the language of Christology
and Trinitarism, introducing Greek metaphysics into Christian theology.
From the side of reason, Christian revelation (or any other), cannot define truth. Christian
philosophy is either a "Christian" version of philosophy or the philosophy of Christianity. In
both cases, the essential tension between revelation & reason remains unsolved.
In a Christian perspective, "spiritual exercises" no longer involve the person as a hermit in
his or her own right, but only as a member of the community or church. Without the
church, no salvation ! Without a rule, no monastery ! Despite the theology of the person (in
fact intended to allow people to make the life-saving choice for Christ and the Catholic
Church), individualism was lost and even hermits as the Desert Fathers (in 4th century
Upper Egypt), would eventually also become regulated by the centrist bishops (cf. the rise
of monastic rules) and emerge in the 9th as a completely regulated "spiritual" life (cf.
Cluny). Also, even if monks and nuns (cf. Beatrice of Nazareth, Jan of Ruusbroec) were
seeking transformation, this was no longer to find a new wholeness within themselves as
themselves, but only insofar as they became, through baptism, the adoptive children of
Christ Himself ! Realizing the "imago Dei" was the goal, and without the grace of the Holy
Spirit this was deemed impossible.
By contrast, in Greek philosophy in general, and in neo-Platonism in particular, individual
efforts were considered to be sufficient to realize wholeness and experience "the One"
directly. In Christianity, only Jesus Christ saves. Indeed, persons make a "free choice" to
find themselves integrated into the "mystical body of Christ" ! What a difference ! Without
Divine grace, nothing could be achieved and man was an easy prey for the Devil and his
own (cf. Augustine in his Confessions, who's life coincided with the transition from Late
Hellenism to the Christian Middle Ages).
Augustine, the bishop of Hippo (North Africa), affirmed the continuity between rationality
(identified with Platonism) and faith, in casu, Christianity. Without (the Christian) God,
reason leads to the worship of idols. For him, reason and faith are not in conflict and should
not be separated : "itinerarium mentis in Deum". But, the gospels have no philosophy to
offer. They provide no rational system, but a proclamation of the "Kingdom of God" (in the
Incarnation of Jesus Christ). If the former is a Greek ideal like "agathon" (Plato's "summum
bonum") or the Peripatetic unmoved mover, Jesus Christ is a revelation of the Divine : a
Divine datum. The tensions are obvious. Is reason equipped enough to arrive at a
comprehensive explanation of what works ? If so, then no "eye of faith" needs to be
postulated. For Tertullian (ca. 220 CE), Christianity abrogated reason, or "worldly wisdom".
He believed because of its absurdity. The folly of faith ?
With the rise of Christianity & its fundamentalism, Greek philosophy and the Pagan way of

life were deemed heretical and therefore excommunicated. Hermetism and Gnosticism
were condemned. A mentality which would persist for more than 13 centuries, reducing
free thought to nil ! Officially, individual spiritual exercises were over and philosophy
became the appendix of Christian theology, used for apology & exegesis, i.e. reduced to
logic & linguistics. Only as late as 2000 CE did the Roman Church acknowledge these "sins
against truth", asking God to forgive her.
Despite this general climate, philosophers did emerge. More than once in open conflict with
the powers that be, they evidenced the spontaneous association of thought, feeling and
action with their reflections, creating a need to understand the wider perspectives on truth,
beauty & goodness, and this while remaining within the confines of Christian faith, often
placing faith above reason.
Catholic thinkers such as Augustine, Scotus (ca. 810 - 877), Anselm (1033 - 1109),
Abelard (1079 - 1142), Aquinas (1225 - 1274), Ockham (1290 - 1350) and Cusanus (1401
- 1464), contributed to the preservation of many twists & turns of the philosophical mind.
Devoid of philosophical practice, they kept & polished the magisterial "dead bones" of the
philosophies of Antiquity, adding a few of their own.
04. Montaigne, Descartes, Kant.
Between the 16th and 18th centuries, Europe developed a new vision of the human.
Differing radically from anything before, it became an example for non-Europeans to follow.
Eventually, this new ideal conquered the civilized world. Its essential components were :
● humanism : the human is put in the center and given an ultimate value to which
everything else had to be subdued. Egocentrism & the subjugation of nature to the
will of the human prevailed ;
● focus on the empirical : the transcendent realities of myth and religion are replaced
by what the senses bring ;
● openness : commerce brings the unknown into focus and exploration is of the order
of the day, everything is possible and there are no sacred grounds ;
● pluralism & tolerance : slowly the realization dawned that other people, groups,
nations etc. have the right to take their own development at heart ;
● rationalism & utility : science & technology are deemed crucial to eliminate the
difficulties encountered : anticipation, prediction, self-control, efficiency,
argumentation etc. become more important ;
● pretence : the rational, calculating, planning and self-controlling Westerner becomes
highly optimistic and develops pride in his enormous achievements, anticipating to
become God himself, i.e. achieve immortality on Earth ;
● democracy : with the French Revolution (1789), a new political consciousness
dawned. Divine kingship could no longer be accepted and with its demise the world
was again transformed.

Montaigne
With his motto "Que sais-je ?", Montaigne (1533 - 1592) revitalized skepticism and posited
cultural relativism. In his Essays (or "Attempts"), he eloquently employed so many
references and quotes from classical, non-Christian Greek & Roman authors, in particular
Lucretius, that his work may be read as an argument to disregard religious (read :
Christian) dogma. More importantly, Montaigne was the first to use introspection to analyze
his own thoughts, feelings and actions. This "psychological turn" implied self-discovery and
the experience of oneself "as it is", the first step in any attempt to address the totality of
faculties. This reinvention of the individual was one of the crucial characteristics of the
Renaissance thinkers. Less and less shackled by the constraints of Catholic dogma, they
took reason as their guide and rejected blind faith and its fideist impact on thought. As
Thomas Aquinas before him, Montaigne considered revealed and natural truth to be in
harmony. However, this traditional thesis went hand in hand with skepticism.
In his Apology for Raymond Sebond (1576), Montaigne wrote we can not be sure of
anything unless we find the one thing which is absolutely certain. Task was to "watch my
self as narrowly as I can". Of course, this is only possible if we place not God, but the
human center stage. Montaigne reinvented the practice of philosophy, and instead of
focusing on theoretical issues, he tried to understand how human beings can be happy. The
quest for happiness is indeed the main theme of any practice of philosophy, for it is
common to all human beings.
Montaigne did not reject the Bible. In his introduction to his Apology, we read that without
"illumination" reason can understand nothing fundamental about the universe. Duly
illuminated, the human can come to know himself, his Creator and his religious and moral
duties, which he will then love to fulfill. The method consists of freeing humans from doubts
and revealinf the errors of Pagan Antiquity and its unenlightened philosophers. It teaches
Catholic truth, showing up sects as errors and lies. It does all these things by teaching the
Christian the "alphabet" which must be acquired if one is to read Nature aright. Revealed
truths and the Book of Nature properly read say the same things. With this thesis,
Montaigne is still firmly grounded in pre-Cartesian thought.
The move from this Renaissance humanism to rationalism was interpreted by Toulmin as
rationalism's answer to the initiating force of humanism (cf. Cosmopolis : The Hidden
Agenda of Modernity, 1990). The humanists had placed humanity to the fore, and the
rationalists continued on this line, for humans were foremost characterized by their
cognitive abilities. This "turn" placed epistemology and the question "What do I know ?" in
the center. Devoid of revealed, dogmatic knowledge, the Renaissance thinker is forced to
find good reasons to justify thought. The three traditional avenues (of ecclesiastical
authority, sense data and formal logic) were questioned, and the first was radically
rejected. Empirism and rationalism devised two opposed answers to the question of
justification, and grounded thought either in sense data or in the necessary truths of
reason.
Cartesius
To seek indubitable truth, René Descartes (1596 - 1650) turned to radical methodological
doubt. He left the Jesuit college of La Flèche and was ashamed of the amalgam of doubts

and errors he had learned there. In fact, he realized his knowledge was based on nothing
certain. Traditional scholastic philosophy, influenced by the dogmatic discourse of revealed
knowledge, consisted of various contradicting opinions, grosso modo Platonic or Peripatetic.
History was a series of moral lessons (cf. Livius) and philosophy was still restricted to logic.
The experimental method was absent, and various authorities ("auctoritates") were studied
(Galenus, Aristotle, Avicenna, etc.). Aim was to harmonize the magisterial contradictions
(cf. the "sic et non" method). In the interpretation of these sources, a certain creativity was
at work, but the question of the foundation of knowledge was not posed. However, in the
mind of Cartesius, the only constructive point of his education, so the Discourse on Method
(1637) tells us, was the discovery of his own ignorance.
This discovery prompted Descartes to reject all prejudices and seek out certain knowledge.
This is knowledge justified in an absolute way, i.e. based on a sufficient ground
(foundationalism). Nine years he raises doubts about various conjectures and opinions
covering the whole range of human activities. Eventually, doubt is raised against three
possible sources of knowledge :
1. authority : in Scholasticism, the system of authority was the only one in place.
This authority was based on "revealed" knowledge, deemed eternal,
unchangeable and definitive (cf. the revelations of the Torah, the New
Testament & the Koran). Historical criticism was absent and epistemologically,
the source of revealed knowledge was considered "higher" than rational and
empirical knowledge. However, as contradictions between authorities always
rise, a higher criterion is needed if the effort to solve these is considered
necessary ;
2. senses : maybe waking experience is just a "dream", a "hallucination" or an
"illusion", i.e. something appearing differently than it really is ? By which
criterion can both be distinguished ? Is waking a kind of dreaming and
dreaming a kind of waking ? Also : the senses give confused information, so a
still higher criterion is needed ;
3. reason : here we have the laws of logic and its "clear & distinct" ideas. How can
we be certain some "malin génie" has not created us such, that we accept selfevident
reasoning (for example : the triangle has three sides) although we are
in reality mislead and in fatal error ? Here Cartesius raises doubt about reason
itself. As a rationalist, he tries to "escape" this problem by intuitively positing a
criterion of truth (the "clear & distinct" ideas) circle-wise connected with the
existence of God. He failed doing so without introducing a circular argument
(reminiscent of scholastic fundamentalism).
However far doubt is systematically applied, for Descartes it does not extend to my own
existence. Doubt reveals my existence. If, as maintained in the Principles of Philosophy, the
word "thought" is defined as all which we are conscious of as operating in us, then
understanding, willing, imagining and feeling are included. I can doubt all objects of these
activities of consciousness, but that such an activity of consciousness exists, is beyond
doubt.

Thus, the "res cogitans", "ego cogitans" or "l'être conscient" is the crucial factor in
Cartesian philosophy. Its indubitable, intuitively grasped truth ? Cogito ergo sum : I think,
therefore I am. That I doubt certain things may be the case, but the fact that I doubt them,
i.e. am engaged in a certain conscious activity, is certain. To say : "I doubt whether I
exist." is a contradictio in actu exercito, or a statement refuted by the mere act of stating
it. The certainty of Cogito ergo sum is not inferred but immediate and intuitive. It is not a
conclusion, but a certain premiss. It is not first & most certain in the "ordo essendi", but as
far as regards the "ordo cognoscendi". It is true each time I think, and when I stop thinking
there is no reason for me to think that I ever existed. I intuit in a concrete case the
impossibility of thinking without existing. In the second Meditation, Cogito ergo sum is true
each time I pronounce or mentally conceive it ...
Having intuited a true and certain proposition, Descartes seeks the implied general criterion
of certainty. Cogito ergo sum is true and certain, because he clearly and distinctly sees
what is affirmed. As a general rule, all things which I conceive clearly and distinctly are
true. In the Principles of Philosophy, we are told "clear" means that which is present and
apparent to an attentive mind and "distinct" that which contains within itself nothing but
what is clear. Although he has arrived at a certain and clear proposition, he does not start
to work with it without more ado. Indeed, suppose God gave me a nature which causes me
to err even in matters which seem self-evident ? To eliminate this "very slight" doubt,
Descartes needs to prove the existence of a God who is not a deceiver. Without this proof,
it might be so that what I conceive as clear and distinct, is in reality not so.
But what is the problem with Cogito ergo sum ?
Besides not being a rational conclusion, but an intuitional, apodictic (tautological) certainty,
both in the Meditations and the Principles of Philosophy, the "I" in Cogito ergo sum, is not a
transcendental ego (a mere formal condition of knowledge, as it should be), but "me
thinking". Despite various contents of thought, the thing that cannot be doubted is not "a
thinking" or "a thought" or a formal "thinker", but a thinking ego conceived as an existing
substance. This ego is not formal, nor the "I" of ordinary discourse, but a concrete existing
"I", a kind of scholastic soul (anima). Descartes uncritically assumes the scholastic notion
of substance (substantia), while this doctrine is open to doubt. Thinking does not
necessarily require a substantial thinker. The ego cogitans does not refer to a thinking
thing, but to a mere transcendental ego accompanying every cogitation.
Because he did not rely on the object of knowledge (deemed doubtful), Descartes rooted
his whole enterprise in an ideal, substantial ego, constituting the possibility and expansion
of knowledge. All idealists after him would do the same. The end result of this reduction is
a variation on the Platonic theory of knowledge. Eventually (as in contemporary
epistemology), truth is identified with a consensus omnium between sign-interpreters (cf.
Habermas - Chapter 2).
Descartes, in order to integrate his systematic doubt into his philosophical method, relying
on the natural light of reason to attain certain knowledge, introduced the style of the
meditation. Self-reflective activity is made independent of revealed knowledge, and the
thinker is deemed able to find absolute truth independent of the scholastic tradition.
Although this cannot be called a return to a spiritual practice aiming at the integration of
the whole (the transformation of parts -thoughts, affects, actions- into a larger whole),
Cartesian meditation does imply a systematic use of introspection at the service of a given

philosophical aim, in his case finding the absolutely certain. René Descartes thereby
initiated the French approach "from within", which returns in Bergson (1859 - 1941), as
well as in Sartre (1905 - 1980) or Foucault (1926 - 1984). In German philosophy, Husserl
(1859 - 1939) is a good example, as was the late Wittgenstein (1889 - 1951).
05. Kant and the "Copernican Revolution".
With his "Copernican Revolution", Kant (1724 - 1804), focusing on the transcendental
subject of experience, completes the self-reflective movement initiated by Descartes, while
trying to purge objective (realist) and subjective (idealist) substantializations. The "I" in
"What can I know ?" does not refer to a Cartesian substantial ego cogitans, but to an
unsubstantial, formal possibility of gathering the manifold of mental & sensuous objective
activity under the unity of a single apprehending consciousness, the "I think", the apex of
reason necessary to be able to think the empirical ego and its concrete cogitations. The "I
think" is a meta-level. Criticism reflects on the conditions of knowledge and uncovers
principles, norms & maxims. Transcendental inquiry is therefore the "doubling" of reason
in :
● mind ("Verstand") : together with the senses, co-conditioning facts tending towards
differentiation (variety) &
● reason ("Vernunft") : regulating dualism with ideas converging on unity & the
unconditional.
Integrating the best of rationalism and empirism, Kant avoids the battle-field of the endless
(metaphysical and ontological) controversies by (a) finding and (b) applying the conditions
of possible knowledge. From rationalism, he adopted the idea knowledge is a phenomenon
co-constructed by the subject and its natural operations. But instead of introducing a
substantial subject he worked out a transcendental apex for the cognitive system. From
empirism, he took the idea knowledge "starts" with sense-contact, and not with a priori
categories.
Indeed, an armed truce or concordia discors between object and subject had to be realized
(cf. Chapter 2). Inspired by Newton (1642 - 1727) and his theory on universal gravitation,
but turning against Hume (1711 - 1776) and his skepticism, Kant deems synthetic
propositions a priori possible (Hume had only accepted direct synthetic propositions a
posteriori). Kant was among the first to realize that in the previous centuries, the crucial
epistemological question had been reduced to an ontological problem. Not "What can I
know ?", but "What is the foundation of what I know ?" had been at hand. The latter quest
first introduced a theory on being (ontology) and then moved to explain how knowledge
emerged as a result. Hence, two opposing, contradictory "solutions" were proposed : in
rationalism, knowledge was based on an ideal kind of cogitation ("intuitions" like Cogito
ergo sum), or empirism, based it on a empirical observation (like the direct, experience of
sense-data, representing reality one-to-one).
Propositions are either analytic, i.e. tautological, structural, and a priori, as in logic &
mathematics, or synthetic, adding a sensuous predicate to the subject, requiring sensation.
This happens a posteriori, i.e. after the fact of sensuous contact. Synthetic propositions a
priori are propositions of fact which, just like analytical theories, are always & everywhere
true. Kant was still dreaming of finding the absolute foundation for scientific knowledge.

Later, neo-Kantian criticism would prove him wrong.
For Kant, the categorial system, rooted in the subject of experience, produced scientific
statements of fact which are always valid and necessary (for Hume, scientific knowledge is
not always valid and necessary). This system stipulates the conditions of valid knowledge
and is therefore the transcendental foundation of all possible knowledge.
So in his Critique of Pure Reason, Kant tried to find how statements of fact could be
universal & necessary, i.e. as binding as the analytics of mathematics. Only then was a
universal and necessary science deemed possible. Without apory, his philosophy explained
how Newton's physical laws were universal & necessary. The scandal was over ...
Kant let rational thought mature. Unlike concept-realism (Platonic or Peripatetic) and
nominalism (of Ockham or Hume), critical thought, inspired by Descartes, is rooted in the
"I think", the transcendental condition of empirical self-consciousness without which
nothing can be properly called "experience". This "I", the apex of the system of
transcendental concepts, is "of all times" the idea of the connected of experiences. It is not
a Cartesian substantial ego cogitans, nor an empirical datum, but the formal condition
accompanying every experience of the empirical ego. Kant calls it the transcendental
(conditional) unity of all possible experience (or apperception) a priori. Like the
transcendental system of which it is the formal head, it is, by necessity, shared by all those
who know.
"What can I know ?" is the first question asked. Which conditions make knowledge
possible ? This special reflective activity was given a new word, namely "transcendental".
This meta-knowledge is not occupied with outer objects, but with our manner of knowing
these objects, so far as this is meant to be possible a priori (A11), i.e. always, everywhere
and necessarily so. Kant's aim is to prepare for a true, immanent metaphysics, different
from the transcendent, dogmatic ontologisms of the past, turning thoughts into things.
The professorial philosophy of Kant divorced the practice of philosophy from the theory of
knowledge, making the intuitive core of philosophy no longer an issue. Kant is the first to
find good reasons to limit philosophy, but was himself largely misunderstood. His
metaphysical intention was overseen, although the theoretical division between
"phenomenon" and "noumenon" would influence post-Kantian ontology.
In the German Idealism of Fichte (1762 - 1814), Schelling (1775 - 1854) & Hegel (1770 -
1831), a restoration of scholastic ontology was pursued. Absolute object & absolute subject
were reintroduced. Hegel added dialectic change to his largely Spinozist kind of ontology.
By way of thesis, anti-thesis & synthesis, Nature becomes Spirit and Spirit becomes Aware
of Itself (as Hegel). Integrating history and novelty-through-change in what had been a
static, geometrical and formal exposition of substance, Hegel lay the foundation for
historical materialism (Marx as Hegel reversed) and process philosophy.
In the virulent conflict between, on the one hand, the will to restore & maintain the old
ways of foundational thought (a nostalgia for pre-critical feudalism also visible in the
political tensions between revolution & restoration) as in Hegelianism, Marxism, scientism,
Fregean logicism, logical positivism, historical materialism, Husserlian and Heideggerian
phenomenology etc. and, on the other hand, an irrationalism rejecting the supreme role of
reason, as in the protest philosophies of Schopenhauer (1788 - 1860), Nietzsche (1844 -
1900) and Bergson (1859 - 1941), irrationalism proved prophetical for the 20th century.

06. From the academy to Achenbach & C°.
From Kant onwards, but especially when Hegelianism was taken over by physicalism,
academic philosophy was reorganized (in Germany ca. 1850). The role given to philosophy
depended on the overall orientation of the university. The division between, on the one
hand, an empirical approach, and, on the other hand, a textual, hermeneutical and more
"scholastic" way remained pertinent until this day. In no way was the practice of philosophy
made part of the study, and a scholarly reduction was at hand. The process of devising a
standard "curriculum" for philosophy continued, depending on local preferences and
intellectual tastes. This absence of standardization has many advantages, allowing each
department of philosophy the freedom to adapt to its environment. But is this philosophy
or only its logistics ?
A curriculum of philosophy must train philosophers in such a way they are able to become
"real life" philosophers. If it cannot deliver this, then philosophy has not been served. If
philosophy is what philosophers do, then surely an academic training in philosophy must
teach philosophers how to do that ? Suppose this is not the case, then what use has the
academy ?
Given the results of two centuries of criticism, a series of "hardcore" philosophical
disciplines were found to be necessary : logic, epistemology, ethics, esthetics &
(immanent) metaphysics. In various forms, this core is always part of any contemporary
Western faculty of philosophy. But perhaps academic philosophy has failed us because of
its reluctance to integrate the practice of philosophy and think the philosophy of the
practice of philosophy, including its economy.
The philosophy of the practice of philosophy has as object the practicum of wisdom in
(Socratic) dialogue and the psychology, sociology & economy of the practice of a
philosopher.
Contemporary academic philosophy, concocting a beautiful, but still incomplete neoscholastic
system, does not provide future philosophers the tools to actually practice
sapiental teachings "on the market", i.e. in the world outside school and the academic
system. The curriculum has no practicum. These academia are presently unequipped to
give its "Master Degree in Philosophy" any economic value. This petrifies the veins and
causes arrest. The philosophy of the practice of philosophy is the necessary complement of
the "pure" work of writing out theory intended to study & teach philosophy in the best
possible way. Thanks to philosophy as praxis, the psychology, sociology, economics, etc. of
acquiring wisdom are integrated to fructify philosophy as theoria. Thanks to the latter, the
former increases efficiency.
With the reintroduction of the practice of philosophy in the late '80s, things changed. As a
Socratic operator, the philosopher moved "on the market". Able to make a living as an
independent teacher and advisor, reflection correlates with action. Being a way of life,
defined by a free spirit of rational inquiry, regulated by the idea of the unconditional, and
aiming to be more "a living voice than writing and more a life than a voice" (Hadot, 1995,
p.23.), philosophy is more than a logistics of ideas and their history.
The acquisition of abstract, theoretical knowledge should not be divorced again, this time
by realist materialism instead of idealist dogmatic theology, from the transformation of

one's complete personality through the exercise of wisdom. Moreover, the latter implies
much more than relative, contextual virtues and maxims, mere "applications" outside the
confines of the "academic approach". Exercising wisdom constitutes the actual spirit of
philosophy, rooted in practice, and should not be misunderstood for irrationalism. Quite on
the contrary, it triggers a deeper realization of the "higher" Self of the philosopher,
actualizing creative thought. Academic philosophy still circumvents a confrontation with the
challenge posed by the actual life of philosophers through the well-known tactic of
intentional silence.
In the '90s, the postmodern movement brought philosophy outside the academic system.
Just as the Renaissance thinker risked his life when thinking outside the limits of Roman
dogma, the postmodernist identifies the modernist academia as places of "double talk".
Given philo-logistics is crucial, postmodern logic draws a margin and identifies the whole
system of convenient classifications as a "mummification" (cf. Nietzsche, Heidegger,
Derrida) of the spoken, living world, a priori invalid in the actual situation of any living
philosopher, and thus unaware of the sense of wisdom. Precisely because the latter cannot
be "frozen" in abstract categories, academic philosophy turns away from its necessary
feeding-grounds and, at first anorexic, it finally starves itself to death. The postmodern
reflex to "deconstruct" or identify the "transcendent" factors (i.e. absolute thinking) "in the
margin" facilitated the recovery of the "true sense" of philosophy, the "voice" instead of the
"writing", the "ancient" way of life of the sapient and the spiritual exercises accompanying
such a life.
"Die philosophische Praxis ist ein freies Gespräch."
Achenbach
In 1987, the German Gerd Achenbach launched his Philosophische Praxis ("Practice of
Philosophy"), bringing about a rediscovery, reappraisal & operationalization of the "sense"
of wisdom, not in terms of a theoretical logistics, but as an actual, living wisdom and its
praxis, namely as that what philosophers do. Comparable initiatives emerged across
Europe, USA, Canada, Latin America, Israel and the far Eastern countries. In France and in
the Netherlands, these efforts were followed and developed by Veening (1987), Hoogendijk
(1988), Dill (1990), Sautet (1992) etc. In Belgium, the practice of philosophy of the
present writer assists business (1990).
A philosophy of the practice of philosophy is possible and necessary. It should be studied
and taught at school. This is vital for the future professionalism of a practicing philosopher.
Philosophers have to be taught how to be autonomous thinkers. Philosophical dialogue in
theory and practice furthers an individual’s originality & self-sufficiency. Counteracting
strategies and divisions, philosophers must be told how to bridge, advise, harmonize,
cultivate mutual understanding through dialogue, aim at the transformation of ideas to
produce cooperation, integration and wholeness, etc. Academic philosophy should be able
to prepare its students, giving them the tools to build a genuine philosophical life, teaching
them how to practice philosophy, i.e. apply its theory.
The necessity of the "Practice of Philosophy" derives from wisdom's aim to reduce
alienation & disorientation, promoting :
1. (inter) subjectivity :
self-awareness, consciousness of being a subject, a someone rather than a

something, the First Person perspective, ability to interact constructively with
others, implying openness, flexibility, respect, tolerance etc. ;
2. cognitive autonomy :
capacity to think rationally, to self-reflect, able to formulate ideas independent
of traditions, ability to integrate instinct & intuition in a rational way, dialogal
capacity, using arguments to posit opinions, etc. ;
3. moral balance :
awareness of the importance of happiness, justice and fairness in thought,
feelings and actions, communicational action, building peace, mutual
understanding & acting against extreme positions like fundamentalism, nihilism,
skepticism, dogmatism, relativism, materialism, spiritualism, etc. ;
4. intellectual & spiritual concentration, sharpness & depth :
creative capacity, originality, inventivity, novelty, and the spiritual exercises
aiming at wholeness, leading to increased mental concentration, intellectual
acuteness and extend of interests and compass.
For Hoogendijk (1988), wonder starts where self-evidence ends. By moving beyond the
confines of any given context, chain of events or situation, ever alert when something new
approaches, practical philosophy is an exercise in permanent wonderment. Indeed, the
finite circle of always-the-same-thing is thus abandoned and the attitude, frame of mind
and intention of the beginner are invoked. Beginning anew calls for past & future to be
bracketed, objects of memory & expectation to be eliminated from the immediate
awareness of reality-for-me, and the perpetual present to be invited by observing what
happens here and now with as few interpretations as practically possible. Starting all over
again is an art and a science. It is like existing in the interval of the "now", in the isthmus
between what is past and not yet future.
Philosophical dialogue is the confidential instrument of practical philosophy. This is not the
same as a casual conversation about the meaning of life, love, health and the like. As
Ptahhotep and the Egyptian sages after him already noticed, a curious exchange occurs
between a person with a crucial question and another person trained in using the mind
constructively and spiritually, i.e. aiming at the integration of the full scale of consciousness
and its meaning-giving activities. Because of their predilection for words as the eternal
expression of the "energetic formative principles of nature" (Lawtor in Schwaller, 1988,
p.10), the Egyptian sage characterized this exchange in concrete concepts (cf. protorational
stage of cognition and the ante-rational, instinctual mind).
In the Maxims of Good Discourse, there are no grammatical criteria to establish whether
the author uses the verb "sedjem" ("sDm") as "to hear" or as "to listen". Although in some
cases, variations occur which could indicate "listen", in other cases "sDm" appears when
the context suggest "listening". Hence, only the context may reveal the distinction, which is
pertinent.
The following "order" or proto-rational closure may be derived :

● hearer : one who opens his ears to invite the meaning of the words spoken - the ears
are pleased to hear what profits the didactical purpose of the good discourse, the
accomplished transmission of the commanding words of wisdom - the hearer directs
his attention consciously and so "hearing" is clearly a level higher than registering
without the effort to comprehend ;
● master-hearer : the one who immediately comprehends the meaning and can
reproduce it - this leads to listening if the heart desires so ;
● listener : one who opened his heart to invite the "inner" meaning of the totality of
what he heard - one able to recognize the excellence of the good discourse in the
words & deeds of those who heard & listened to them (i.e. a perfect son) - note that
he who listens is loved by the god (the deity ruling the place) ;
● master-listener : one who listened so well that he surpassed the teachings of his own
father and is able to do great, excellent deeds and speak the accomplished discourse ;
● venerable : when old age has arrived, the master-listener (while alive) enjoys
constantly doing righteousness.
In Classical Greek philosophy, the exchange between subjects in philosophical conversation
became hyper-symbolical, dialogal, argumentative, objectifying, linearizing and abstract,
confining the role of philosophy in society to the study & practice of cognitive & moral
states, implying logic, a series of normative disciplines and metaphysics (particularly
ontology).
Introducing rationality and the conceptualizing (discursive) mind hand in hand with the
abstract symbols and their mathesis, allowed wisdom to finally integrate the rational
discourse and to fully benefit from this new stratum of cognitive (formal) operations, freed
from any geo-cognitive hangovers, so typical of ante-rationality. After a few millennia,
cognition had to face the problems of formal rationality and its "fundamentalism", i.e. the
ante-rational need for a sufficient ground or underlying "thing" (hypokeimenon), whether it
be as the Fata Morgana or conceptual mirage of the "Real" (world out there) or the
"Ideal" (subject in here). Drawing the lines and defining the fundamental demarcations of
thought as thought, criticism is never "on its own". As the constant ally of formal reason,
critical thought reminds itself of the constant possibility or trap of mistaking facts for reality
& thoughts for ideality. New experiments are always needed (for nature changes), and
debates must be forthcoming.
Once the underlying, sufficient ground is uncritically accepted (as in concept-rationality),
ever more glyphs materialize (due to the infusion of meaning, or consciousness, in matter)
and solid deposits occur. This accumulation of glyphs forms aggregates operating as
institutions and academic, legal, economic, military, educational, medical, religious etc.
systems. So many monoliths of long-term wishful thinking accommodates a conservative
reflex, and also maintains (to guarantee a personal livelihood) the shameful waste of
energy and effort. Indeed, the major problem facing humanity is the same as what stares
us daily in the face, namely proper rational organization. As long as a poor household
quarrels, no gain is made. The practice of philosophy, and not religion and/or
psychotherapy, is the most rational approach, for a new beginning is also a new state of

mind (cf. "metanoia").
The reciprocity between listening & talking are the perennial corner-stones of sapience. But
in the practice of philosophy, the ideal speech-situation is sought, i.e. an open space
created for the sole purpose of introducing a new project of self-knowledge. In the context
of the practice of philosophy, philosophical investigations and probing questions must be
rejected as authoritarian power-instruments (Dill, 1990). In fact, the whole "scholastic"
approach of philosophy dominating academic philosophy must be rejected and replaced by
a critical reappraisal of philosophy, integrating the best of the scholastic approach of
philosophy's logistics.
The practice of philosophy has no imperative, "automatic result" and does not transfer a
teaching or a particular system of philosophy. As "theoretical" philosophy is presupposed,
the practice of wisdom is impossible, from the side of the philosopher, without (1) a serious
theoretical, propaedeutic study, and (2) an ongoing theoretical endeavor after such a
practice has been initiated, evidencing a creative integration of the philosophical traditions
of one's formative years and an ability to move beyond these and contribute to the field of
free thought.
In the practice of philosophy, the quality of a given dialogue lies in the hands of both
philosopher and his dialogue partner. From the start, the whole process is two-way. The
philosopher does not consider him or herself as "privileged" in any way, but only more
capable of (1) analyzing systems of thought, (2) opening up conceptual constructions and
(3) smoothly transiting from one dialogal style to another.
A philosophical dialogue is a string of individual dialogues in tune with the theme
introduced by those addressing wisdom, ranging from mere informational statements, to
exchanges of ideas, concrete questions and deep existential questions. Such a dialogue
may be considered as successful if it results in both attaining a larger understanding. It
serves the purpose of spiritual care if the client feels liberated from (self-imposed ?)
restrictions and is again able to witness new possibilities. It has sense when it
communicates self-respect and increases empathy.
The fundamental attitude is based on an open, communicative and inquiring mental
disposition. The philosopher constantly returns to the mentality of the beginner, implying
the re-investigation of established truths, norms, values and expectations. This
engagement to let go pet ideas & cherished concepts makes way for wonderment, which
invokes new questions regarding old phenomena, ideas, mentalities & opinions. Closed
rationalism, turning away from instinct and intuition, always leads to unbearable situations.
The practice of philosophy contributes to this harmony between all possible faculties of
consciousness. Both the senses, instincts, affects, reason and intuition are given their place
and reality. Personal issues as well as abstract considerations are part of the equation, a
rare combination indeed.
Interested scrutiny is the method of the practice. By doing so, we may participate by
empathizing with the other and this by using all our spiritual faculties. Understanding is not
given or offered, but found (discovered) by way of dialogue. Accurate observation, feeling
reality, mentally grasping the situation and trying to form a total phenomenological picture
of everything which emerges in consciousness, as well as between both, are at hand. These
instruments are put in place to come in touch with higher human values, considered to be a
given between human beings or deemed acquirable by way of thought.

Socrates combined a unique spirit of questioning with a specific method. He wanted to
ascertain the meaning of human life with the art of conversation, dialogue and
argumentation. He considered himself as the midwife of wisdom, enabling the other (and
himself) to give birth to solutions to given problems. The Socratic art and science of
conversation is a game of questions and answers, enabling the dissolution of mental knots
by way of thought. This "Socratic dialectic" is two-tiered :
● critical : humans have to liberate their thinking from delusions, uncritical ideas and
irresponsible certainties ;
● maieutical : aiding, or tending to, the definition & interpretation of thoughts or
language, the dialogal partner comes to understanding by himself and makes his or
her own choices in clarity and responsibility. Man is able to liberate from self-imposed
chains. The philosopher assists in this.
The final result of such a Socratic dialogue is self-knowledge and a personal opinion
regarding a given issue. Is one prepared, for the sake of some higher value (truth, beauty,
goodness, loyalty, courage, health, balance etc.), to reject delusional thought ? Hence, this
type of dialogue is an intensified philosophical conversation. It never stops and is defined
by a given problem or issue (problem-bound). Solutions always point to new questions,
making the dialectic recurrent. In its critical phase, intensity is heightened and
confrontations are at times rather severe. All prejudices hindering an engaged
conceptualization of the fulfillment of life have to be abandoned and to face one's illusions
is not easy.
Confused knowledge is therefore organized in clear concepts. Available knowledge is
discussed and subject to criticism. The demarcation between sensible knowledge and
irrelevant content is crucial. But, the philosopher has no pre-established "domain" or
"theory" and is in principle open to discuss anything. So in these conversations, the
philosopher's own ideas play a secondary role. A consensus is aimed at, with instinct,
reason and intuition as instruments. Whether something has value depends on whether it
works or not. Use teaches capacity. Inefficient and unoperational mental constructions
hinder the free flow of associations and block the emergence of solutions to problems. The
ideas people entertain regarding themselves, the others, the world and the Divine codetermine
how they experience life, how they think, feel and act.
All human beings desire to be happy.
The philosopher may act as a mirror, reflecting contents with as little interpretation as
possible. Posing questions, he or she may open the door and allow the other to take
initiative. This may trigger a dialectical process by systematically creating opposition, or
may stimulate the other to devise new mental constructions and symbolic connotations. In
order to bring about another view on the issue, the philosopher may "brainstorm" or think
"laterally". The philosopher listens carefully and utters, with some luck, a word bearing
wisdom.
Let me stress the practice of philosophy is not a therapy. The philosopher has no clinical
capacities whatsoever. He is no clinical psychologist, psychotherapist or priest. To grasp
the other, the latter make use of "a system". Its origins may be neurological,

psychostatistical, psychomorphological or based on revealed knowledge. Due to the
dehumanization of the world, these psychosocial workers are more and more confronted
with the philosophical questions of their clients rather than with particular symptoms or
sins. As a rule, those who attend philosophical counsel are healthy adults, in body and
mind, conscious of themselves and pursuing a unique walk of life on the basis of their free
will. These are people seeking a good conversation, as one would talk to a true friend.
A good philosophical conversation may be healing. To heal is to cure by non-physical
means (i.e. promote health by leaving the physical body untouched). Given the import of
psychosomatic illnesses and the significance of the placebo-effect in drug-based therapies,
the direct influence of dialogue on physical and mental disturbances is pertinent. But given
the causal model used in Western medical science, the self-chosen modus operandi of selfhealing,
suggestion and placebo fall outside this medical paradigm, limited to the material
operator. If approached in a technical way, they are an object of psychology &
"suggestology". Various "schools" emerge and in each a given "theory" tries to reproduce
the effects. However, human beings are not machines and physical methodology does not
always work if mentalities need to be changed. Systems and theories fail. A kind of
psychotherapeutic nihilism is most probably the outcome of a too technical approach of the
existential problems of humanity.
Contrary to this, the philosopher is not a technician and does not follow a prescribed
system of therapy. He has no other means than the word-in-conversation. Through
dialogue he tries to establish a mental point of rest and clarity, an understanding as well as
a renewed power to continue to think. If "therapy" is at hand, then only in the sense of an
"open concept" (cf. Spinelli & Goodman).
Good philosophical conversations may indeed lead to spiritual, psychological and even
physical relieve. This healing effect however, mobilizing the immune system of thinking
bodies, is secondary. Healing as a result of listening and talking belong to the positive sideeffects
of the philosophical way of life. The healing power of the word is indeed known in
psychology. Neurology, linguistics & cybernetics give form to an array of psychotherapeutic
spear-technologies. This has little in common with the practice of philosophy, for here, the
philosopher has no preestablished model, system or mental frame. He starts every
conversations afresh as a beginner would. By nearly observing without interpretation, he
allows a better observation, a more sound reasoning to emerge. This leads to a game of
questions & answers, a rhythm of listening & talking. Although the healing power of such
conversations is unmistaken, their goal is not to cure or heal.
07. The philosophy of spiritual exercises.
Associating the practice of philosophy with "spiritual exercises", begs the question of the
possible relationships between, on the one hand, philosophy, both as theory & practice,
and, on the other hand, mystic experience, religious experience & the practices of the
religions, in particular the monotheisms.
Indeed, since Kant, adherence to the Divine (in whatever guise) was separated from the
logic seeking absolute certainty or relative probability on rational grounds. Beliefs are
axiomatically true as an article of faith, even if they run against reason (cf. Tertullian's
"credo quia absurdum est"). But since the Greeks, philosophy tried not to oppose the
province of formal thought & its dialogal intent. The Medieval dialectic between faith &

eason is so pertinent precisely because Greek philosophy only accepted sensation &
thought, observation & argumentation, Peripatetics & Platonism. A "Deus revelatus" was
unknown to them. For the Greeks, man, with his mind, is equipped to emancipate himself,
put himself up (cf. Marcus Aurelius). Christianity eradicated this, accepting the povertymentality
of original sin to glorify our salvation through the God-Man Jesus Christ (earlier,
Judaism, in the Book of Job, portrayed the paradox of a good God punishing the just). Also
in Islam, the human is a slave before Allah. Scholastic (dogmatic) philosophy can be
nothing more than the handmaiden of theology. Spiritual exercises outside the canons of
faith are ipso facto heretical and to be exterminated.
In the 19th century, as a result of a strict & limited understanding of Kant's work, eclipsing
his immanent metaphysics (cf. the Opus Postumum), the profession of philosopher was
reduced to the academic, neo-scholastic format persisting until today. It was thus
separated from the personal quest of the sage. In such a view, philosophy cannot have a
profound effect on one's destiny, way of life or existential situation. Like "hieroglyphs" it is
deemed a dead language, a relic kept to adorn our Western philosophical faculties with the
marketable illusion of "queen of science". By reintroducing the practice of wisdom, its
fundamental character emerges, for in the "Lebenswelt", the impact of the wise kind of
conversation is directly experienced. This effect may endure and if so, observe how thought
transforms our direct observations. And even in the academy, the study of this philosophy
of practice is more than necessary, providing a living link with the application of philosophy
in society, pushing it outside the ivory tower of dry intellectualism.
Philosophy is more than a "theoretical", ascetic approach of the fundamental questions
regarding being, life & the human. It is more than renunciation, but transforms cognitive
states and effectuates effective changes in the connotative field simultaneous with
observation. If lasting, the influence of the practice of philosophy is irreversible, liberating
and clarifying. A change of mind occurs and a new, more panoramic vantage point is
established. A new, larger whole has been formed, facilitating the transformation of
cognitive states, making personal experience richer, deeper and clearer.
How does the spiritual side of the practice of philosophy differ from religious belief and the
existence of the Divine ? The practice of philosophy is not religious in the soteriological and/
or dogmatic sense. It does not "save" from anything, except possibly from cognitive
hangovers, pet ideas, mental limitations, expectations, prejudices and the like. It has no
prefixed system of revealed dogma's accepted without rational inquiry, quite on the
contrary, it is the ally of science (the system of empirico-formal propositions we for the
moment considered to be true). It seeks the full development of cognition.
But, just as religion, the praxis of philosophy is "spiritual" because addressing the complete
human being in a way which directly influences his or her way of life and being-in-theworld.
Indeed, the "spirit" of something refers to what it truly is, unfettered by illusions and
bringing in the fundamental mental, emotional and activating principle determining one's
temperament. Not only the development of cognition is aimed at, but the transformation of
all aspects of one's being. This is the application of the Delphic (and Socratic) "know
thyself" to the full extend of our shared human possibilities.
Understanding reality in this way has a direct impact on one's personal circumstances. The
philosopher who practices wisdom does not stop doing so at the end of the day (as does
the academic philosopher of the old, neo-scholastic school). Teaching, writing & studying

are complemented by philosophical conversations, advise and spiritual exercises. Theory
and practice are the "two eyes" with which he or she observes the world and participates in
it. And this practice of philosophy touches all levels of society, not only university students.
A good philosophical conversation is spiritual and dialogal. Both listener and speaker are
changed by increased self-awareness, symbolic concentration and clarity.
Qua praxis, dialogue & monologue are the two organs of practice. In the monologal
situation of reflection, the philosopher entertains a series of efforts aiming at a personal
spiritual goal, namely the emancipation of his or her cognitive apparatus, as well as the
other faculties of his or her consciousness. This monologal, inner reference is the personal
experience of the reality (ideality) of the own-Self, a someone rather than a something, a
Being-there, Dasein, or clear presence rather than the answer to What ? or Who ? (Sosein).
The own-Self appears as a reality-for-me, is intimate, private and inner. This monologue is
clearly spiritual.
Spiritual exercises are meant to integrate all foci of consciousness and seek the highest
possible awareness. To fully actualize & harmonize the potentials of awareness,
consciousness, cognition, affection, sensation and action is the goal of any spiritual practice.
When object and subject are no longer present in consciousness, language fails, making
way for the perplexities & wonderments of intuition. The annihilation of the own-Self is
inevitable, for it too is without substance and so subject to change (functionally corelative).
Although outside the nominal (material) four-dimensional continuum, the own-
Self is subjected to the topology of its own 6th dimension (the 5th being consciousness - cf.
Tabula Tabulorum, 2006). Nonduality, operating in the 7th dimension, is beyond the
concept itself and can only be discovered in the clarity of the direct sensation, affection,
cognition & intuition of the absolute (reality and ideality).
"The consciousness of self (apperception) is the simple representation of the ego, and if by
it alone all the manifold (representations) in the subject were given spontaneously, the
inner intuition would be intellectual."
Kant, I. : Critique of Pure Reason, B68.
Because the meta-rational, intuitional levels of cognition, labeled "creative" and "nondual",
are not everyone's share (A42), Kant eliminated "intellectual perception" or "intellectual
intuition" from his epistemology. Insofar as he was trying to establish the critical,
transcendental view, and in doing so define "science", he was correct to discard "inner"
intuitional knowledge. But in terms of a complete picture of cognitive possibilities, he was
wrong to do so.
As a result, the noumenon is not part of the categories and so no empirical-formal
characterization of it is de jure possible. In neo-Kantian thought, this closing of the door to
a foundation outside formal, conceptual thought, led to faillibilism, probabilism & the
modesty of our contemporary sciences, solid state physics included. Formally, thinking the
synthetic unity of the fivefold experiential manifold, the transcendental Self of "all times"
must accompany every cogitation of the empirical ego, but cannot formally be objectified
by means of any perception of a purely "intellectual" kind (cf. Descartes, Pascal, Spinoza,
Leibniz (1646 - 1716) and later Husserl (1859 - 1939)). For Kant, and the critical tradition
after him, the vision behind "the surface of the mirror" is imaginal, nothing more.
Accepting this crucial critical distinction, the philosophy of spiritual exercises foremost

involves the optimalization of one's cognitive, mental capacities. The demarcation between
science (testable and arguable) and metaphysics (arguable or irrational) returns as the
distinction between formal, critical thought and "intuition", extending cognition ex
hypothesi beyond its "nominal", "rational" stage, considering a three-tiered continuum of 7
modes of cognition :
● ante-rational (pre-nominal) : these three modes of cognition (called mythical, prerational
& proto-rational) remain anchored in myth and context, and have no abstract
system of concepts. Concepts are either pseudo-concepts or concrete concepts ;
● rational (nominal) : thanks to formal thought and its foundational reflex, critical
thought lay bare the pre-conditions of thought, making rational free thought possible.
Formal & critical concepts pertain ;
● intuitional (meta-nominal) : creative and nondual thought are immanent and
transcendent answers to the ontological questions and touch upon the interiority of
the philosopher. Creative concepts and nondual, non-conceptiality persists.
In terms of the specificities of the spirituality of the practice of philosophy, their
outstanding feature is the integration of the three fundamental modes of cognition
(instinct, reason, intuition). As co-operating waves reinforcing each other through
resonance, instinct and intuition are not "kept out" and so the tribunal of reason is better
informed and equipped to judge.
The two intuitional modes argued here, namely creative & nondual thought, give birth to a
range of immanent & transcendent metaphysical systems or ontology. In the former, the
order of the world is not transcended and the highest concepts are limit-concepts. In the
latter, the highest concepts are transcendent signifiers and establish an imaginal focus
beyond, outside the world, either in terms of some onto-theological ground or a meta-Self
(as substantial own-Self or "soul").
In creative thought, "purged" by criticism, and due to the transformation or
"spiritualization" of its rational stage, a new kind of reflexive activity occurs, but as an
inner, secret, direct experience of one's own ideal, or higher Self. Rationally, such an inner,
direct experience is problematic.
Nondual thought is the direct discovery of the natural light of the mind. Here,
conceptualization stops. No object. No subject. If not for the clarity of the natural state of
mind, this would be a return to the oceanic milieu of myth and its irrationality. Thought
thinks "all possibilities" and has no longer any focus, no ego, no own-Self. The "via
negativa" is the only viable approach-of-no-approach. What has cognition gained ? Absence
of reflectivity (myth), turned into presence of reflexivity (nondual), irrationality into
wisdom ?
So in the meta-nominal, meta-rational stage of cognition, two modes are distinguished :
● the immanent : the contemplative, creative activity of the arguable, non-factual ideas
(hyper-concepts) of the ontic own-Self, perceived by the intellect (cf. immanent
metaphysics) and

● the transcendent : the nondual activity suggested by the direct discovery of the
unconditional core of all what is.
Two types of rationality or ways to use reason ensue :
● the rational mind : is preoccupied with the growth of scientific knowledge gathered by
the mind through synthesis, but unable to contemplate the transcendental Self as
ontic. It discovers the transcendental norms of reason which regulate the mental
process of producing knowledge (one-dimensional reason) ;
● intellectual reason : serves the purpose of the complete expression of the actual,
individual own-Self, encompassing its creativity & inventivity, being the steppingstone
to the direct discovery of the natural light of the mind. This play does not
inform about the world but about ourselves as Selves. This Self-knowledge
constitutes a creative dynamization of reason, mind & sensation. Intellectual reason
may also be viewed as two-tiered :
1. the intuition of the own-Self of creativity (evidenced in immanent
metaphysics, creativity and art) ;
2. the direct discovery of absolute reality (suggested by mysticism,
spirituality and testimony of the religions).
In terms of the practice of philosophy, wisdom seeks ways to make instinct, reason &
intuition cooperate simultaneously as three layers of mind. The mythical, pre-rational,
proto-rational, rational, critical, creative and nondual modes of cognition are so many
operational tools to address these layers, prompting the emergence of a true, good &
beautiful multi-dimensional consciousness.
08. Pre-critical substantialism.
Ancient Egypt
II : A Critical Approach of Philosophy.
The roots of Mediterranean substantialist thought can be found in Ancient Egypt. As early
as the Old Kingdom Pyramid Texts, but more explicit in the Middle Kingdom Coffin Texts,
"Nun" was the fundamental, grounding, pre-existent, omnipresent "substance" or "stuff" of
which the world consisted (cf. Hermes the Egyptian, 2002). It was deemed everlasting,
unchanging & undifferentiated.
In the ontology sketched in the Pyramid Texts, precreation is in the first place an
undifferentiated mass of water. The Egyptians gave descriptive rather than denominative
qualifications. Nun is conceived as an inchoate, nonexistent state-of-no-state. In the Coffin

Texts and later, Nun is often depicted as a deity, and although no cult is attested, there
were offerings and feasts in his honor (as on the 18th & 19th day of the month of
Phamenoth). The hieroglyph of the vault, which is part of his name, conveyed a topological
difference : not only was precreation something different (namely darkness and a
nonexistent potential surrounding the cosmos), but it was also somewhere else.
Greece
In their ante-rational discourse, the pre-Socratics sought the foundation or "arch•" of the
world. It explained existence as well as the moral order. For Anaximander of Miletus (ca.
611 - 547 BCE), the cosmos developed out of the "apeiron", the boundless, infinite and
indefinite (without distinguishable qualities). Later, Aristotle (384 - 322 BCE) adds :
immortal, Divine and imperishable.
The Archaic, pre-Socratic stratum of the "Greek Miracle" was itself layered :
● Milesian "arch•", "phusis" & "apeiron" : the elemental laws of the cosmos are rooted
in substance, which is all ;
● Pythagorian "tetraktys" : the elemental cosmos is rooted in numbers which form man,
gods & demons ;
● Heraclitian "psuche" & "logos" : a quasi-reflective self-consciousness, symbolical &
psychological ;
● Parmenidian "aletheia" : the moment of truth is a decision away from opinion
("doxa") entering "being" ;
● Protagorian "anthropos" : man is the measure of all things and the relative reigns.
The systems of Plato & Aristotle are also a reply to the Sophists. Protagorian relativism is
wrong. To refute this skepticism, i.e. the unwillingness to accept there is only "doxa",
opinion, not "aletheia", truth, Classical philosophy opts for substantialism, the idea some
permanence exists in the things that change. This core or essence is subjective or
objective. In the former, it is a subject modified by change while remaining "the same",
acting as the common support of its successive inner states. In the latter, it is the real stuff
out of which everything consists, allowing the manifestation of the real world "out there".
Both Plato & Aristotle are concept-realists. Their systems are examples of foundational
thinking. Truth is eternalized and static. Concept-realism will always ground our concepts in
a reality outside knowledge. Plato cuts reality in two qualitatively different worlds. True
knowledge is remembering the world of ideas. Aristotle divides the mind in two functionally
different intellects. To draw out & abstract the common element, an intellectus agens is
needed. The first substance is "eidos", i.e. the form, or Platonic idea realized in matter (cf.
hylemorphism).
The foundationalism inherent in concept-realism seeks permanence and cannot find it. It
therefore ends the infinite regress ad hoc and posits something to be possessed by the
subject. This is either an object of the mind (a permanent soul) or an object of the world
(the permanent stuff of reality). Greek concept-realism seeks substance ("ousia") and
substrate ("hypokeimenon"). This core is permanent, unchanging and existing from its own

side. In a further reification of this foundationalism, subtle substance is introduced, and the
eternalizing tendency gives rise to "universalia", eternal ideas (in the mind of God).
Substance is the eternal, permanent, unchanging core or essence of every possible thing,
existing from its own side, and never an attribute of or in relation with any other thing.
Scholasticism
The monotheisms introduce theo-ontology : existence is created by the revealed God. This
singular God is the supreme being, an absolute of absoluteness creating a plural creation,
etc. In these religions, the focus is not on truth & ontology, but on salvation, the
restoration of the link with God.
Christian philosophy tried to bring faith and reason together. It failed. By identifying the
mind of God with Plato's world of ideas, the Platonists had to exchange Divine grace for
intuitive reason. The Peripatetics introduced perception as a valid source of knowledge and
so prepared the end of Christian theology, the rational explanation of the "facts" of
revelation.
the Renaissance ...
Influenced by the "Orientale Lumen" and Arabic scholarship, the cultural movement known
as "the Renaissance", born in Florence as early as the 14th century and spreading over
Europe in the following three centuries, placed the human phenomenon center stage,
rediscovered Late Hellenism and tried to end Catholic supremacy on knowledge, learning
and the arts. The "via antiqua" was over. Times of religious turmoil were at hand. The
Renaissance and its humanism sparked the Reformation and other debates & conflicts. With
the French Revolution (1789) the political translation of modernist thinking was on its way.
Renaissance thinking is still foundational. It still clings to substance in terms of the Platonic
world of ideas being the mind of God. Saturated with centuries of Christian idealism,
substance itself is not (yet) rejected, only its fixation in terms of the Catholic monopoly.
Renaissance thinkers are self-conscious. With the birth of reflection as a cultural
phenomenon, European thought was liberated from the chains of authority and magisterial
dogmas. As reflection was immature, only the intellectual freedom to do so was demanded,
so the fundamental substances could be scrutinized by facts & arguments, unassuaged by
clerical influence. Only after World War II (1945) does such freedom truly exist.
The ontological system of Descartes (1637) provides us with three fundamental
substances : res cogitans or thinking substance (consciousness), res extensa or extended
substance (matter) and God. The ontologies after him will return to this division and either
introduce reductions (of mind to matter) or rename the Cartesian triad, this summary of all
previous ontologies. Descartes was not a reductionist. The three substances have their own
kind of (interacting) existence. Mind points to consciousness and its freedom. Matter is
limited and bound to cause & effect. God is the ultimate guarantee things happen as they
happen. Spinoza (1632 - 1677) would rethink Descartes and prove his monist version of
rationalism "de more geometrico".
With the Spinozist definition of "substance" (nature or God), the rational definition of
substance matured. The stuff of existence is an infinite, closed, solitary, singular,
unchanging, eternal & everlasting monad, the only free supreme being, Godhead of its own

essential theo-ontology, the direct experience "Face-to-Face" of God with God.
"By God, I mean the absolutely infinite Being - that is, a substance consisting in infinite
attributes, of which each expresses for itself an eternal and infinite essentiality."
Spinoza : Ethics, Part I, definition VI.
"That thing is called 'free', which exists solely by the necessity of its own nature, and of
which the action is determined by itself alone. That thing is inevitable, compelled,
necessary, or rather constrained, which is determined by something external to itself to a
fixed and definite method of existence or action."
Spinoza : Ethics, Part I, definition VII.
At the end of the 18th century, a variety of ontological systems had been proposed and
substantialism had come under attack by empirism. Can a variety of contradictory answers
be true ? What if only direct experience is valid ?
Kant deemed the situation scandalous. Philosophy was in need of its own "Copernican
Revolution".
Criticism
In his Critique of Pure Reason, Kant unmasks the false substantialism (or ontological
illusion) brought into the field of epistemology by both rationalism (innate ideas) and
empirism (sense-data). The possibility of knowledge cannot be grounded in an outside,
substantial reality, but only in the ideality of a formal set of cognitive conditions enabling
one to know and produce scientific knowledge, i.e. empirico-formal propositions. This
"transcendental" ideality is necessary to formal thought and by critically reflecting on it,
spatiotemporality, a categorial system and regulating ideas are discovered (cf. Clearings,
2006).
Because of this change of perspective, more systematically clarified by neo-Kantianism and
the philosophies of science, language & mind, phenomena may or may not appear as they
are. Perception is not sensation, for sensation (the actual conscious experience by a
conscious subject) is always simultaneous with conceptual, discursive interpretation,
involving identification & labeling (cf. Chapter 4).
S(ensation) = P(erception) . C(onceptual)I(nterpretation).
Is CI = 1 possible, as nonduality suggests ?
Critical philosophy lay bare the limitations of conceptual, discursive thought. Sensations are
perceptions orchestrated to contain the inherent duality or concordia discors of conceptual
thought. Conceptual thought is unable to avoid the factum rationis of reason itself : no
designation without a designator, no cogitation without a cogito, no transcendental subject
without a transcendental object.
But in conceptual thought, things-for-us do continue to eventuate simultaneous with an
appearance of objectivity, which is the manifestation of their concrete, conventional reality,
composed of "working parts" and seemingly determined reactions. Critical philosophy tries
to cut through this ontological illusion.
Although we must think as if these relative facts indeed, in some way simultaneous with

our designations, represent absolute reality-as-such, we never conceptually know whether
this is the case or not. We never have absolute proof or irreversible certainty. Such a
"revelation" would imply our conceptual constructions suddenly vanished. Critical thought
opts against this. A return to foundationalism and its substantial thinking is avoided. And
for good reasons : grounding the possibility of knowledge in either object or subject of
thought handicaps reason, perverts it.
Our paradigm or set of valid theories (systems of empirico-formal propositions) may be
invalid tomorrow. So reality-for-us appears as a shared illusion, a collective hallucination,
like things systematically not appearing as they are, either by nature and/or because we
grasp & follow these appearances only (instead of directly perceiving reality).
The transcendental study of thoughts, action & sensation (affect) has considerable
influence on philosophy. No longer serving the interests of a set of metaphysical options,
normative philosophy articulates the necessities of scientific practice as well as the logic of
the methodology of the production of empirico-formal propositions of fact, i.e. statements
the scientific community, for the time being, holds for true.
"We thus see that all the wrangling about the nature of a thinking being, and its association
with the material world, arises simply from our filling the gap, due to our ignorance, with
paralogisms of reason, and by changing thoughts into things and hypostatizing them."
Kant, I. : Critique of Pure Reason, A394-398.
Grosso modo, the difference between pre-critical and post-Kantian philosophy involves the
status of reality and conceptual rationality. In conceptual, discursive thought, an
irreversible and necessary demarcation between reality-for-us (ideality-for-us) & reality-assuch
(ideality-as-such) ensues. The phenomena of science, the evidence of facts, are not
things-in-themselves, noumena, substances or underlying realities, but they are
phenomena always co-determined by the theories (the nets) with which "facts" are
gathered (caught). As sensations happen as the result of conceptual interpretation,
experiments do not yield insight into absolute reality "an sich", but only in a relative reality
"für uns". Between appearance and reality a gap must be thought, causing
desubstantialization. So the realist or idealist grounding of the possibility of knowledge in a
sufficient ground or substance serving as a so-called "certain foundation of science" and
acting as a justificator of its propositions is inconsistent with the results of our
transcendental, critical study of the necessities of correct & valid conceptual thinking. No
way these conclusions can be avoided.
Because of this gap between phenomena & noumena, metaphysics can no longer be
invoked to ground phenomena in noumena, whether that be reality (via experiments) or
ideality (via discourse). Although we must accept facts to bear witness of noumena, we
never actually know whether this is the case or not. Reality-for-us might be a kind of
dream, presenting things differently as what they truly are. And in fact they do, for
conventional objects seem substantial, while analysis shows they are not.
In terms of the limitations of conceptual reason, criticism puts forward the groundless
ground of thought, not a sufficient ground (cf. Chapter 2).
Metaphysics, being untestable, can only be judged on the basis of logic & argumentation
and has a heuristic role to fulfill. Inspiring science, it allows a generalized speculation on
existence, life and consciousness based on the evidence of cosmology, biology and

anthropology. Insofar as it focuses on these three, metaphysics does not step outside the
world positing a world-ground transcending it. This immanent metaphysics, as the muze of
science, does not accept determinations, like First Causes, to operate from "outside" the
world. Its highest concepts are limit-concepts, always referring back to condition which is
part of the world, and the latter is defined by the results of experiments hand in hand with
the outcome of argumentation.
If this crucial condition is left and -against the logic of the infinite regress- a First Cause is
posited ad hoc (cf. Chapter 7), then a principle outside the world is accepted. There are no
valid arguments to do so and therefore transcendent metaphysics cannot be conceptually
elaborated without obfuscating reason.
By and large, the normative study of thought, behaviour and sensation (emotion) is a
necessary preliminary to train the mind in the philosophical approach of reality and/or
ideality. This is a very difficult study, for our minds are used to identify & label objects as if
they exist from their own side. Naive realism or idealism are innate and habitual, and these
formations needs to be broken down piece by piece. To think transcendentally, these
"natural" inclinations have to be bracketed. Both "outer" reality (the world) as "inner"
ideality (the ego, the Self) may appear differently as they are. We know this because of the
difference between perception & sensation caused by the conceptual interpretation no
concept can completely remove, but critical thought can identify and make sure it no longer
fools us. The illusion remains, but is unable to confuse.
In any study of philosophy, they should come first. If not, the danger lurks ontology
dominates the necessities of cognition, behaviour & sensation (emotion), resulting in a
philosophical training serving metaphysical presupposition rather than to foster free,
independent thought.
09. The subject of sensation, action, affect & thought.
Transcendental studies are theoretical reflections which do not fall out of the sky. As the
empirical ego is continually present to itself as someone who perceives, feels, desires,
thinks and is conscious, it relates to the "natural" world constantly surrounding it. This
"natural standpoint", as Husserl calls it, involves the ordinary sense of the world, in which
the ego naturally exists.
Transcendental study tries to suspend the fact-world giving itself to the ego as something
existing "out there". Likewise, the idea-world of our nominal cogitations are also bracketed.
Hence, this method bars us from using any judgment concerning concrete existence
(Dasein). Disconnecting thought from this natural world or standpoint is necessary to be
able to find the principles which condition thought as thought. The bracketed world does
not vanish, but we realize a consciousness which remains unaffected by the disconnection.
The proto-psychology of the natural world is the "Lebenswelt" or pre-critical condition in
which the empirical subject finds itself. Five functions can be isolated : sensation, affection,
volition, cognition & consciousness.
1. sensation : linked with perception, it informs us, by way of direct conscious experience,
about the stimuli targeting the sensitive areas of our sensory organs. These stimuli are
coded (transduction), projected in the primary sensory areas of the brain and then finally
interpreted conceptually (identified and labeled) ;

2. affections : closely linked with sensation, feelings or emotions add color and affect to
sensoric & motoric data, valuating the possible lust/unlust balance triggered by
perceptions, volitions, thoughts & states of consciousness ;
3. volitions : determining action, deed & behaviour, this function rules motoric response ;
4. cognition : allows the ego to gather knowledge or information about itself (mental
objects) and its environment (sensate objects), solve problems, produce empirico-formal
propositions and metaphysical insights ;
5. consciousness : the fluctuating stream of experiences the ego, at any given moment, is
aware of as a unique, individual, meaningful unity & intentionality (or relationship with the
"other"). Reflecting on the conditions of the former functions is the privilege of
transcendental consciousness, taking sensation (affect), action (volition) & cognition
(thought) as objects of reflection.
The results of transcendental inquiry are rooted in the subject of knowledge. This is not an
idealism, because this subject is formal and thus devoid of substance. The "I think"
accompanies all the cogitations of the empirical ego, and is as it were the apex of the
transcendental edifice as a whole.
Transcendental logic makes both sides of the formal equation offered by the Factum
Rationis necessary and not reducible. In terms of acquiring knowledge, behaving good and
sensating the beautiful, this implies object and subject of knowledge have to be used
simultaneously. If epistemology, ethics or esthetics, the tripod of the normative disciplines,
reduce the concordia discors to a monad (object to subject or vice versa), then and only
then, reason is perverted, creating the illusion of a sufficient ground for thought, affect &
action. Such an illusion invalidates the quest for truth, beauty & goodness.
Thought is the minimum requirement for epistemology to function. Without it, the
transcendental conditions of cognition are not present. Likewise, ethics implies action
(volition) and esthetics sensation & emotion.
10. Determined & nondetermined events.
The "object" of the natural standpoint dictates a reality "out there", existing independently
(extra-mentally) and with a solidity from its own side. The physical body is the first of
these natural objects. Although part of the "subject" it nevertheless behaves in the same
"objective" way as do outer objects. Moreover, objects "out there" seem even more to
escape conscious manipulation, and so manifest tenacity, permanence, solidity and an
unchanging character.
This view has to be bracketed, for both sensate & mental objects depend on the situation of
the ego, in particular its intentionality. Sensate object appear to a conceptual mind as a
function of its interpretation or cognitive connotations. Mental objects appear before the
mind's eye as parts of a "Gestalt" or constellation of supporting sensate & mental objects.
The object appearing in the "natural" world is problematic, appearing -as in the case of an
optic illusion- as straightforward.
The proto-physics of the natural world is the "Lebenswelt" or pre-critical condition in which
the empirical object finds itself. Two main types of events occur :
1. determined events : in a system of general determinism, events are connected by way
of categories of determination, as there are : self-determination, causation, interaction,

mechanical determination, statistical determination, holistic determination, teleological
determination & dialectical determination (cf. Bunge, 1979, pp. 17-19). Events are linked if
the conditions defining the category are fulfilled. For example, in the case of causation, it is
necessary, in order for an effect to occur, to have an efficient, external cause and a
physical substrate (to propagate it). In general determinism, these determinations are not
absolutely certain, but relatively probable. Science is terministic, not deterministic ;
2. nondetermined events : if individual action and (as an extension) civilization is
considered, events are also connected by way of conscious intention, escaping the
conditions of the categories of determination. Indeed, without "freedom", or the possibility
to posit nondetermined events, ethics is reduced to physics and free will impossible. How is
responsible action possible without the actual exercise of free will, i.e. the ability to accept
or reject a course of action, thereby creating an "uncaused" cause or influencing agent,
changing all co-functional interdependent determinations or interactions ? Although it
remains open whether the will is free or not, morally, we must act as if it is.
11. Normative philosophy : cognition, behaviour & sensation.
The normative disciplines aim to articulate the principles, norms & maxims determining
cognition, affection (sensation) & volition (action or behaviour). Theoretically, their role is
to define the limitations of thought, affect & action a priori, grounding their principles in the
logic governing the possibilities of thought, feeling and behaviour. Practically, these
disciplines facilitate the production of knowledge, goodness & beauty a posteriori.
Clearly, in a critical, normative approach, the object is not created by or derived from the
subject. Such ontological idealism is avoided by introducing a formal transcendental subject
"of all times", devoid of empirical individuality, but accompanying every cogitation of the
empirical ego, and in doing so, guaranteeing the unity of the manifold of sensation and
cogitation (the activities of sensate & mental objects). It does not constitute knowledge,
but is a necessary condition to think its possibilities.
THE NORMATIVE SCIENCES
OBJECT "I THINK" SUBJECT
without an object
nothing is thought
necessity of reality
idea of the REAL
transcendental
object of thought
Transcendental
Logic
Factum Rationis
Epistemology : knowledge - truth
Transcendental
Logic
without a subject
nobody thinks
necessity of ideality idea of
the IDEAL
transcendental
subject of thought

experiments
correspondence
research-cel
Theoretical
Norms
Practical
Maxims
argumentation
consensus
opportunistic logic
the production of provisional, probable & coherent empirico-formal, scientific
knowledge we can hold for true
coordinated movement &
its consequence
duty - calling
family - property - the
secular state
Ethics : volition - the good
Transcendental
Logic
Theoretical
Norms
Practical
Maxims
free will
intent - conscience
persons - health - on death
judgments pertaining to the good (the just, fair & right), providing maxims for
what must be done
states of sensate matter or
mental objects
sensate & evocative
esthetic features
objective art, social art,
revolutionary art,
magisterial art
Esthetics : feeling - the beautiful
Transcendental
Logic
Theoretical
Norms
Practical
Maxims
consciousness persuing
excellence & exemplarity
esthetic attitude
subjective art, personal art,
psycho-dynamic art, total art
judgments pertaining to what we hope others may imitate, namely the beauty of
excellent & exemplary states of matter
Transcendental logic proves the inconsistencies of skepticism. Reject the subject, and there
is no knower. Reject the object, and there is nothing known. If there is no knower, then
there is nobody stating the transcendental subject is invalid. Hence, the thesis is selfrefuting.
If there is nothing known, then there is nothing to be known, not even the fact of
rejecting the object. Both strategies lead to a contradictio in actu exercito, and are
therefore rejected.

The normative disciplines are logic, epistemology, ethics & esthetics. Logic studies the
validity of statements. Epistemology focuses on the truth of propositions, ethics on the
goodness of actions and esthetics on the beauty of sensate objects.
Normative disciplines such as epistemology, ethics and esthetics, do not describe the true,
the good and the beautiful, but lay bear the necessary principles, norms and maxims which
have always been used to think true thoughts, do good actions and create sensate beauty.
Logic, despite its mathematics & syntax, is dialogal, and involved with the validity of
arguments & argumentation. As a mathematical system it deals with formal calculus, i.e.
with the laws & rules determining the truth-value of statements. As a syntax, logic studies
the grammatical rules which define the understanding between members of the same
linguistic community. As a dialogic, logic focuses on the logical rules guaranteeing the
validity of argumentative transitions. It is this last aspect of logic which exemplifies its
value for science & philosophy. Transcendental logic is a special case, laying bare the
principles necessary to arrive at truth, goodness & beauty. These principles root the theory
of knowledge, goodness and beauty in the groundless ground of cognition itself.
Epistemology brings together the conditions of true empirico-formal knowledge and the
way to produce facts. Ethics, valuates the good of actions, and esthetics judged the beauty
of a work of art.
Practical maxims, in tune with a more local & opportunistic logic, i.e. only insofar as
theoretical principles & norms are being applied, often deviate from the proposed a priori
scheme. In this way, the normative disciplines stay connected with the "natural standpoint"
which allows them to (re)discover their leading transcendental principles and theoretical
norms.
12. Descriptive philosophy : the world, life, humanity & the Divine.
Conceptual thoughts, feelings & behaviours happen against a inalienable metaphysical
background, i.e. a network of arguable but untestable concepts, considered, after
prolonged argumentation, as true (a metaphysiscal tenet), but always open to future
refutation (not a religious dogma).
Metaphysics is preluded by a self-reflective, transcendental inquiry into the possibility &
expansion of knowledge (epistemology), behaviour (ethics) & sensation (esthetics). These
tell us, to paraphrase Kant, what we do know, must do and may hope.
The descriptive disciplines satisfy philosophy's need to acquire a totalized view of existence.
But what is existence ? Before attempting to answer, the limitations of any description have
to be made clean-clear. The results of speculative inquiries are not scientific, for they are
not factual and can therefore never be tested. Metaphysics does not attempt do describe
the world in terms of empirico-formal theories, but :
(a) defines the ideological background against which experiments a forteriori take place ;
(b) clarifies the "ceteris paribus" clause of scientific theories, as well as the fundamental
concepts used in any scientific discourse ;
(c) tries to explain the world as a coherent whole ;
(d) inspires the sciences by challenging them with new ideas and possibilities and
(e) articulates an arguable & argued view about existence, life & consciousness.

Such speculative activity cannot be backed by experimental facts. Indeed, the only way for
metaphysics to claim validity is through argumentation, and hence logic. However, as all
logic has an axiomatic basis, the origin of metaphysical axioms is largely intuitive. Why
certain axioms are preferred over others, is not a matter of logic, but follows an intuitive
insight preceding it. Insofar as this insight can be developed by means of creative
concepts, logic may be applied. But the insight itself may remain outside the confines of
argumentation.
Metaphysical statements must be formally correct and, as much as possible, be backed by
science. Through logical analysis, the strength of speculations can be ascertained. In some
cases, because of the application of the principles of identity, non-contradiction and
excluded third, arguments may be conclusive.
If metaphysics is defined as ontology, the speculative study of being qua being, then a first
differentiation calls for the distinction between the world as a whole and what, ex
hypothesi, transcends it, namely the Divine. The world contains all objects of formal,
critical and creative thought. Viewed onto-genetically, it emerged in three steps, each
calling for a symmetry-break :
(1) existence per se : there is something rather than nothing, i.e. the absence of whatever
could be. What exists are aggregates of particles & forces. Metaphysical cosmology (or
philosophy of nature) tries to develop a total picture of why there is something, in
particular why there is a comos ;
(2) life : there are living things, not only particles & forces. What lives has a genotype
(DNA), a phenotype and is able to produce an offspring. Metaphysical biology aims to
speculate about the emergence of life, its purpose and goal ;
(3) consciousness : there are conscious subjects, not only particles, forces and biological
organisms. Consciousness is aware of itself, the other than itself, and the meanings
associated with both. Metaphysical anthropology posits the human as the most conscious
entity on this planet and tries to understand the nature of this consciousness.
Speculations, based on intuitions & arguments drawn from these axioms, not trespassing
the limits of the world, are immanent. Immanent metaphysics strives to realize a
comprehensive view of reality and ideality. It dares to speculate.
The "idea" of the real is pushed beyond "the surface of the mirror", for the ontological
question "What is ?" makes creative thought posit a real, solid world "out there".
The "idea" of the ideal is also carried through, rarified as the final meta-term of an endless
series. The transcendental Self of critical thought becomes an ontological Self, claiming "I, I
am" (ego sum). The fleeting moments of identity characterizing the empirical ego are
backed ontologically (not epistemologically) by a substantial, higher Self (Descartes' ego is
a rarified empirical ego). The notion of such an own-Self proves necessary in the evolution
of cognition to its final stage, nondual thought.
The "final" nondual mode of cognition may be viewed as the mythical "beginning" of a new
septet of still higher cognitive modes, etc.
Attentive of critical thought, immanent metaphysics does not describe truth, goodness or
beauty to ground epistemology, ethics or esthetics. Attentive of formal thought, arguments

are backed by scientific fact.
Moving beyond the frontiers of the world, metaphysics becomes transcendent. Logic shows
only the "via negativa" may establish the possibility of such a transcendent metaphysical
speculation. Does the Divine exist ? cannot be answered by looking at the world "from the
outside", for where could an Archimedic point be established ?
Ockham showed how to posit the First Conserver of the world.
As a contingent thing that comes into being, is evidently conserved in being as long as it
exists, its conserver is dependent, for its own conservation, on another conserver or not. If
not, then how can the evidence of it being conserved be there ? As only necessary beings
conserve themselves and the world contains contingent things only, every conserver must
depend on another conserver, etc. As there is no infinite number of actual conservers "hic
et nunc" (the world being finite) there must be a First Conserver. An infinite regress in the
case of things existing one after the other (like horizontal, efficient causes of the same
kind) is conceivable, although unlikely. But an infinite regress in the actual, empirical world
here and now would give an actual infinity, which is, given the world is finite, absurd. So to
avoid the presence of the First Conserver, actual reality would become infinite ! Ergo, the
First Conserver probably exists. Without this First Conserver, metaphysics would only be
immanent. Because of this proof, transcendent metaphysics is possible.
Note : the question is not "Does God exist ?". Why ? The word "God" has a smaller
semantic field than the word "Divine", for the latter includes everything related to Divinity,
irrespective of quantifiers (like polytheism, henotheism or monotheism) & ideological
contents (like the tenets of any particular religion, irrespective of the number of
adherents). Transcendent metaphysics does not aim to intuit the object of a historical
rarified definition of the Divine (as Re-Atum, Brahma(n), Aten, YHVH, Amun, Zeus,
Buddha, summum bonum, Prime Mover, the One, Trinity, Allah, God, etc.), but the
extraordinary, meta-rational, seemingly supernatural direct (mystical) experience of the
absolute, the Real-Ideal totaliter aliter. Not as a limit-idea, as in critical thought, not as a
higher Self, as in creative thought, but immediately, direct and without mediation..
Transcendent metaphysics is nondual or non-conceptual. Hence, it is devoid of conceptual
designation. What transcends the concept is either irrational nonsense or metaphysical
poetry. Poetical symbols, like music, need a system of delineation or hermeneutics.
Comparing Divine poems may lead to insights about why & how the Divine is encapsulated
in poetical discourses, prompting a study of the names of the Divine or theonomy and
comparative mysticism. This leads to the notion of a plurality of approaches of the Divine.
In a substantialist view, the Divine is an omnipotent & omniscient Supreme Being or
singular, sole, one God. In a nondual view, "unity" & "oneness" are just names attributed
to the Divine, i.e. conceptual designations. These limit the Divine, absolute in absoluteness,
beyond affirmation & denial.
Theonomy is not an inquiry into the nature of God (or theology), for how, given Divine unsaying,
is this possible ?
13. Applied philosophy.
Taken together, logic, epistemology, ethics, esthetics & ontology are the "theoretical" side

of the curriculum of philosophy. And adding philo-logistics (history, encyclopedia, auxiliary
studies), one arrives at the traditional course given at any academy of Western philosophy,
in which, to this day, applied philosophy, or the philosophy of the practice of philosophy
remains absent. As a result, graduating philosophers are unable to actually continue to
learn to be philosophers and mostly forget all about it. The academy countered this by
introducing specializations adapted to the markets, and by doing so more and more
eclipsed the true purpose of philosophy : a life in accord with wisdom. In this way,
academic philosophy refutes itself, which is absurd.
In the light of criticism, academic philosophy must be both theoretical & practical :
● the theoria of philosophy :
(1) normative : logic, epistemology, ethics & esthetics ;
(2) descriptive : metaphysics or an ontology of existence, life & the human ;
(3) philo-logistics : history of philosophy, hermeneutics, linguistics, philosophy of
language, neurophilosophy, etc.
● the praxis of wisdom: the philosophy of the practice of philosophy, namely the tools
to apply philosophy in society, in terms of psychology, sociology & economy.
The "theoretical" activity of the philosopher (reading, writing, teaching) needs to be
complemented by the "practical" activity of the same philosopher (listening, advising,
mediating, meditating). Without sufficient input from real-life & real-time philosophical
crisis-management, the mighty stream of wisdom becomes a serpentine of triviality and/or
a valid pestilence of details (pointless subtlety).
Contemplation (theory) and action (practice) must work together to allow wisdom to
deepen by the touch of a wide spectrum of different types of interactions. Risks must be
taken. Opposition & creativity (novelty) must be given their "random" place in the
institutional architecture. One must teach philosophers how to integrate themselves in the
economical cycle. Kept outside the latter, state-funded, in-crowd academies of philosophy
rise.
To the "theoretical" side, a more "practical" approach needs to be added. Philosophers
must be taught to be advisors, mediators, interpreters and arbiters, implying
communication skills beyond what philosophy has to offer today. How the economy of the
practice of philosophy works is also a requisite. And of course, how to refine the principles
of the Socratic dialogue, theoretically as well as practically, cannot be left out.
Applied philosophy adds art to science, circumstance to rule. Hence, applied philosophy has
no principles & norms, only maxims, i.e. rules applicable to occasion. This casus-law is
meant to allow maximum transparency, openness & fairness.
More about these maxims of practice can be found in the literature of the philosophy of
practice.
14. The need of a practicum of philosophy.
The normative disciplines offer a lot of possibilities to introduce practical exercises,
individual training and brainstorming sessions. These applications must be rigorous, and

constitute the backbone of the philosopher and his practice.
Ontology invites the student to try to give answers to its three main questions : Why is
there something ? What is life ? What is consciousness ? Speculative creativity trains
multiple theory-formation, dialogal confrontation, adaptation and intelligent problemsolving.
Understanding how the practice of philosophy works from within allows students to be
confident enough to start their own praxis. The academy should assist students by helping
them to actualize the maxims of practice.
The practicum of philosophy also includes critical and creative cells introduced to constantly
verify demarcations and pose intelligent questions as well as advance new ideas.
Devoid of this integrated training, any philosopher is forced to train much more after
graduation, all while finding the material means to realize & sustain this effort. This is not
impossible, but very difficult and so rare. In no other branch of human learning is this the
case and the academy of philosophy is hereby again called to add applied philosophy to its
curriculum.
Suggested Reading :
Achenbach, G.B. & Macho, T. : Das Prinzip Heilung, Dinter - Keulen, 1985.
Achenbach, G.B. : Philosophische Praxis, Dinter - Keulen, 1987.
Achterhuis, H. : Arbeid, een eigenaardig medicijn, Baarn - Ambo, 1984.
Arendt, H. : The Human Condition, Doubleday - New York, 1958.
Bernstein, R. : Praxis and Action, Duckworth - Philadelphia, 1972.
Bonhoeffer, D. : Seelsorge, Kaiser - München, 1982.
Buber, M. : Between Man and Man, Macmillan - New York, 1967.
Buber, M. : Pointing the Way, Harper & Row - New York, 1963.
Buber, M. : Ik en Gij, Bijleveld - Utrecht, 1959.
Cogen, E.D. : Philosophers at Work, Holt - New York, 1988.
Cooper, D.G. : Psychiatry and Anti-Psychiatry, Ballantine - New York, 1967.
Delnoij, J. & van der Vlist, W. : Filosofisch consulentschap, Damon - Best, 1998.
Deurzen-Smith, van, E. : Existential Counselling in Practice, Sage - London, 1994.
Dill, A. : Philosophische Praxis, Fischer - Frankfurt, 1990.
Elster, J. (red) : The Multiple Self, Cambridge University Press - Cambridge, 1989.
Erikson, E.H. : Identity : Youth and Crisis, Norton - New York, 1968.
Frankl, V. : Man's Search for Meaning, Beacon - Boston, 1962.
Goodman, P. : Nature Heals, Free Life - New York, 1977.
Griffiths, A. (red) : Philosophy and Practice, Cambridge University Press - Cambridge, 1985.
Hadot, P. : Philosophy as a Way of Life, Blackwell - Oxford, 1995.
Hamlyn, D.W. : Being a Philosopher : The History of a Practice, Routledge - London, 1992.
Hanfling, O. : The Quest for Meaning, Blackwell - New York, 1987.
Hoogendijk, Ad. : Spreekuur bij een filosoof, Veen - Utrecht, 1988.
Hoogendijk, Ad. : Filosofie voor managers, Veen - Amsterdam, 1991.
Kessels, J. : Socrates op de markt : Filosofie in bedrijf, Boom - Amsterdam, 1997.
Laing, R.D. : The Divided Self, Penguin - London, 1970.

Laing, R.D. : Knots, Vintage - New York, 1972.
Laing, R.D. : Wisdom, Madness and Folly, Macmillan - London, 1986.
Marcuse, H. : One Dimensional Man, Sphere - London, 1968.
Rogers, C. : On Becoming a Person, Constable - London, 1974.
Rogers, C. : A Way of Being, Houghton - Boston, 1980.
Rotenberg, M. : Damnation and Deviance, Free Press - New York, 1978.
Sacks, O. : Awakenings, Penguin - Harmondsworth, 1976.
Sautet, M. : Un café pour Socrate, Laffont - Paris, 1995.
Schuster, S. : Filosofische Praktijk, Lemniscaat - Rotterdam, 1999.
Sontag, S. : Against Interpretation, Farrar - New York, 1966.
Sontag S. : Illness as Metaphor, Farrar - New York, 1978.
Spinelli, E. : Demystifying Therapy, Constable - London, 1994.
Tillich, P. : The Courage to Be, Yale University Press - New Haven, 1952.
Veening, E.P. : Denkwerk, Phaedon - Culemborg, 1994.
Veening, E.P. : Over de werkelijkheid van drie werelden, Veening - Groningen, 1998.
Vonessen, F. : Was Krank macht, ist auch heilsam : Mythisches Gleichheitsdenken, Aristoteles'
Katharsis-Lehre und die Idee der homöopathischen Heilkunst, Haug - Heidelberg, 1980.
Weil, S. : The Need for Roots, Routledge & Kegan - London, 1978.
Witzany, G. : Zur Theorie der Philosophischen Praxis, Die Blaue Eule - Essen, 1991.
Chapter 2
Clearings
on critical epistemology
"... science is apparently increasingly able to construct and reconstruct itself in response to
problem challenges by providing solutions to the problem ..."
Knorr-Cetina : The Manifacture of Knowledge, 1981, p.11.
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Introduction
I : Transcendental Logic :
A. The dyad of formal thought.
B. The fact of reason.
C. The groundless ground of knowledge.
II : Theoretical Epistemology :

01. The normative solution.
02. The object of knowledge.
03. The subject of knowledge.
04. Categories (mind) & ideas (reason).
05. Idealistic & realistic transgressions.
06. Regulations towards unity & expansion.
07. Correspondence versus consensus.
08. The coherency-theory of truth.
09. On methodology.
10. The fundamental norms of knowledge.
11. The scientific status of a theory.
12. Metaphysics and science.
13. Language and the criteria of discourse.
III : Applied Epistemology :
14. The practice of knowledge.
15. Methodological "as if"-thinking.
16. Practical communication.
17. Judgments a posteriori.
18. Optimalisations.
19. Producing facts.
20. The opportunistic logic of knowledge-production.
Epilogue
Suggested Reading
Introduction
This introduction serves to highlight a few remarkable historical landmarks in the field of
epistemology, the philosophical study of knowledge, its possibility and expansion.
§ 1
Briefly discussing these examples paves the way for the critical approach (not skeptical,
nor dogmatic) fostered in the main body of this work piece, called in as an epistemological
preamble to a possible ontology.
The choice of what is an outstanding achievement in this domain is subjective insofar the
author was touched by the exemplaric excellence made present by certain texts. But, these
options also cover objective ground, because at each station, our understanding of
knowledge grows.
This effort is flanked by Chapter 7 on the existence of the Divine, concluding in favour of an
immanent, conserving cause of the universe (as in Late Stoic materialist "logos"
metaphysics).

On the one hand, strong reliance on a critical epistemology brings the natural limitations of
knowledge to the fore and so delimits the scope of what there is to be known. The outcome
will be an immanent stance, one staying within the borders of a possible knowledge. So
immanence will be at the core of this natural philosophy, however not without reference to
the transcendent, both as a regulative limit-concept (a construct) and an objective infinity
(or absolute absoluteness).
On the other hand, making the onto-categorial scheme explicit, shows how the proposed
naturalism is in accord with a view on consciousness, information and matter, and this
based on contemporary sciences like physics, biology and psychology. The options
demanded by the scheme give shape to a metaphysical research program at work in the
background. By making its tenets clear beforehand, our naturalism operates without
implicit untestable propositions. Being conscious of them in an explicit way, may avoid their
subreptive infiltration in the domain of science proper (i.e. as part of empirico-formal
propositions, which are arguable and testable).
Both investigations prepare the philosophical study of nature. Calling this effort "ecstatic"
implies (a) the discovery of traces of the transcendent within the immanent order and (b)
the acknowledgment of the creativity of nature, the urge of all things to become and
develop into greater complexities and this while introducing novelty. This disclosure will not
be prompted by any metaphysical axiomatics (incorporating such ecstasy a priori, either
out of choice or by adherence to a creed), nor by a theory of knowledge accommodating
ontology (endorsing realism or idealism as the constitutive ideas of the possibility of
knowledge). These unsuccessful strategies proved to be vain, leading to "perversa ratio", to
quote Kant. Indeed, the critical instrument sought, will be indebted to nominalism and
critical thought. However, although largely constructivist, it thinks thought as an unfolding
process, of which formal thought is not a priori in conflict with ante-rationality and metarationality,
nor does it denies the importance of both in a multi-dimensional concept of
rationality. The latter is in accord with the author's definition of philosophy.
"Philosophy or love of wisdom, is a multi-dimensional, comprehensive, cognitive answer to
this call rooted in our bio-psychological & spiritual evolution, to knowingly push limits,
transcend limitations, producing more complex, refined & subtle states of consciousness,
information and matter. This answer is rational, dialogal, open, critical, personal and seeks
the unconditional. Philosophy allows recurrent & multiple transferences between, on the
one hand, reason and intuition or meta-reason, and, on the other hand, reason and instinct
or ante-reason. It is open to the wonderous, ineffable, luminous, spontaneous &
meaningful."
Synopsis
In the course of this intro, salient epistemological perspectives put forward by the
examples, are highlighted in tables.
§ 2
Thinking is of all cultures, as are imagination and speculation. But the solidification of the
philosophical approach of thought by thought in well-formed glyphs or signs (like signals,
icons and symbols) is rather rare. Oral traditions exist, but their historical authenticity
cannot be ascertained, except by testimony. Without signs, imposing a definitive form upon
matter and so leaving a meaningful trace, thought does not in effect leave the mythical,

neither does it initiate history, a traceable community of sign-interpreters. Even if a scribal
tradition is installed, one needs strong media to ensure historical continuity. If texts are
carved into stone, they are likely to survive better than when recorded on very perishable
materials, like wood or clay. Although the latter have the advantage of facilitating the
speed with which signs can be recorded, they nevertheless are less sustainable over long
periods of time. To keep them for posterity, they need to be copied again and again ...
Philosophical cultures become possible when a society has reached the stage of a leisureeconomy,
implying that a small elite, close to the ruling powers, no longer has to work for
a living. This upper class is made free to exclusively perform an intellectual task. Moreover,
to accommodate the formation of schools of thought, an explicit desire to transmit
speculative information must be present in the cultures at large. This implies a classical
language, a scribal tradition, an educational method, specific buildings, copyists, etc. And
these are costly investments for any society, let be those of Antiquity. In a historical sense,
these philosophical schools become "real" insofar original texts or reliable testimony are
extant.
In Antiquity, speculative thought was never divorced from religious and ceremonial
considerations. In the East, the Vedas (ca. 1900 BCE) and their commentaries, the
Upanishads (starting ca. 700 BCE) record the musings of the enlightened seers of India, as
well as their Brahmin rituals. But these texts were recorded on lasting media much later,
and their originals are lost. Were did the first speculative scribal tradition make solid
history ?
In the Middle East, Ancient Egyptian culture, because of its long and outstanding scribal
tradition, brought together a number of remarkable characteristics. The latter influenced
Western civilization, notably the pre-Socratic Greeks, a fact our history books have yet to
come to grips with :
● the words of god and the love of writing : it should be emphasized, that in Ancient
Egypt, both spoken and written words were deemed very important : hieroglyphs
were "divine words", a gift of the god Thoth, endowed with magical properties, "set
apart" and distinguished from everyday language and writing (namely Hieratic and
later Demotic). They were protected against decay, either by underground tombs,
exceptional climatic conditions or by carving them into hard stone. Pharaoh Unis (ca.
2378 - 2348 BCE), to assure his ascension and subsequent arrival in heaven, was the
first to decorated his tomb with hieroglyphs, the so-called Pyramid Texts. So even if
the offerings to his double (or "ka") would end, the hieroglyphs -hidden in the total
obscurity of the tomb- contained enough "inner" power (or "sekhem") to assure
Wenis' felicity ad perpetuam ... In its iconicity, Egyptian civilization was quite unique
in the Mediterranean. But, although producing a vast literary corpus, Egyptian culture
never acquired the rational mode of cognition. Its attachment to the contextual and
the local (provincial), as well as the special pictorial nature of the "sacred script", all
point to highly iconic, rather "African" ante-rational mentality ;
● accomplished discourse : the fundamental categories of Egyptian wisdom were "heart/
tongue/heart" insofar as theo-cosmology, logoism and magic were at hand and
"hearing/listening/hearing" in moral, anthropological, didactical and political matters.
The first category reflected the excellence of the active and outer (the father), the
second the perfection of the passive and inner (the son). The active polarity was

linked with Pharaoh's "Great Speech", which was an "authoritative utterance" ("Hu")
and a "creative command" based on "understanding" ("Sia"), which no counter-force
could stop ("Heka").
"The tongue of this Pharaoh is the pilot in charge of the Bark of Righteousness and
Truth !"
Pyramid Texts, utterance 539 (§ 1306).
The passive polarity was nursed by the intimacy of the teacher/pupil relationship,
based on the subtle and far-reaching encounters of excellent discourse with a
perfected hearing, i.e. true listening. The "locus" of Egyptian wisdom was this
intimacy. Although Pharaoh was also called "wise", the sapiental discourses alone
name their (possible) author and restrict their reference to the Divine by using the
expression "the god" ("ntr") in the singular. Wisdom ("saa") was always linked with a
"niche" defined by the vignettes of life the sage wished to impart as good examples to
confer his wisdom to posterity.
"No one is born wise."
Maxims of Ptahhotep - line 33
The wisdom teachings are parables helpful to understand how, in all circumstances,
the wise balanced Maat and made the social order endure by serving "the great
house" ("pr aA" or Pharaoh), being at peace with himself and "the god". This
sapiental tradition is not a fixed canon, and undergoes several transformations ;
● truth and the plummet of the balance : in Middle Egyptian, the word "maat" ("mAat")
is used for "truth" and "justice" (in Arabic, "Al-Haq", is both "truth" and "real").
Truth is an equilibrium (a bringing together hand in hand with a keeping apart),
measurable as the state of affairs given by the image, form or representation of the
balance :
"Pay attention to the decision of
truth and the plummet of the
balance, according to its stance."
Papyrus of Ani
18th Dynasty
Chapter 30B - plate 3

This exhortation by Anubis, the Opener of the Ways, summarizes the Egyptian
practice of wisdom and pursuit of justice & truth. By it, their "practical method of
truth" springs to the fore : serenity, concentration, observation, quantification
(analysis, spatiotemporal flow, measurements) & recording (fixating), with the sole
purpose of rebalancing, reequilibrating & correcting concrete states of affairs, using
the plumb-line of the various equilibria in which these actual aggregates of events are
dynamically -scale-wise- involved.
This causes (a) Maat to be done for them and their environments and (b) the proper
"Ka", or vital energy, at peace with itself, to flow between all parts of creation (truth
and justice are personified as the daughter of Re, equivalent with the Greek Themis,
daughter of Zeus - cf. "maati" as the Greek "dike").
The "logic" behind the operation of the balance involves four rules :
1. inversion : when a concept is introduced, its opposite is also invoked (the two
scale of the balance) ;
2. asymmetry : flow is the outcome of inequality (the feather-scale of the balance
is a priori correct) ;
3. reciprocity : the two sides of everything interact and are interdependent (the
beam of the balance) ;
4. multiplicity-in-oneness : the possibilities between every pair are measured by
one standard (the plummet).
Although these speculations were embedded in religious thought, an independent sapiental
tradition existed. In the Old Kingdom (ca. 2670 - 2205 BCE), the scribes were talented
individuals around the divine king and his family. By the Middle Kingdom (ca. 1938 - 1759
BCE), a scribal class emerged. These exceptional thinkers produced the masterpieces of
classical Egyptian literature. They were attached to a special building in the temple
precinct, the so-called "per ankh" or "House of Life" (in El Amarna, the "House of Life"
abuts upon "the place of the correspondence of Pharaoh" - Gardiner, 1938).
§ 3
In the Early New Kingdom (ca. 1539 - 1292 BCE), Late Ramesside Memphite theology and
philosophy (ca. 1188 - 1075 BCE), was dedicated to Ptah, the god of craftsmen and the
patron deity of Memphis. This theological move balanced the Theban hegemony of the
"king of the gods", Amun-Re. Memphis was allegedly founded by a divine king, who, for the
first time around ca. 3000 BCE, if not a little earlier, united the Two Lands, i.e. Upper
(South) and Lower (North) Egypt.
These first kings were the "shemsu Hor", the "followers of Horus" ("Hor" means "he upon
high"). Their names were written within a rectangular frame, at the bottom of which is a
recessed paneling (like on false doors). On top of this "serekh" or palace facade, was
perched the falcon of Horus, hence the appellation "Horus-name".
The Horus-falcon symbolized the overseeing qualities of the king present in his palace,
representing a transcendent and uniting principle. This bird of prey glides high up in the

sky on the hot air and with a watchful eye overlooks its large territory, soaring down on its
prey at a 100 miles per hour, combining speed with endurance ...
In the Old Kingdom, Memphis had been the capital of Egypt and throughout Egypt's long
Pharaonic history (ca. 3000 - 30 BCE), it remained the city where the divine king was
crowned. In the Late Period (664 - 30 BCE), the priests of Memphis were renowned for
their scholarship and wisdom (in his Timaeus, Plato lauds the nearby priests of Sais,
worshipping the goddess Neith). Indeed, Egypt's sapiental tradition was born in the milieu
of scribes and priests.
In Memphis, these thinkers envisioned the process of acquiring knowledge thus :
"The sight of the eyes, the hearing of the ears, and the breathing of air through the nose,
these transmit to the mind, which brings forth every decision. Indeed, the tongue thence
repeats what is in front of the mind. Thus was given birth to all the gods. His (Ptah's)
Ennead was completed. Lo, every word of the god (Ptah) came into being through the
thoughts in the mind & the command by the tongue."
Memphis Theology, lines 56-57.
This ante-rational reflection, by the intellectual elite of Memphis, on the origin of
knowledge, is part of the Memphis Theology, a text carved ca. 700 BCE on the Shabaka
Stone exhibited at the British Museum. It goes back to a lost original composed between
ca. 1291 and 1075 BCE, if not earlier.
We read how the events recorded by the sense of hearing and the sense of sight in the
living, breathing body are brought up to the mind (or "heart" = ). The notion of moving
upwards is suggested by the determinative of the double stairway ( / 041), leading to a
high place. This elevated place is nothing less than the realm of the divine mind of Ptah, to
which all possible impressions ascend.
The two phases of the empirico-noetic process (registering and deciding) are put forward.
This happens in the context of an affirmation of the theo-noetic origin of everything.
Indeed, the passage is part of a cosmogony, explaining how every thing came into being by
the divine words uttered by Ptah. Every law of nature (the "netjeru" or deities) and
everything these laws operate, is conceived in the divine mind and spoken by the divine
tongue. Nothing comes into existence without them.
Although the Aristotelian distinction between the passive and the active intellect is absent
as such (for no formal, abstract concept has yet been established), it is clear our authors
are aware of the registering faculty of the mind and know that after registering, the mind
produces "every decision", i.e. works to solve problems. These ideas stand before
rationality (ante-rational), because, as is general in Egyptian thought, they do not fix the

mind in terms of categorial, formal rationality (initiated by the Greeks). As will be explained
later, ante-rational thought covers the first three stages of human cognition, namely
mythical, pre-rational and proto-rational thought.
The activity of Ptah's divine mind is all-comprehensive. His law (thought and spoken) is
also moral :
"Thus all the witnessing faculties were made and all qualities determined, they that make
all foods and all provisions, through this word. {Justice} is done to him who does what is
loved, {and punishment} to him who does what is hated. Thus life is given to the peaceful
and death is given to the criminal. Thus all labor, all crafts, the action of the arms, the
motion of the legs, the movements of all the limbs, according to this command which is
devised by the mind and comes forth by the tongue and creates the performance of
everything."
Memphis Theology, lines 57-58.
This remarkable theology does not contemplate a realm of "pure" thought outside of the
operations, contextual limitations, conditionings or determinations of physical reality (a
world of ideas, a Greek "nous"). Instead of working with a clear-cut division between object
and subject, both are understood as emerging and co-existing with (not transcending) the
context in which they happen. No formal distinction between facts and so no
decontextualized "theoria" (or contemplation) of events.
The description thus necessarily lacks formal abstraction. So there is no Greek Being,
Logos, idea of the Good, First Intellect or Divine mind ("logos"), considered to be radically
independent from and different than the world of the senses and action (in logic, "formal"
means independent of contents). In Egyptian thought, the "word" only exists when it is
spoken ! Like idea and reality, mind and speech are simultaneous.
In Memphite thought, the impact of mind and speech on both ontology and
epistemology is made clear in ante-rational terms. On the one hand, this is an
idealism avant la lettre, i.e. a proposal in which the creative and constructivist
power of thought and its articulation are put forward. To conceive something,
is to create structures which determine reality. This ontological idealism is pre-
Platonic and cosmogonic, but exemplifies the importance of (divine)
cogitation, both in terms of understanding (Sia) and authoritative utterance
(Hu). On the other hand, it also underlines, in realistic fashion, the importance
of perception, for the senses bring their information before the mind and the
latter decides. As usual in Egyptian thought, a multiplicity of approaches is
summoned. Hence, the concordia discors of thought is already made explicit,
albeit in a proto-rational discourse.

§ 4
The Greek miracle did not fall out of the sky. By the end of the Dark Age (ca. 1100 - 750
BCE), the Greek cultural form had already acquired persistent "Aryan", Indo-European
characteristics of its own. Although mythical, they were outstanding enough to leave their
archeological traces.
The Greek mentality had been around before the collapse of the Pax Minoica (in ca. 1530
BCE, the Thera volcano on Santorini erupted), and at least emerged at the beginning of the
Mycenæan Age (ca. 1600 - 1100 BCE). These Mycenæans were Helladic warlords
entertaining an active commercial economy (based on indirect consumption) and a high
level of mostly imported craftsmanship. They had "tholos" burials, with their dome shaped
burial-chambers. Their palaces followed the architectural style of Crete, although their
structure was more straightforward and simple.
Their Linear B texts reveal the names of certain gods of the later Greek pantheon : Hera,
Poseidon, Zeus, Ares & perhaps Dionysius. There are no extant theological treatises, hymns
or short texts on ritual objects (as was the case in Crete). Their impressive tombs indicate
their funerary cult was more developed than the Minoan, and in the course of their history,
outstanding features ensued. Despite the Dorian devastations and their obliterating and
repressing effects, these persisted :
● linearization : "Mycenæan megaron", "geometrical designs", mathematical form,
peripteros ;
● anthropocentrism : warrior leaders, individual aristocrats, poets, "sophoi" and
teachers ;
● fixed vowels : the categories of the "real" sound are written down & transmitted ;
● dialogal mentality : the Archaic Greeks enjoyed talking, writing & discussing ;
● undogmatic religion : the Archaic Greeks had no sacred books and hence no dogmatic
orthodoxy ;
● cultural affirmation : the Archaic Greeks were a "young" people who needed to affirm
their identity ;
● cultural approbation & improvement : the Archaic Greeks accepted to be taught and
were eager to learn.
The Egyptian sage never relinquished the religious. The divine was a given and speculative
thought at all times an expression of the deity. Although deep, remarkable and vitalizing,
Egyptian philosophy remained contextualized and defined by a "milieu" it could not escape.
Exceptional individuals, like Akhenaten, may have had access to formal thought. The
Ramesside Hymns to Amun and the Memphis Theology also testify to this. Although more
than one aspect of Egyptian thought, like the virtual adverb clause and its pan-en-theist
henotheism, may assists speculative naturalism, no systematic approach of wisdom ever
gained ground.
The Indo-European mentality of the Archaic Greeks differed from the African tradition (of
which Egyptian thought was the best example). Between ca. 750 and 600 BCE, we find the
crystallization of their city-states and the rise in power of the non-aristocrats, allying
themselves with frustrated noble families and putting the hereditary principle under

pressure. The two main leitmotivs of this age are discovery (literal and figural) and the
process of settlement & codification. In some towns, a leisure-economy ensued, and with
it, the free time to speculate.
Despite these and many other influences, the Greeks developed their own systematic,
linearizing approach. They focused on :
● Milesian "arch•", "phusis" & "apeiron" : the elemental laws of the cosmos are rooted
in substance, which is all ;
● Pythagorean "tetraktys" : the elemental cosmos is rooted in numbers forming man,
gods & demons ;
● Heraclitean "psyche" & "logos" : becoming and a quasi-reflective self-consciousness,
symbolical & psychological, prevail ;
● Parmenidian "aletheia" : the moment of truth is a decision away from opinion
("doxa") entering "being" ;
● Protagorian "anthropos" : man is the measure of all things and the relative reigns.
From the start, ontological questions dominated Greek thought. What is the "physis" or
fundamental stuff of nature (Ionic branch) ? How to know the truth as "being" (Eleatic
branch) ? Can indeed anything truly be known (Sophists) ? Why is there something rather
than nothing (Plato, Aristotle) ?
§ 5
Parmenides of Elea (ca. 515 - 440 BCE), inspired by Pythagoras and pupil of Xenophanes
(ca. 580/577 - 485/480 BCE), was the first Greek to develop, in poetical form, his
philosophical insights about truth ("aletheia"). Thanks to the neo-Platonist Simplicius (490 -
560), 111 lines about the Way of Truth are extant. In it, the conviction dominates that
human beings can attain knowledge of reality or understanding ("noos"). But to know the
truth, only two ways are open : the Way of Truth and the Way of Opinion. These are
defined in terms of the expressions "is" and "is not".
The first is the authentic way, leading to the unity and uniqueness of "being". When using
the copula "is", Parmenides points to the perfect identity of substantial "being", ascribed in
a single sense. Hence, what is other than "being" itself has no being at all ... This is the
second way, that of mere opinion ("doxa").
To develop his argument, Parmenides uses a three-tiered disjunction. To answer the
question : "Is a thing or is it not ?", three answers are possible : (a) it is or (b) it is not or
(c) it is and it is not.
By using the necessities of logic, the formal conditions of knowledge become apparent. Two
ways of inquiry are alone conceivable. The first, the journey of persuasion, attends on
reality, on the fact a thing is, while the second, is without report and deals with that a thing
is not and must not be. As one can neither know what is not (deemed impossible), nor tell
of it, the second way is pointless. Only one story of the way is left : "being" is ungenerated,
imperishable, entire, unique, unmoved and perfect. It never was nor will be, since it is now
all together, one, indivisible. It has no parentage.
Let us consider the three answers. If a thing is and is not, then this either means that there

is a difference due to circumstance or that "being" and "nonbeing" are different and
identical at the same time. This answer is relative (circumstantial) or contradictory. If a
thing is not, then it cannot be an object of a proposition. If not, not-being exists ! This
answer is pointless. As the last two answers are clearly false, and only three answers are
possible, so the first answer must, by this reductio ad absurdum, be true, namely : the
object of thought "is" and equal to itself from every point of view.
With Parmenides, pre-Socratic thought reached the formal stage of cognition. Before the
Eleatics, the difference between object and subject of thought was not clearly established
(cf. the object as psychomorph). The formal laws of logic were not yet brought forward and
used as tools to back an argument. The strong necessity implied by the laws of thought
had not yet become clear. Ontologically, the proto-rational concept of change of Heraclitus
(540 – 475 BCE) is indeed opposed to the static, single being of Parmenides, but
epistemologically, the latter was the first to underline the importance of the formal
characteristics a priori of all thought. The mediating role of the metaphor is replaced by an
emphasis on the distinction between the thinking subject (and its thoughts) and the reality
of what is known.
"... remaining the same and in the same state, it lies by itself and remains thus where it is
perpetually, for strong necessity holds it in the bondage of a limit, which keeps it apart,
because it is not lawful that Being should be incomplete, for it is not defective, whereas Notbeing
would lack everything. The same thing is for conceiving as is cause of the thought
conceived ; for not without Being, when one thing has been said of another, will You find
conceiving. And time is not nor will be another thing alongside Being, since this was bound
fast by fate to be entire and changeless."
Parmenides, fragment 8, 29-35.
§ 6
Ironically (or by force of apory ?), the idealism of Parmenides, thinking the necessity of the
object of thought, confuses between a substantialist and a predicative use of the verb "to
be" or the copula "is". That something "is" (or "Dasein") is not identical with what
something "is" (or "Sosein"). Properties (accidents) do exist apart from the "being" of the
substances they describe.
From the substantialist point of view, not-being is pointless. Only an all-comprehensive
"Being" can be posited. We know Parmenides asserted further predicates of the verb "to
be", namely by introducing the noun-expression "Being". The latter is ungenerated,
imperishable, complete, unique, unvarying and non-physical ...
He did not conceive the absence of certain properties as not-being, nor could he attribute
different forms of "being" to objects. What Parmenides calls "Being", is an allcomprehensive
being-there standing as being-qua-being, as "Dasein" in all the entities of
the natural world (and their "Sosein"). In that sense, namely in his mysticism, he is closer
to Heraclitus as one would suspect.
If Parmenides core interest was formal, then he mainly wanted to show what sense
attaches to the verb "to be" in asserting and thinking. But modern exegesis attributes to
his thought an existential understanding of the verb, or worse, an archaic failure to
distinguish between both uses.

The difference between object and subject of thought, at the core of formal rationality,
allows for two radical reductions : an object without a subject and a subject without an
object.
Without object, thought cannot say anything about the world and its propositions are all
tautologies and analytical. None of the accidents refer to anything outside thought, to an
entity, so must we think, which is kickable and which kicks back. In an all-comprehensive
subjectivism, the sole laws are the formal rules themselves, pointing to a set of ideas. Lack
of object is an outstanding characteristic of idealism.
Without subject, observation is impossible. For there can be no observation without an
observer and no two observers occupy the same space-time. Moreover, there is no
observation without interpretation. The thinking subject is an integral part of the act of
observation. Theoretical connotations co-determine what is observed (even in the brain,
various levels of sensoric interpretation are at work). In an all-comprehensive objectivism,
sense-data are the sole bedrock, pointing to a real world out there. Inability to regard the
constructed nature of reality is the outstanding feature of realism.
As soon as formal rationality envisaged the crucial difference between object and subject of
thought, the apory resulting from radical reductions became possible. As a result of the
continuous complexification of thought, these extreme positions were and are still
advocated. Grosso modo, realism in materialism and the natural sciences, idealism in
humanism and the sciences of man. It is one of the tasks of epistemology to elucidate this
concordia discors and make it operational in terms of the growth of knowledge.
§ 7
"All thinkers then agree in making the contraries principles, both those who describe the All
as one and unmoved (for even Parmenides treats hot and cold as principles under the
names of Fire and Earth) and those too who use the rare and the dense. The same is true
of Democritus also, with his plenum and void, both of which exist, he says, the one as
being, the other as not-being. Again he speaks of differences in position, shape, and order,
and these are genera of which the species are contraries, namely, of position, above and
below, before and behind ; of shape, angular and angleless, straight and round."
Aristotle : Physics, book 1, part 5.
Democritus of Abdera (ca. 460 - 380/370 BCE), geometer and known for his atomic theory,
developed the first mechanistic model. His system represents, in a way more fitting than
the difficult aphorisms of Heraclitus, a current radically opposing Eleatic thought.
The evidence of perception cannot be denied. The Eleatics are obviously wrong. Instead of
relying on the formal conditions of thought only, the origin of knowledge is given with the
undeniable evidence put forward by the senses. Becoming, movement and change are
fundamental. Hence, not-being exists. It is empty space, a void. If so, then being is
occupied space, a plenum. The latter is not a closed unity or continuum, a Being, but an
infinite variety of indivisible particles called "atoms".
The atoms are all composed of the same kind of matter and only differ from each other in
terms of their quantitative properties, like extension, weight, form and order. They never

change and cannot be divided. For all of eternity, they cross empty space in straight lines.
Because these atoms collided by deviating ("clinamen") from their paths, the world of
objects came into existence (why they moved away from their linear trajectories remains
unexplained). Hence, the universe is composed of a multiplicity of atoms moving and
colliding in empty space ... Each time this occurs, they form a vortex separated from the
rest of the universe, thus forming a world on its own. Hence, an infinite number of
simultaneous and successive worlds are in existence.
Objects emerge by the random aggregation of atoms. Things do not have an "inner"
coherence or "substance" (essence). Everything is impermanent and will eventually fall
apart under the pressure of new collisions. Atoms are characterized by quantitative
features only. Thus, all spiritual, psychological and mental processes can be reduced to
conglomerates of atoms moving without inner principle of unity. Thoughts, feelings,
volitions and the like, are nothing more than mechanical activities between atoms. Qualities
are subjective interpretations of quantities. Hence, the universe is material, quantitative,
deterministic and without finality.
Regarding knowledge, Democritus conjectures the senses are all derived from the sense of
touch. The atoms bombard the senses and give a picture of the object emitting them. As a
function of their speed, form etc. we can speak of sweet, blue etc. These names are only
conventional and do not convey any real characteristic of the object in question. But, we
are able to discover the true, real features of a thing behind the dark veil of the senses.
This is intellectual knowledge. Indeed, without the latter, it would not be possible to
develop the mechanistic model !
The logical difficulty facing this model is clear : if all things are atoms, then how can
rational knowledge be more reliable than perception ? Moreover, how can atomism describe
atoms without in some way transcending them ? In epistemological terms : how can the
subject of knowledge be eclipsed hand in hand with a description of this "fact" ? There is a
contradictio in actu exercito : although refusing the subject of knowledge any independence
from the object of knowledge, the former is implied in the refusal.
The problems facing Democritus are those of realism (materialism) in general. They mirror
those of Eleatic idealism (spiritualism). In pre-Socratic philosophy, both represent the two
poles of the essential tension characterizing thought.
The pendulum-swing between realism and idealism, or, in other words, the
exorcism of respectively either subject or object of knowledge, can be
identified in pre-Socratic thought as the apory between Parmenides &
Democritus. Both exemplify a movement of thought allowing it to exceed and
thus reduce (repress) its natural anti-pode. Idealism rejects the object of
perception, realism the constructive activity of the subject of thought. Instead
of harmonizing both, by introducing a principle of complementarity, thought is
crippled by a contradiction. In each case, the necessities lay bare by this
forced monism (either of mind or of matter), bring the structure of both poles
to the fore : Parmenides thinks the logical conditions a priori, leading to
oneness, universality and qualitative uniqueness, Democritus observes the
empirical conditions a posteriori, bringing in an infinite series of singular
atoms and quantitative multiplicity.

§ 8
The Eleatic effort to posit the necessity of logic & unity was turned into rhetoric by the
wandering Sophists. By so introducing the relativity of thought (skepticism and humanism),
they prompted a new quest for a comprehensive system. In it, the various facets
developed since Thales would have to be brought together in such a way that true
knowledge would remain certain and eternal (and not circumstantial and probable).
"Nothing exists. If anything existed, it could not be known. If anything did exit, and could
be known, it could not be communicated."
Gorgias of Leontini : On What is Not, or On Nature, 66 - 86.
Greek concept-realism, in tune with the tendency of thought to fossilize and substantialize,
developed two radical answers and two major epistemologies. These were foremost
intended to serve ontology, the study of "real" beings and being, as does the logic that
underpins them. Indeed, neither Plato or Aristotle developed the quantitative view of the
world as proposed by Democritus. Their systems are devoid of mathematical physics.
In concept-realism, concepts must refer to something "real". Our thoughts are always
about some thing. The "real" is a sufficient ground guaranteeing the identity of every thing.
For the Greeks, the "real" had to be universal ("ta katholou", or applicable everywhere and
all the time). Either these universals exist by themselves outside the sensoric world (the
real is ideal) or they only exist as the form of things in each individual thing (the ideal is
real). In the former, a cleavage occurs and dualism emerges (between being and
becoming), in the latter, a monism ensues. Again two reductions of the ongoing, crucial
tension of thought, i.e. the continuous, shocking confrontations between object and subject
of knowledge : the concordia discors.
For Plato (428 - 347 BCE), strongly influenced by Pythagoras and the Eleatics, there is a
real, Divine world of ideas "out there" or, as in neo-Platonism, "in here", a transcendent
realm of Being, in which the things of this fluctuating world participate. Ideas are those
aspects of a thing which do not change.
Obviously then, truth is the remembrance (anamnesis) of (or return to) this eternally good
state of affairs, conceived as the limit of limits of Being or even beyond that. These Platonic
ideas, like particularia of a higher order, are no longer the truth of this world of becoming
but of another, better world of Being, leaving us with the cleaving impasse of idealism :
Where is the object ?
The Platonic ideas exist objectively in a reality outside the thinker. Hence, the empirical has
a derivative status. The world of forms is outside the permanent flux characteristic of the
former, and also external to the thinking mind and its passing whims. A trans-empirical,
Platonic idea is a paradigm for the singular things which participate in it ("methexis").
Becoming participates in Being, and only Being, as Parmenides taught, has reality. The
physical world is not substantial (without sufficient ground) and posited as a mere
reflection. If so, it has no true existence of its own (for its essence is trans-empirical). Plato
projects the world of ideas outside the human mind. He therefore represents the
transcendent pole of Greek concept-realism, for the "real" moves beyond our senses as
well as our minds. To eternalize truth, nothing less will do.

Aristotle (384 - 322 BCE) rejects the separate, Platonic world of real proto-types, but not
the "ta katholou", the generalities ("les généralités", "die Allgemeinen"), conceived, as
concept-realism demands, in terms of the "real", essential and sufficient ground of
knowledge, the foundation of thought. So general, universal ideas do exist, but they are
always immanent in the singular things of this world. There is no world of ideas "out there".
There is no cleavage in what "is" and there is only one world, namely the actual world
present here and now. The indwelling formal and final causes of things are known by
abstracting what is gathered by the passive intellect, fed by the senses, witnessing material
and efficient causes. The actual process of abstraction is performed by the intellectus
agens, a kind of Peripatetic "Deus ex machina", reflective of the impasse of realism :
Where is the subject ?
"The faculty of thinking then thinks the forms in the images, and as what is to be pursued
or avoided is already marked out for it in these forms, the faculty can, by being engaged
upon the images, be moved, and this also in a way independent from perception."
Aristotle : De Anima, III.7.
How is this first intellect able to derive by abstraction the universal on the basis of the
particular ? How does it recognize the forms in the images without (Platonic) proto-types ?
Even a very large number of particulars does not logically justify a universal proposition, as
Aristotle knew. Induction has no final clause, for all past causes can never be known. How
does this active intellect then recognize the similarities between properties offered by the
passive intellect, if not by virtue of a measure which is independent from perception (and
so again introducing a world of ideas) ?
Aristotle posits the objective forms in the actual world. In the latter, both being and
becoming operate. This was a major step forward, for ontological dualism is explicitly
avoided, although implicitly reintroduced within psychology. The forms are realized in
singulars, but known by accident of a universal intellect he does not study. For him, the
"real" is known through the senses and the curious abstracting abilities of the mind. The
workings of the intellectus agens remain dark. This concept-realism is immanent. All things
are explained in terms of four causes : causa materialis, causa efficiens, causa formalis and
causa finalis. Experience of the first two causes, triggers the process of cognition and
knowledge of material bodies. Abstracting the last two causes, allows one to understand
the "form" or essence of things.
In Platonic concept-realism, one cannot avoid asking the question : How can another world
be the truth of this world ? The ontological cleavage is unacceptable. Peripatetic thought
summons a psychological critique, for how can the human soul possibly know anything if
not by virtue of this remarkable active intellect ? Both reductions are problematic. Because
they try to escape, in vain, the Factum Rationis, and so represent the two extreme poles of
the concordia discors of thought, they form an apory. Plato, being an idealist, lost grip on
reality. Aristotle, the realist, did not fully probe his own mind. Composite forms of both
systems do not avoid the conflict, although they may conceal it better. The crucial tension
of thought was not solved by Greek concept-realism. How to evolve formal rationality ?

The two major philosophical systems of Greek philosophy are examples of
foundational thinking. Truth is eternalized and static. Concept-realism will
always ground our concepts in a reality outside knowledge. Plato cuts reality
in two qualitatively different worlds. True knowledge is remembering the
world of ideas. Aristotle divides the mind in two functionally different
intellects. To draw out and abstract the common element, an intellectus agens
is needed. But, both positions reveal new insights : knowledge is impossible
without innate forms (Plato) versus knowledge starts with perception
(Aristotle). Greek thought is unable to reconcile the extremes and so no
armed truce ensued. One tried to avoid the concordia discors by eliminating
the other side of the equation. These tensions, like open wires, short-circuited
Medieval logic, preparing thought for its emancipation from fideism and
fundamental theology.
§ 9
In Late Hellenism, and particularly in Stoicism, language became an independent area of
study. Logic was not longer embedded in metaphysics, but part of the new science of
language (linguistics). The technical apparatus developed by the Platonic and Peripatetic
schools, as well as the mechanics of logic had been fully mastered. An overview of
knowledge was sought, and concept-realism still prevailed. Concepts were either rooted in
universal ideas or in immanent forms. Both ideas and forms were "real", i.e. agents
working "outside" the mind and delivering the foundation of thought and true knowledge.
Throughout the Mediterranean, the Egyptian school of Alexandria was renowned. In 529,
under the Christian emperor Justinianus, who commissioned the Hagia Sophia, the Platonic
Academy at Athens was closed.
Physics studies things ("pragmata" or "res"'), whereas dialectica and grammatica study
words ("phonai" or "voces"). This is the approach of the first scholastic and the last Roman,
Boethius (480 - 524 or 525). He created the term "universalia" (the Latin of "ta katholou")
to denote the logical concepts genus and species. The apory between Plato's world of ideas
and Aristotle's immanent forms, is no longer part of the Stoic context. A simplification took
place which brought logic and linguistics to the fore.
In his Isagoge, a work translated by Boethius, Porphyry (232/3 - ca. 305) had written :
"I shall not say anything about whether genera and species exist as substances, or are
confined to mere conceptions ; and if they are substances, whether they are material or
immaterial ; and whether they exist separately from sensible objects, or in them
immanently."
Porphyry : Isagoge, 1, introduction.
For Boethius, considering these matters to be "very deep", the answer is Aristotelian : the
universals have an objective existence in particular physical things, but the mind is able to
conceive genera and species independent of these bodies.
For Isidore of Sevilla, who died in 636, etymology was the crucial science, for to know the
name ("nomen") of an object gave insight into its essential nature. Hence, there exists an
implicate adualism between the name (or word) and its reality or "res". This symbolic

adualism does not differentiate between an "inner" subjective state of consciousness and
an "outer" objective reality, which is a typical characteristic of ante-rationality (cf.
psychomorphism). This view was a return to Plato and the Eleatic cleavage between "is"
and "is not". And indeed, this Platonism accommodated the Augustinian interpretation of
Christianity. Here, symbolical adualism walks hand in hand with ontological dualism : the
true name of a thing reveals its unchanging, transcendent essence intuitively, precisely
because there is a radical division between the perfect, true world of Being and the
incomplete, false world of becoming.
Thanks to the Carolingian Renaissance, and the organization of the Palatine School, a
remote ancestor of the Renaissance "university" ("turned towards unity") was created.
Europe, under the political will of Charlemagne, was awakened to its "rational" inheritance
and embraced the importance of education and learning (for the upper classes). Although
short-lived, its influence would not completely vanish.
Clearly the problem of universals touched the foundation of fideist thought, which tried to
identify general names (like "God") in the mind with universal objects in reality. On the one
hand, there was the ultra-realistic position, or "exaggerated realism", found in the De
Divisione Naturae of John Scotus Eriugena (ca. 810 - 877) and the work of Remigius of
Auxerre (ca. 841 - 908), who taught that the species is a "partitio substantialis" of the
genus. The species is also the substantial unity of many individuals. Thus, individuals only
differ accidentally from one another. All beings are thus modifications of one Being. A new
child is not a new substance, but a new property of the already existing substance called
"humanity" (a kind of monopsychism avant la lettre may be noted).
On the other hand, very soon heretics in dialectic rose. For Eric (Heiricus) of Auxerre (841 -
876), general names had no universal objects corresponding to them. Universals concepts
arise because the mind gathers together ("coarctatio") the multitude of individuals and
forms the idea of species. This variety is again gathered together to form the genus. Only
individuals exist. By the process of "coarctatio", many genera form the extensive concept
of "ousia" ("substantia"). In the same line, Roscelin (ca. 1050 - 1120) held that a universal
is only a word ("flatus vocis") and so "nihil esse praeter individua" ...
§ 10
In the Middle Ages, this apory between exaggerated realists ("reales") and nominalists
("nominales"), itself a logico-linguistic transposition of the ontological apory between Plato
and Aristotle, is best illustrated by the confrontation between William of Champeaux (1070
- 1120), and Abelard (1079 - 1142). The latter was a rigorist dialectic arguing against the
"antiqua doctrina", and, according to the famous Bernard of Clairvaux (1090 - 1153), an
agent of Satan !
Abelard argued, that according to William of Champeaux, only ten different substances or
"essences" exist (namely the 10 categories of Aristotle). Hence, all living beings, subsumed
under "substance", are substantially identical, and so Socrates and the donkey Brunellus
are the same. In his early days, William of Champeaux taught, against his teacher
Roscelin, that the individual members of a species only differ accidentally from one
another. But this identity-theory came under severe attack and so he changed it. Some say
as a subterfuge, William later replied to Abelard with his indifference thesis, according to
which two members of the same species are the same thing, not "essentialiter" but

"indifferenter". Peter and Paul are "indifferently" men (they thus possess humanity
"secundum indifferentiam"), because as Peter is rational, so is Paul, whereas their
humanity is not the same, i.e. their nature is not numerically the same, but like ("similis").
In fact, he is saying the universal substances of both are alike, applying indifferently to
both or any other man. This position was also part of Abelard's polemical interpretations.
Abelard's "nominalism" is a denial of ultra-realism in epistemology, i.e. against the
adualism between "vox" and "res". He does not refute Platonic "ideae" preexisting in the
mind of God, but understands these as the metaphysical foundation of the real similarities
in status between objects of the same species, and not of the objects (as Platonism
insists). So the ideas explain how two things may be alike, but objects do not participate in
ideas, nor are these ideas the "ousia" or "substantia" of objects.
Abelard's analysis states the distinction between the logical and the real orders, but without
the denial of the objective foundation of the universals. This early nominalism is a
moderate realism. He demonstrated how one could deny exaggerated realism without
being obliged to reject the objectivity of genera and species.
For Abelard, universals were by nature inclined to be ascribed to several objects. They are
only words, not things (against the "reales"). When identified with words, universals are
not reduced to mere "sound" (which is also a "res"), but to the signifying power of words
(against the "nominales"). This "significatio" of words is not a concept accompanying the
word (a mere contents of mind, i.e. exclusively subjective), but gives expression or
meaning to the objective status of the word (semantics). This status is a human convention
based on real similarities between the particulars, but these real "convenientia" are not a
"res", not "nihil" but a "quasi res" : it is not the substance "homo" that makes human
beings similar, but the "esse hominem".
For Abelard, objectivity, found in universal propositions, is a human convention based on
real similarities between particulars. The latter exist on their own. Ideas are the
metaphysical foundation of the similarities between objects. They are not the "ousia",
"eidos", essence or substance of things. These conventions have a special status, for they
stand between being and nothing.
The extraordinary contribution of Abelard to epistemology is that he was able to avoid the
apory of the concordia discors by introducing a third option :
1. universale ante rem : the universals exist before the realities they subsume :
Platonism ;
2. universale in re : the universals only exist in the realities ("quidditas rei") of
which they are abstractions : Aristotelism ;
3. universale post rem : universals are words, abstract universal concepts with a
meaning, given to them by human convention, in which real similarities
between particulars are expressed. The latter are not "essentia" and not "nihil",
but "quasi res".
This juggling may conceal the larger issue at hand : if extra-mental objects are particulars
and mental concepts universals, then how to think their relationship ? Does an extramental
foundation of universals exist ? The Greeks as well as the Scholastics answered
affirmatively. The idea of a foundation of knowledge was still present.

For the Scholastics, given their preoccupation with God, the problem was to know whether
an objective, extra-mental reality corresponded to the universals in the mind ? If so, then
the mere concept of "God" might entail Divine existence, as the a priori proof tries to
argue. If not, rational knowledge resulted in skepticism and Divine existence might be
argued a posteriori only. Greek rationalism was conceptual and ontological, whereas
Medieval dialectics was foundational and logico-linguistic (psychological).
Abelard's solution involves a crucial distinction : universals are not real, but they are words
(real sounds) with a significance referring to real similarities between real particulars.
Because of their meaning, they are more than "nothing". The foundation of his nominalism
is "the real" as evidenced by similarities between objects, whereas the "reales" supposed
an ante-rational symbiosis between "verbum" and "res", between Platonic ideas and
material objects ("methexis").
His pivotal contribution to the historical process of reason becoming conscious of itself is
not limited to logic, epistemology and semantics. In his Ethica seu Scito Teipsum or "Ethics
of Know Yourself", he stressed the importance of intent ("intentio"). Good and evil are not
situated in the action itself (cf. Aristotle's Ethics Nicomachea), but in the intention of the
acting subject. Conscience ("conscientia") is therefore crucial, for "non est peccatum nisi
contra conscientiam". So also in his ethics, Abelard puts emphasis on the subject of
experience, moving far away from the shores of the objective morality of his age (focusing
on the virtue of the deed and not on the doer and his motifs).
A similar Abelardian line of argumentation is found in David Hume (1711 - 1776), ending in
a skepticism preventing Kant (1724 - 1804) from sleeping (indeed, Hume rejected
rationalist intuitionism and so could not back the observed similarity between objects).
When Aristotle was finally translated into Latin, Abelard could and was recuperated by High
Scholasticism.
§ 11
"Although it is clear to many that a universal is not a substance existing outside the mind
in individuals and really distinct from them, still some are of the opinion that a universal
does in some manner exist outside the mind in individuals, although not really but only
formally distinct from them. (...) However, this opinion appears to me wholly untenable."
Ockham : Summa totius logicae, I, c.xvi.
With the Franciscan monk William of Ockham (1290 - 1350), theologian & philosopher, the
"via moderna" received its most logical of defenders. Thomists, Scotists and Augustinians
formed the "via antiqua". It is their realism, Platonic (the essence is transcendent) as well
as Aristotelic (the essence is immanent), which was firmly rejected. Instead, nominalism
was promoted, but one without objective universals. It was hence more radical than
Abelard's. No reality ("quid rei") is ever attained, but only a nominal representation ("quid
nominis").
For Ockham, the metaphysics of essences was introduced into Christian theology and
philosophy from Greek sources. So, contrary to Abelard's moderate nominalism, his strict
nominalism did not incorporate them. There are no universal subsistent forms, for
otherwise God would be limited in His creative act by these eternal ideas. Indeed, every

idea is limited by its own individuality. This non-Christian invention has no place in
Christian thought. Universals are only "termini concepti", final terms signifying individual
things which stand for them in propositions.
It was Peter of Spain (thirteenth century), who's exact identity is unknown, who had
distinguished between probable reasoning (dialectic), demonstrative science & sophistical
reasoning. Ockham was influenced by this emphasis placed on syllogistic reasoning leading
to probable conclusions. Hence, arguments in philosophy (as distinct from logic) are
probable (terministic) rather than demonstrative. Formal logic is demonstrative, whereas
terministic logic is probable.
For Ockham, who took the equipment to develop this terminist logic from his predecessors,
empirical data were primordial and exclusive to establish the existence of a thing. The
validity of inferring from the existence of one thing to the existence of another things was
questioned. He distinguished between the spoken word ("terminus prolatus"), the written
word ("terminus scriptus") and the concept ("terminus conceptus" or "intentio animæ").
The latter is a natural sign, the natural reaction to the stimuli of a direct empirical
apprehension. Only individual things exist. By the fact a thing exists, it is individual. There
cannot be existent universals, for if a universal exists, it must be an individual, which is a
contradictio in terminis (for universals are supposed to subsume individuals).
This focus on the objects which are immediately known, goes hand in hand with the
principle of economy to get rid of the abstracting "species intelligibiles". What is known as
"Ockham's Razor" was a common principle in Medieval philosophy. Because of his frequent
usage of the principle (cf. the Franciscan vow of poverty), his name has become indelibly
attached to it. In Ockham's version it reads : "Pluralitas non est ponenda sine
neccesitate." (plurality should not be posited without necessity). In general terms, this
principle of simplicity or parsimony is to always prefer the least complicated explanation for
an observation.
Radical nominalists, like Nicolas of Autrecourt (ca. 1300 - ca. 1350), who belonged to the
Faculty of Arts, would say no inference from the existence of one thing to the existence of
another thing could be demonstrative or cogent, but only probable. Hence, necessity and
certainty, idolized by the foregoing metaphysical systems, were gone. No demonstration of
God's existence was possible. Such matters have to be relegated to the order of adherence
to revealed knowledge or faith. At this point, theology and philosophy separate and the
latter becomes a "lay" activity. This is not yet apparent in Ockham, who remains a
theologian seeking to find a way to rethink the "proof" of God's existence in merely a
posteriori terms.
Against his predecessors, Ockham accepts "being" as a concept common to creatures and
God, meaning "being" is predicable in a univocal sense to all existent things. Without
such a concept, the existence of God could not be conceived. But, this does not mean this
concept acts as a bridge between empirical observation of creatures and the existence of
God. It is univocal in the sense it is common to a plurality of things, neither accidentally or
substantially alike (thus avoiding pantheism).
These thought bring the distinction between "scientia realis" and "scientia rationalis" to the
fore. The former is concerned with real, individual things. He agrees with Aristotle that only
individuals exist, but rejects the doctrine that science is of the universal. The latter are not
forms realized in individuals (realities existing extra-mentally). Real science is only

concerned with universal propositions, i.e. with their truth or falsity (for example : "Man is
capable of laughter."). To say a universal proposition in science is "true", is to say that it is
verified in all individual things of which the "terms" of the proposition are the natural signs.
The terms known by real science stand for individual things, whereas the terms of the
propositions of rational science (like logic) stand for other terms.
Ockham's contribution is remarkable, although his terminology is still scholastic and he
considered revelation as a source of certain knowledge.
With Ockham, concept-realism is finally relinquished. The foundational
approach is also left behind. The nominal representations arrived at in real
science are only terministic, i.e. probable. They concern individuals, never
extra-mental "universals". Real science deals with true or false propositions
referring to individual things. These empirical data are primordial and
exclusive to establish the existence of a thing. The concept ("terminus
conceptus" or "intentio animæ") is a natural sign, the natural reaction to the
stimuli of a direct empirical apprehension. Rational science is possible, but it
does not concern natural signs but other terms.
§ 12
"Il y a déjà quelque temps que je me suis aperçu que, dès mes premières années, j'ai reçu
quantité de fausses opinions pour véritables, et que ce que j'ai depuis fondé sur des
principes si mal assurés ne saurait être que fort douteux et incertain ; et dès lors j'ai bien
jugé qu'il me fallait entreprendre sérieusement une fois dans ma vie de me défaire de
toutes les opinions que j'avais reçues auparavant en ma créance, et commencer tout de
nouveau dès les fondements, si je voulais établir quelque chose de ferme et de constant
dans les sciences."
Descartes, R. : Meditations, 1, § 1a.
In the mind of Cartesius, the only constructive point of his education, so the Discourse on
Method (1637) tells us, was the discovery of his own ignorance (cf. Chapter 1). This
prompted him to reject all prejudices and seek out certain knowledge. Nine years he raises
doubts about various conjectures and opinions covering the whole range of human
activities. Eventually, doubt is raised regarding three sources of knowledge :
1. authority : as contradictions always arise between authorities a higher criterion
is needed ;
2. senses : maybe waking experience is just a "dream" or a "hallucination" ? Can
this be or not ? Also : the senses give confused information, so a still higher
criterion is needed ;
3. reason : how can we be certain some "malin génie" has not created us such,
that we accept self-evident reasoning although we are in reality mislead and in
fatal error ?
I can doubt all objects of these activities of consciousness, but that such an activity of
consciousness exists, is beyond doubt. Thus, the "res cogitans", "ego cogitans" or "l'être

conscient" is the crucial factor in Cartesian philosophy. Its indubitable, intuitively grasped
truth ? Cogito ergo sum : I think, therefore I am. That I doubt certain things may be the
case, but the fact that I doubt them, i.e. am engaged in a certain conscious activity, is
certain. To say : "I doubt whether I exist." is a contradictio in actu exercito, or a statement
refuted by the mere act of stating it. The certainty of Cogito ergo sum is not inferred but
immediate and intuitive. It is not a conclusion, but a certain premiss.
At this point, the apory resulting from a mismanagement of the concordia discors which
animates all possible thought, reappeared and entered modernism.
Transcendental logic makes both terms of the formal equation offered by the Factum
Rationis necessary and irreducible. In terms of acquiring knowledge, this implies object and
subject of knowledge have to be used simultaneously. But like Plato and the "reales" after
him, Descartes eclipses the object of knowledge by inflating an ego cogitans in terms of a
substantial ego, solely reflecting on itself, and as Leibnizean monad, without windows on
the world and the alter ego. The Spinozist definition of God and freedom being the mature
example of the substantializing (ontologizing) effect of this idealistic reduction of the
discordant concord or armed truce of thought.
"By God, I mean the absolutely infinite Being - that is, a substance consisting in infinite
attributes, of which each expresses for itself an eternal and infinite essentiality."
Spinoza : Ethics, Part I, definition VI.
"That thing is called 'free', which exists solely by the necessity of its own nature, and of
which the action is determined by itself alone. That thing is inevitable, compelled,
necessary, or rather constrained, which is determined by something external to itself to a
fixed and definite method of existence or action."
Spinoza : Ethics, Part I, definition VII.
Because he did not rely on the object of knowledge (deemed doubtful), Descartes rooted
his whole enterprise in an ideal ego constituting the possibility and expansion of
knowledge. All idealists after him would do the same. The end result of this reduction is a
Platonic theory of knowledge. At the end of the line, truth is identified with a consensus
between sign-interpreters (cf. Habermas).
§ 13
In his Treatise of Human Nature (1739) and Enquiry concerning human Understanding
(1748), David Hume (1711 - 1776) seeks to develop a science of man. As Locke (1632 -
1704), he envisages a critical and experimental foundation.
"Nature is always too strong for principle."
Hume, D. : Enquiry concerning the Principles of Morals, 12, 2, 128.
"Perceptions" are the contents of the mind in general, divided in impressions and ideas.
The former strike the mind with vividness, force and liveliness, whereas the latter are faint
images of these in thinking. Impressions are either of perception or of reflection. The latter
are in great measure derived from ideas.
Like Ockham, Hume is a nominalist. Real or ideal universals are not the foundation to erect
the science of man. Unlike Descartes, he is an empirist : the senses are the foundation of

knowledge. Two kinds of propositions are possible :
1. analytic : the predicate is part of the subject - these tautologies are universal
and necessary, but restricted to geometry and arithmetic. All a priori
propositions are analytic and have nothing to say about the world of fact ;
2. synthetic : the predicate is not part of the subject and an extra-mental reality is
implied. All synthetic propositions are a posteriori and have always something
to say about the world.
The extra-mental reality sought can be no other than the one offered by direct or indirect
empirical experience.
1. direct synthetic propositions : the predicate is attached to the subject because
of what is immediately empirically perceived here and now ;
2. indirect synthetic propositions : the predicate is attached to the subject because
we move from what be know to be a direct, given fact to a state of affairs which
is not (yet) empirically given. These propositions are problematic because a
necessary and objective connection between our idea of causality and real
events cannot be demonstrated. Moreover, logically the move from a finite
series of particular observations to an infinite, necessary law can never be
warranted (cf. the problem of induction in naive realism).
Suppose the observed psychological connection between fact A and fact B is continuous. Is
it necessary ? My (or our) witnessing the connection more than once, does not imply that it
will work tomorrow. Skepticism results. The universal value of scientific laws cannot be
demonstrated, neither can the reality of the world (within and without). Science is
restricted to statements of probability.
The Achilles Heel of this position is the status of the sense-data and the formation of
concepts. It is not clear how sense-data can be identified without some conceptual
connotation, which is not a sense datum. Moreover, perception is introduced as a sufficient
ground. "Adequatio intellectus ad rem" is presupposed (as in all forms of realism). Finally,
how can similarities between sense-data be observed ? At the end of the line, empiricism
identifies truth with the naive correspondence between concept and fact.
The ontologisms a priori & a posteriori (of Greek concept-realism and the
Medieval universalia) gave way to the crucial distinction between analytic and
synthetic propositions. On the one hand, Descartes, by introducing a
substantial ego cogitans and its intuitive cogito ergo sum, reintroduced
Platonism by backing his criterion of truth with a proof of God (making use of
the criterion). On the other hand, Hume, by rejecting all but direct synthetic
propositions, was unable to explain how we can draw out the common
element without innate cognitive structures. Remember how Aristotle was
forced to call in his intellectus agens ! Is rationalism not a return to the
symbolical (Platonic) adualism and its "leges cogitandi sunt leges
essendi" (the laws of thinking are the laws of reality) ? Is empirism not the
modern equivalent of the system of Democritus and the subsequent "veritas

est adequatio rei et intellectus" ("truth is the correspondence between the
intellect and reality) ? These constant pendulum-movements were first
identified by Kant and deemed a "scandal" ... How is knowledge possible ?
§ 14
"We thus see that all the wrangling about the nature of a thinking being, and its association
with the material world, arises simply from our filling the gap, due to our ignorance, with
paralogisms of reason, and by changing thoughts into things and hypostatizing them."
Kant, I. : Critique of Pure Reason, A394-398.
With his "Copernican Revolution", Kant (1724 - 1804) completes the self-reflective
movement initiated by Descartes, focusing on the subject of experience (cf. Chapter 1).
Incorporating rationalism and empirism, he avoids the battle-field of the endless
(metaphysical and ontological) controversies by (a) finding and (b) applying the conditions
of possible knowledge. An armed truce between object and subject had to be realized.
Inspired by Newton (1642 - 1727) and turning against Hume, Kant deems synthetic
propositions a priori possible (Hume only accepted direct synthetic propositions a
posteriori). There is a categorial system producing scientific statements of fact which are
always valid and necessary (for Hume, scientific knowledge is not always valid and
necessary). This system stipulates the conditions of valid knowledge and is therefore the
transcendental foundation of all possible knowledge.
Let us recall the previous positions.
For Plato, the supreme thing is the idea of the Good. The ontology implied is dualistic, for
the world to which this idea belongs represents the static, eternal truth in which all shifting
temporal particulars participate. To know, it to remember the world of ideas. In short, Plato
made his thoughts into an ideal thing separated from this world. The Peripatetics do the
opposite ; they idealize the world of becoming, and attribute a final ground to it which is
realized in every particular (cf. hylemorphism). This ontologism is realistic, for the "ousia"
of a thing is real, but exists as an integral part of the individual things only (cf. the soul as
the form of the body). Subsequently, with the division between "reales" and "nominales",
nothing new was achieved. Abelard was the first to avoid the apory (cf. universale post
rem), but he retained the ideas as metaphysical foundation for the similarities in status
between objects of the same species. Although his mild nominalism avoids the trap of
symbolical adualism, it fails to adequately explain these similarities.
The transcendental system of the conditions of possible knowledge (or transcendental
logic) is a hierarchy of concepts defining the objective ground of all possible knowledge,
both in terms of the synthetic propositions a priori of object-knowledge (transcendental
analytic covering understanding), as well as regarding the greatest possible expansion
under the unity of reason. These transcendental concepts are not empirical, but are the
product of the transcendental method, bringing to consciousness principles which cannot be
denied because they are part of every denial. They are "pure" because they are empty of
empirical data and stand on their own, while rooted in (or suspended on) the
transcendental "I think" and its Factum Rationis. For Kant, reason, the higher faculty of
knowledge, is only occupied with understanding, while the latter is only processing the
input from the senses. Reason has no intellect to inform it. There is no faculty higher than

eason.
"All our knowledge begins with the senses, proceeds thence to the understanding, and ends
with reason. There is nothing higher than reason for working up the material of intuition &
comprehending it under the highest unity of thought."
Kant, I. : Critique of Pure Reason, B355.
The process of acquiring knowledge runs as follows :
1. transcendental aesthetic : empirical knowledge : a variety of direct, multiple,
unordered, nameless impressions (Hume), called "Empfindungen" (or
perceptions) are synthesized by the forms of representation "space" (related to
geometry) and "time" (related to arithmetics) and turned into
"Erscheinungen" (or phenomena). These representations reflect the structure of
our receptive apparatus. They are meant to structure perceptions into
phenomena ;
2. transcendental analytic : scientific knowledge : phenomena are objectified by
thought, but do not constitute an object of knowledge, for this is realized in
propositions. The phenomena need to be structured by the 12 categories of
understanding, corresponding to 12 different types of propositions (quantity,
quality, relation and modality, each viewed from three angels). This
categorization of phenomena leads to object-knowledge (synthetic propositions
a priori). The categories are meant to structure phenomena into objectknowledge
;
3. transcendental dialectic : metaphysical knowledge : the variety of objects
known is brought to a higher unity. A last, sufficient ground is sought and found
in the ideas of reason : "ego", "world" and "God" (derived from the category of
relation). These words are not things and only serve understanding, nothing
more. While stimulating the mind's continuous expansion, these ideas regulate
understanding and bring it to a more comprehensive, reasonable unity. They
are meant to structure understanding into an immanent metaphysics.
The 2 forms of representation, 12 categories (brought to unity by 3 ideas) make the object
possible, rather than vice versa. The human mind is the active originator of experience,
rather than just a passive recipient of perception, as Hume thought. The mind can not be a
tabula rasa, a "blank tablet", so Descartes is right. The whole transcendental system is
innate. Even on the level of the transcendental aesthetics, perceptions, the only source of
knowledge acknowledged, as Locke claimed, must always be processed to be recognized,
or they would just be "less even than a dream" or "nothing to us". Both perceptions,
representation and categorization are necessary to constitute an object of knowledge.
In his "transcendental dialectic", Kant works with the negative, deceptive meaning of the
word "dialectic", namely as antinomy and paralogism. These scandals occur each time the
barriers given by our transcendental logic are not upheld and the ideas are changed into
things, which is far worse than a mere mistaken use of the categories. Kant was fully aware
of the unwholesome habit of thought to fixate itself or its objects into so-called realities,
filling in the "gap" which, for Kant, cannot be crossed.
"I do not mean by this the transcendental use or abuse of the categories, which is a mere

fault of the faculty of judgment, not being as yet sufficiently subdued by criticism nor
sufficiently attentive to the limits of the sphere within which alone the pure understanding
has full play, but real principles which call upon us to break down all those barriers, and to
claim a perfectly new territory, which nowhere recognises any demarcation at all. Here
transcendental and transcendent do not mean the same thing."
Kant, I. : Critique of Pure Reason, B350.
When the landmarks are removed, transcendental illusion ensues, or reason forgetful of its
own, changing thoughts into things. This fundamental falsehood perverts the principles of
reason itself. This natural "dialectic" of reason does not go away once realized, but requires
to be removed again and again, for it "will never cease to fascinate our reason" (B354).
Human reason has a natural inclination to grossly overstep these limits, to give in to the
pull of the "unconditional" idea, to fill the gap between what we can know and what we
fancy to know, thereby regarding the transcendental ideas as real things, whereas they are
wholly subjective, only needed to organize understanding and have no meaning outside
this regulative, non-subreptive way. This reveals a fundamental demarcation or difference
in the use of the transcendental ideas : regulative (as it should) or constitutive (as
hypostases). In the latter case, they step outside the barriers of transcendental logic.
With Kant, a totally new perspective unfolded : criticism highlights the limitations,
demarcations, frontiers and borders of thought. It is not possible to step outside ourselves
and witness the world. The subjective structure cannot be removed and so what is
"objective" can never be identified with an observation without interpretation. The latter is
impossible. There is no point of intersection between the lines created by our thoughts and
reality-as-it-is. They bounce off on the mirror-surface of phenomena and do not allow us to
probe into reality itself. A fundamental distinction is made : humans only know reality as it
appears, not as it really is. Hence, the world is epistemologically divided between
"phenomena" and "noumena", between what is processed by our understanding (by virtue
of the categorial scheme) and the intellectual intuition of things as they are in themselves
(an intuition Kant rejected). Needless to say that this new division is problematic. Has
Kant, without knowing it, given in to the transcendental illusion he uncovered himself ?
§ 15
Kant wished to retain for science the certainty of the sufficient ground. To understand his
epistemology properly, this aim is of paramount importance. He wished to do for
philosophy what Newton had done for physics : a universal system allowing one to explain
the movements of planets as well as those of apples. He could not accept skepticism and
the relativism it engenders. Not finding this firm ground in the objective, outward reality
(as a world of Platonic ideas or universal forms immanent in matter), his transcendental
method cleared the foundations of the (universal) subjective apparatus of thought. By thus
viewing the subject of experience as active after the reception of the perception (analytic
object-knowledge after the aesthetic synthesis of phenomena), all possible knowledge was
about the "thing-for-us" and never about the "thing-as-such" or reality-as-it-is.
Where did Kant miss out on his own Copernican revolution ?
The first to point to the major flaw was F.H.Jacobi (1743 - 1819), who -in 1787- asked :
Were does the "matter" of the perception ("Empfindung") turned into phenomena
("Erscheinung") come from ? Kant supposed our perceptions were somehow caused by

eality-as-such, the famous "Ding-an-sich". How can this be ? Causality cannot be invoked,
for the nameless perceptions are pre-categorial. Neither can the world-as-such be thought
as temporally first and the perceptions last, for the former is outside time. Hence, the way
our senses receive information is obscured, compromising Kant's epistemology. If Kant
needs the "noumenon" to start up the engine of the categories, then he clearly does not
use the "thing-as-such" as a negative, formal and empty limit-concept, and the Copernican
Revolution is incomplete. And if this is the case, and it is, then his attempt at justifying
knowledge a priori fails. So far the idealists were correct : knowledge cannot find a
sufficient ground in the transcendental apparatus, for the latter depends on the very thing
it tries to avoid : a direct, unmediated contact with reality.
Kant's system, although transcendental, and thus devoid of any attempt to explain the
possibility of knowledge by ontology, retains the postulate of foundation, by which true
knowledge is certain, universal and necessary. Scientific knowledge is seen as a system of
synthetic propositions a priori, and so indirect synthetic statements pass Kant's critical test
(while for Hume only direct propositions were certain). Kant's philosophy is Newtonian, and
so absolute principles are acknowledged both in understanding (forms, categories) as in
reason (the ideas). At the same time, clear demarcations avoid their abuse and potential
corruptive effect on thought.
For good reasons, the history of philosophy is divided in pre- and post-
Kantian. For with the crucial Copernican Revolution, the activity of the subject
of knowledge was finally fully acknowledged. The categorial scheme yields
object-knowledge in the form of synthetical propositions a priori. A Newtonian
science of absolute certainties is possible. The skepticism of Hume (also at
work in Ockham) is overturned. Causality can be thought and so the
connectivity of our knowledge guaranteed. The catch ? By pursuing his
foundational course, Kant had to introduce a pseudo-causality before causality
in order to explain (describe) how the motor of the categories is fuelled.
Moreover, the cleavage between becoming and being was reintroduced as the
abyss between phenomena & noumena. To avoid these problems, parts of the
transcendental exercise of Die Kritik der Reinen Vernunft has to be redone.
§ 16
In the 20th century, neo-Kantianism reconstructed parts of Kant's system. What can I
know ? is answered without presupposing that synthetic proposition a priori are possible.
The science of certainties is replaced by the science of probabilities and approximations.
Demonstrative intentions are replaced by a terminist logic. This means modernism, as the
via moderna had before, took the next step by abolishing foundational thinking. To show
this radical move does not automatically lead to relativism or skepticism, is one of the
underlying motifs of the present exercise.
According to Sextus Empiricus, it was the skeptic Pyrrho of Elis (ca. 365 - 275 BCE) who
taught conflicts between two (or more) criteria of truth automatically lead to an apory or an
antinomy, i.e. a contradiction posed by a group of individually plausible but collectively
inconsistent propositions. The truth of a given criterion can only be argued using true
propositions. But, whenever a given criterion is justified, a petitio principii or circular

argument is involved. Discussions about the criterion of truth are therefore unending and
without solution.
Much later, the problems of foundational thinking were summarized by the Münchhausentrilemma
(Albert, 1976). Its logic proves how every possible kind of foundational strategy is
necessarily flawed. The trilemma was named after the Baron von Münchhausen, who tried
to pull himself out of a swamp by his own hair !
Every time a theory of knowledge accommodates the postulate of foundation, three equally
unacceptable situations occur. A justification of proposition P implies a deductive chain A of
arguments A', A", etc. with P as conclusion. How extended must A be in order to justify P ?
1. regressus ad infinitum :
there is no end to the justification, and so no foundation is found (A', A", etc.
does not lead to P) ;
2. petitio principii :
the end P is implied by the beginning, for P is part of the deductive chain A.
Circularity is a valid deduction but no justification of P, hence no foundation is
found ;
3. abrogation ad hoc :
justification is ended ad hoc, the postulate of justification is abrogated, and the
unjustified sufficient ground (A' or A" or ...) is accepted as certain because,
seeming certain, it needs no more justification.
The Münchhausen-trilemma is avoided by stopping to seek an absolute, sufficient ground
for science. This happens when one accepts genuine science is terministic. In mathematics
and physics, major changes have happened since Newton, and who is able to disprove the
revolutions of tomorrow ? Hence, the categorial system cannot be absolute, although some
of its general features are necessary in a normative way (for we use them when we think).
On the level of transcendental logic and the theory of knowledge, object and subject of
thought are fundamental critical concepts. On the level of the practice of knowledge,
experiment & argumentation are crucial. Realism and idealism are the proposed
transcendental ideas of reason (instead of ego, world & God, crucial for psychology,
cosmology & religious philosophy).
The end result of the proper regulative use of the ideas of the real and the ideal (leading to
experimentation and argumentation respectively), is not a synthetic proposition a priori,
but object-knowledge which is considered, for the time being, as very likely true by the
community of sign-interpreters. These empirico-formal propositions are always a posteriori,
and may be direct (reality-for-me) or indirect (reality-for-us). Kant's critical epistemology is
there to remind us of the natural tendency of reason to hypostatize its ideas.
If the idea of the real is turned into an object (like extra-mental, kickable and kicking
things out there), then true knowledge is "adequatio intellectus ad rem". But, we do not
know whether knowledge is made possible by a real world. Suppose the latter is the case,
then how to reconcile this with the facts that (a) observation co-depends on theoretical
connotation and (b) observation unfolds in a conceptual pattern which develops in the act
of observing ? If the idea of the ideal is turned into an object, then true knowledge is given

y the "consensus omnium" and "leges cogitandi sunt leges essendi" persists. But,
knowledge is not made possible by an ideal theory or ideology. For if so, then we blind
ourselves from the fact synthetic propositions are also statements about some thing extramental,
escaping (inter) subjectivities. These two criteria of truth, although discordant,
operate simultaneously, and regulate the development of thought.
In the domain of science, producing empirico-formal propositions, the idea of the real and
the idea of the ideal are both necessary and operate together. Hence, scientific knowledge
is the product of two vectors : objective observation (experiment, test) & intersubjective
dialogue (argumentation). In the concrete research-unity, these a priori rules are
complemented by a posteriori rules of thumb or practical, opportunistic hypothesis
assisting the efficient functioning of the research community. On this level, the difference
between what should and what is (between theoretical epistemology and the sociology of
science) is felt most ... Indeed, like the rest of us, scientists are not perfect.
In accord with Ockham's terministic probabilism and the view of all knowledge as
"approximative", contemporary criticism finds comfort that only probable, not certain
empirico-formal knowledge is possible, and that no sufficient ground for the possibility of
knowledge needs to be found. This position is open and so free to investigate all possible
expansions of knowledge. Dogmatic and ontological fossilizations are excluded from this
secure but narrow point of view.
The major problem of criticism is avoided.
Facts are not monolithical. No pseudo-causality is needed to trigger knowledge. Facts are
hybrids.
On the one hand, they are theory-dependent and as such determined by intersubjective
languages, theories and their arguments. Of this a descriptive analysis is possible, for we
can test ourselves to realize how extended the influence of subjective connotations on
direct and indirect observation is. In quantum mechanics, the total experimental set-up,
observer included, co-determines the outcome of the experiment.
On the other hand, so must we think, facts are theory-independent. If not, there is no
object of knowledge, whereas the proposition in which this is affirmed ("There is no object
of knowledge.") has as object the absence of the object of knowledge. The conviction (or
belief) in the theory-independent face of facts is not descriptive for it cannot be observed
(every observer has a unique set of space-time coordinates). Ergo, the theoryindependence
of facts is normative and belongs to what we must think in order to think
properly. And this is precisely what thinkers thinking properly have been doing all the time.
§ 17
Also in science, the problems posed by skepticism had to be addressed. Especially since
Kant, the question "What can I know ?" has been crucial. The apory between "realism" and
"idealism" is also without final result. The foundational approach favored since Plato and
Aristotle has caused a pendulum movement between two criteria of truth (consensus
versus correspondence). To move beyond this, the antinomic problems of justificationism (i.
e. the foundational, fundamentalist thinking within science) must be clear : if, on the one
hand, real "sense data" are the only building-blocks of "true" knowing, as realism

maintains, then why is the definition of the word "sense datum" not a sense datum ? Also :
how can a "naked" or "raw" sense datum be observed if our mental framework coconstitutes
our observation ? If, on the other hand, ideal linguistic symbols and speechsituations
are the exclusive arena of truth, as idealism maintains, then how can knowledge
be knowledge if it is in no way knowledge of something (i.e. a "res" and not only "flatus
voci") ?
A focus of truth "behind the mirror" (as Kant put it) comes within reach if and only if both
perspectives, experiment (correspondence, objectivity) and argumentation (consensus,
intersubjectivity) are used together, and this in a regulative, non-constitutive
(unfoundational) way. The criterion of truth is not justified by a sufficient ground outside
knowledge, but by discovering the normative principles governing all possible knowledge.
The latter are bi-polar but interactive and never exclusive, as 19th century, Newtonian
scientific thinking claimed. Insofar as either realism or idealism are accepted, the logical
merits of the truth claim of science do not exceed the religious criterion of truth. It cannot
escape the apory as long as it identifies with objectivity at the expense of subjectivity and
intersubjective symbolization (as in logical positivism, materialism, scientism,
instrumentalism, reductionism and epiphenomenalism) or with subjectivity and
intersubjective symbolic activities with disregard for entities independent of the human
sphere (as in spiritualism, idealism and humanism).
Facts are not only experimental and not only theoretical. They are hybrids, composed of
what we know (our theories) and, so must be think, the realities outside our minds. The
latter cannot be isolated from the former, for the subjective conditions of knowledge cannot
be removed without causing the perversity of reason. Empirico-formal object-knowledge is
always the product of two vectors at work simultaneously. Not because of some ulterior
reason, but because it must be so and has always been so. Epistemology is hence not
descriptive, but normative.
Although the Copernican Revolution posits the subject and its constructivist activities,
Kant's epistemology is a attempt to still adhere to the postulate of foundation, for synthetic
judgments a priori are rooted in the cognitive, categorial apparatus of the subject of
experience, without which no thinking is possible. In other worlds, the constructions of my
mind are per definition those of other minds. These categories hold true for the object of
experience insofar as this object is constituted in observation by our capacity of
observation and knowledge. For Kant, scientific knowledge (empirico-formal propositions)
does not deal with reality-as-such, but with reality-for-us. However, as contemporary
mathematics, relativity & quantum mechanics disagree with the principles of Newtonian
physics Kant thought to be anchored in our minds for ever, it becomes clear these
categories are not absolutely certain and not a priori. Kant's attempt to anchor science
failed, although his unearthing the active subject became a fundamental and irreversible
asset of modern epistemology.
It took more than a century before the antinomy between realism and idealism was
critically superseded by a normative theory on the possibility and the production of
knowledge. In contemporary scientific practice, scientific facts are the outcome of two
vectors : on the one hand, objective experiments and their repetition, and, on the other
hand, intersubjective communication between the community of sign-interpreters. Logic
provides a few a priori conditions, related to the form, clarity and elegance of the symbols
of a theory. Epistemology adds a few objective and intersubjective criteria and the local

esearch-unit will foster a series of a posteriori rules of thumb. Nevertheless, despite all
possible care, scientific knowledge cannot be absolutist or radical, but instead delicate,
prudent & provisional. Indeed, divorced from the metaphysical aim to anchor knowledge,
genuine science cannot be a new dogmatic religion, but a method to acquire fallible
knowledge.
Indeed, empirico-formal knowledge, or knowledge of facts, is conditional, relative,
hypothetical and historical, although a clear theory explaining a lot of phenomena will
(provisionally) always be called "true", meaning "very probable", not "certain". A set of
such theories will constitute a tenacious scientific paradigm, covering entities which "kick"
and "kick back". But things may change, and usually they do ...
"It is an hypothesis that the sun will rise tomorrow : and this means that we do not know
whether it will rise."
Wittgenstein, L. : Tractatus Logico-Philosophicus, 6.36311.
Regarding the justification of its truth claim, formal & critical rationality developed their
arguments in three stages :
1. uncritical & foundational : true knowledge corresponds with real, repeatably
observable objects (naive realism under the guise of materialism) or true
knowledge is the object of an ideal theory (naive idealism under the guise of
spiritualism or ideology). Greek concept-realism developed both variants. In
both strategies, the error consists in the implicate use of the contra-thesis. Real
objects are also co-determined by the theoretical connotations of their
observers. Ideal objects are always also referring to a "something" outside the
grasp of a theoretical discourse. The foundation of science is objectified : the
"real" world "out there" or the "ideal" theory of reason. For Kant, the apory
empiricism versus rationalism was a scandal ;
2. critical & foundational : asking for the limitations of human knowledge, Kant
rooted cognition in the cognitive apparatus (cf. the Copernican Revolution). In
this way, the foundation sought was interiorized and its a priori categorized. By
making the ego cogito (the "I Think" of the Factum Rationis) the foundation of
knowledge, Kant succeeded in making reality-as-such fall outside science !
Likewise, for Kant, meta-rational knowledge (intellectual perception) was denied
to science, which, divorced from any direct contact with "das Ding an sich",
seems trivial. The foundation of science is subjectified (not in an idealism but in
a transcendentalism) ;
3. critical & normative : in the previous century, the foundational approach was
relinquished and in this way, the aporia threatening justification was avoided.
Science produces terministic empirico-formal propositions. These are treated
"as if" they represent a high probability, but never a certain truth. This
likelihood is posited by repeatable tests and the intersubjective dialogues and
argumentations of all involved sign-interpreters. The end result is fallible
knowledge, although, for the time being, highly probable.
With the end of foundational thinking, the confrontation between incompatible foundations
is over. Scientific knowledge is probable, historical and relative. Facts may change over

time, and nobody is able to predict for certain what the future holds. Moreover, scientific
investigations are always conducted against the background of untestable information.
Insofar as the latter is arguable, metaphysics is possible. But the latter is never testable,
only arguable. Finally, who decides who the "involved sign-interpreters" are and/or when a
certain threshold is "critical" ? In order to define these and other matters, science evokes a
series of a posteriori conditions representing the idiosyncrasies of the local research-unity,
the "opportunistic logic" of their fact-factory and the style of their pursuit of scientific,
factual knowledge. These conditions determine the practice of knowledge.
Philosophy and science should remain open and postpone their final judgments. Both must
be totally recuperated from the hang-over of their shameful foundational history over the
last two millennia. The only role of science is to confirm or deny probable fact. The task of
philosophy is to uncover the laws ruling epistemology, esthetics & ethics as well as develop
a theoretical picture of the whole (speculation or metaphysics).
Ontology no longer roots object and subject in a self-sufficient ground or
eternal, certain foundation. The possibility of knowledge is grounded in
knowledge itself. Critical thought raises the reflective to the reflexive.
Epistemology is a normative discipline, bringing out the principles, norms and
maxims of true knowledge. These must be used in every correct cogitation
producing valid knowledge. The principles are given by transcendental logic,
the norms by the theory of knowledge (and truth) and the maxims by the
knowledge-factory or applied epistemology. Science deals with propositions
arrived at by the joint efforts of experimentation and argumentation. The
discordant concord of both vectors is necessary and their defences should
never be put down, nor should their truce, which is essential to produce
knowledge that works, be broken. Scientific knowledge is in the form of
empirico-formal propositions which are terministic (probable) and fallible.
They are formulated against the implicit or explicit background of untestable
metaphysical speculations and always imply a "ceteris paribus" clause.
§ 18
"There is a science ("episteme tis") which studies being qua being, and the properties
inherent in it by virtue of its own nature. This science is not the same as any of the socalled
particular sciences, for none of the others contemplates being generally qua being ..."
Aristotle : Metaphysics, IV, I.1, 1003a
In chapter 1 of his Metaphysica Lambda (or twelfth book of his Metaphysics), shortly
written after Plato died (347 BCE), Aristotle (384 - 322 BCE) tries to demonstrate the
existence of two physical beings and one unmoved being. These three beings, or meanings
of the word "ousia", are : (a) physical and eternal (planets), (b) physical and moved
(plants & animals) and (c) a "first" being beyond physics and eternal ("the God"). The first
two beings are the objects of physics. The last is not and demands another approach
coming "after" and/or next to physics, or metaphysics, a word Aristotle did not coin
himself. "Metaphysics" appeared as a separate discipline only after the Aristotelian corpus
was put together ca. 40 BCE by Andronicos of Rhodos. He used to place the books on
metaphysics "next to" those dealing with physics.

"Then if there is not some other substance ("ousia") besides those which are naturally
composed, physics will be the primary science ("proto episteme") ; but if there is a
substance which is immutable, the science which studies this will be prior to physics, and
will be primarily philosophy, and universal in this sense, that it is primary. And it will be the
province of this science to study being qua being ; what it is, and what the attributes are
which belong to it qua being ("eta on")."
Aristotle : Metaphysics, VI, I.12, 1026a.
Metaphysics does not seek to produce propositional statements of fact. It is not limited by
what is actual, but by what is possible in thought. It has no research-cell in which
knowledge is produced, sold (published) and exported. Because no actual, factual,
contracted entity can be its object, it is not a science. The study of being qua being is not a
"study" in the same way or in the same sense as this word is used in science. But, this
inquiry into being is not devoid of organization or arguments.
For Aristotle, a unique science was possible before those singling out some actual entity.
Only this speculative "science" (from "episteme", or "epi" + "histanai", to cause to stand)
differed from all other sciences, and this because of the extension of its object and because
it was deemed prior to all others. Aristotle tried to make this science stand, but because
the object aimed at, namely the Being which makes all actual entities be, is a supreme
generic concept, it can not be objectified. There is no standpoint outside this absolute,
sheer Being, no subjective stance or possible vantage point "outside" the all-encompassing
totality of all what is. Being cannot be equated with any object, and so Aristotle was in
error when he viewed speculative philosophy as a science. Metaphysics is not. At best it is
a metascience, depending on the data of science. As such, it is a forteriori immanent, but
cannot be called a scientific metaphysics. It is never of the nature of a science, for it does
not produce facts, but works on a meta-level next to them. Metaphysics is not a "scientia
prima" nor a "scientia ultima". It is not science at all and, by its very nature, can never be
one ...
In Ancient Greek, the "beyond" of something is expressed by "meta". To inquire into being
qua being is "meta ta physika" and goes beyond entities. It transcends the limitations of
science, which are the boundaries of the entities made public or unveiled by categories of
thought focused on the being-what of the physical world. Accordingly, the investigation of
being qua being is "peri physeo", concerns the being of the entity, not only its being-what
or "Sosein", but in its being-there ("Dasein"), and moves beyond the pre-Socratic concept
of "physis". However, as Aristotle identifies being with substance, and takes the latter as
object of the first science, it is clear that already in his case the inquiry into being remained
unalterably a study of entities, i.e. "physics". Aristotle missed the point, and had better
isolated "ousia" from the categorial scheme.
In The Twilight of Idols, Nietzsche, identifying metaphysics with its Platonic incarnation,
called such "highest concepts " as being, "the last cloudy streak of evaporating reality". For
him, the study of being qua being is nothing less than the "error of being". As the reversal
of Plato, Nietzsche heralded the end of classical, transcendent metaphysics.
Can the question of Being be answered ?
"Pourquoi il y a plutôt quelque chose que rien ?"
Leibniz, GW : Principes de la nature et de la grâce, 1714.

Wittgenstein (1889 - 1951), Popper (1902 - 1994), Habermas (1929), Lakatos (1922 -
1974), Feyerabend (1924 - 1994) & Kuhn (1922) put into evidence the co-determining
influence conceptual connotations (or subjective viewpoints) have on the
macroscopic observation of the being-what of actual entities. In the subatomic realm, the
Copenhagen interpretation of the wave-equation of Schrödinger takes this influence of the
observer on the observed for granted. A particle is also a wave and subatomic entities
become one or the other only at the moment of measurement. Indeed, look at a photon
and it behaves like a particle, observe not and it is a wave ... Ergo, (inter)subjective
constructions (like a particular experimental setup or metaphysical background knowledge)
are always part of the formation of propositional statements of fact, and directly influence
the outcome of any experiment ! Scientific knowledge of reality-as-such devoid of any
theoretical connotation, i.e. observation without absolutely no interpretation, is therefore
impossible.
In a Platonizing phenomenology, object-knowledge, the product of an inquiry into the
What ? and Who ? of the entities, does not escape the duality between the reality-as-such
of an actual entity (its contraction from Being) and reality-for-us (its appearance as fact).
The being-what of entities, disclosed by scientific knowledge is, in this account, only a
disclosure veiled by the limitations of the discovered "what-ness" (by the type of question
posed) and by the form of the observer, his or her conceptual connotations. This approach
does not understand the crucial importance of the hybrid nature of scientific facts :
simultaneously theory-dependent (insofar they are right) and, so must we think, the
messengers of reality-as-such (insofar they are wrong - cf. infra). As a result, an ultimate
confusions arises, as the work of Heidegger (1889 - 1976) exemplifies.
"Gott ist, aber er existiert nicht."
Heidegger, M. : Was ist Metaphysic ?
How to define metaphysics or metascience in the context of the present critical
epistemology ?
"... speculative philosophy (= metaphysics) is the endeavour to frame a coherent, logical,
necessary system of general ideas in terms of which every element of experience can be
interpreted."
Whitehead : Process & Reality, p.4.
Hence, metaphysics is a speculative, non-factual, arguable inquiry with the following
objects (Apostel, 2002, p.61) :
1. the totality of all what exists in the world of facts and events, i.e. the universe ;
2. the properties common to all existing things (= ontology) ;
3. the architecture of the totality of things ;
4. the global pattern, place or rank of all things.
Without scientific data, the enterprise of metaphysics is impossible. Moreover, once such a
total picture emerges, its role is not to stand on its own, but to be a heuristic tool for
science, offering new factual research vistas. Besides the logical consistency of its
arguments, metaphysical systems can be judged as a function of their ability to cover more
factual variety, realize a higher unification of knowledge and give more new research

suggestions.
Consider the two-step program of metascience, of which only one can be completed within
the boundaries of reason :
In an immanent metaphysics, rather Peripatetic of inspiration, staying within the limitations
of possible experience, the world is all there is and existence is only instantiation. Science
observes and argues a series of predicates ascribed to objects, and pours these
connections in non-eternal, probable, approximative synthetic propositions a posteriori. No
necessary Being can be inferred. Meta-reason is empty. The highest being to be inferred a
posteriori remains proportionate to the world. Only an immanent natural theology is
possible.
In a transcendent, Platonizing metaphysics, there is more than the world, for the latter, in
phenomenological terms, i.e. as revealed by the things themselves, is the theophanic
contraction of absolute Being. Hence, each fact reveals more than the series of predicates
ascribed to it, for each fact is (also) an epiphany. To supersede the world, is to stand in
one's own essential Being or being-there. The a priori arguments backing the proof of God
aim to posit this transcendent Being as an existing Being analytically, thus including the
finite world in infinite Being. They fail to deliver this. "The Divine exists." is hence not and
analytical, self-evident statement (cf. Chapter 7).
As such, metaphysics is foremost immanent and thus a heuristic, speculative, suggestive,
innovative and spiritualizing system of arguable statements about the world. The essence
aimed at in a transcendent approach cannot be articulated, which does not preclude it can
be shown as an object of art or given as the sacred or the holy (in mysticism and religion).
It can not be object-knowledge, but shown in action. Hence, it is not an item of science but
of art and ethics (cf. the existence of God as a postulate of practical reason).
Science and metaphysics do not exclude one another. The former is
impossible without metaphysical background information in the form of a
generalizing ontology (a total picture of reality and ideality). Often, the
precise outline of this ontology is repressed, forcing it to work implicitly. But,
only science is testable and its "game" the guardian of "true" knowledge.
Metaphysics, lacking the objective side of the equation, can never be tested.
Instead, it can only depend on logical criteria of formal well-formedness and
the laws of correct argumentation. Insofar as it does not exceed the
limitations imposed by the world, it stands next to science as a possible
creative fount of its inventivity and novelty. Being an immanent heuristic tool,
it may help the development of knowledge and trigger new research, both in
terms of experimentation and argumentation. Insofar as metaphysics exceeds
nature, it posits a world outside the world, and accommodates transcendent
thought. The latter does not interact with science but with mysticism, religion
and spirituality. Insofar as metaphysics is unarguable, it is irrational. As such,
it must be rejected and avoided.
§ 19

In Jean Piaget's (1896 - 1980) theory on cognitive development, two general functional
principles, rooted in biology, are postulated, namely organization & adaptation.
The former implies the tendency common to all forms of life to integrate structures
(physical & psychological) into systems of a higher order. The latter (to be divided in
assimilation & accommodation) shows how the individual not only modifies cognitive
structures in reaction to demands (external) but also uses his own structures to incorporate
elements of the environment (internal).
Organisms tend toward equilibrium with their environments. Centration, decentration
(crisis) & re-equilibration are the fundamental processes forcing the cognitive texture of
humans to complexify.
Mental operators are the result of the interiorization of this cognitive evolution. An original,
archaic sense of identity is shaped. After prolonged exposure to new types of action -
challenging the established original centration and its equilibrium- a crisis ensues and
decentration is the outcome. Eventually, a re-equilibration occurs because a higher-order
equilibrium was found through auto-regulation (re-equilibration, autopoiesis).
Over time, various different strands, levels, layers or planes of cognitive texture unfold.
The process may be analyzed as follows :
1. repeated confrontation with a novel action involving motor functions (original, initial
coordinations of actions) ;
2. action-reflection or the interiorization of this novel action by means of semiotic
factors : this is the first level of permanency or pre-concepts which have no
decontextualized use ;
3. anticipation & retro-action using these pre-concepts, valid insofar as they symbolize
the original action but always with reference to the initial context ;
4. final level of permanency : formal concepts, valid independent of the context of the
original action & the formation of permanent cognitive (abstract) operators.
In this way, and based on his experimental work with children worldwide, Piaget defined
four layers of cognitive growth :
1. sensori-motoric cognition, between birth & 2 years of age ;
2. pre-operational cognition, between 2 and 6 ;
3. concrete operatoric cognition, between 7 and 10 ;
4. formal-operatoric cognition, between 10 & 13.
The first three levels correspond with "ante-rationality" (cf. supra), whereas formaloperatoric
cognition is identical with formal rationality. In his Le Structuralisme (1970), he
defines "structure" as a system of transformations which abides by certain laws and which

sustains or enriches itself by a play of these transformations, which occur without the use
of external factors. This auto-structuration of a complete whole is defined as "autoregulation".
In the individual, the latter is established by biological rhythms, biological &
mental regulations and mental operations. These are theoretically formalized.
Piaget refuses to accept that "real" dialectical tensions between physical objects are the
"true" foundations of thought and cognition (its possibility, genesis & progressive
development), as in most other types of psychology and pedagogy attuned to realism.
Piaget never fills in what reality is like. He maintains no ontological view on reality-as-such,
considered to be the borderline of both the developing subject and its objective world,
stage after stage.
The cognitive is approached as a process, for rationality grows in developmental steps,
each calling for a particular cognitive structure on the side of the subject. What reality is, is
left open. Why ? Every objective observation implies an observer bound by the limitations
of a given stage of cognitive development, i.e. a subjective epistemic form, containing
idiosyncratic, opportunistic and particularized information. These work like Kantian
categories, but without their universal intention.
Neither did Piaget choose for a strictly transcendental approach. Conditions which exist
before cognition itself (like in Foucault) are not introduced. What Popper called the
"problem-solving" ability of man, may be associated with Piaget's notion on "reequilibration".
Popper introduced the triad : problem, theory (hypothesis, conjecture) &
falsification (refutation). In his dynamical and actional anthropology and psychology Piaget
introduced : activity, regulation, crisis & re-equilibration (auto-regulation).
His psychogenesis (based on the observation of children) shows how knowledge develops a
relationship between a thinking subject and the objects around it. This relationship grows
and becomes more complex. Stages of cognitive development are defined by means of
their typical cognitive events and acquired mental forms. This development is not a priori
(pre-conditions), a posteriori (empirical) but constructivist : the construction eventuates in
its own process, in other words, the system has been, is and will always be (re)adapting
and (re)creating new cognitive structures, causing novel behavior & different
environmental responses, which may be interiorized, forming new internal cognitive forms,
etc. The foundation of this process is action itself, the fact its movements are not random
but coordinated. It is the form of this coordination, the order, logic or symbolization of the
pattern of the movements which eventually may stabilize as a permanent mental operator.
Two main actions are distinguished :
● sensori-motoric actions exist before language or any form of representational
conceptualization ;
● operational actions ensue as soon as the actor is conscious of the results & goals of
actions and the mechanisms of actions, i.e. the translation of action into forms of
conceptualized thought. These operations are either concrete (contextual) or formal
(decontextualized). The latter are identified with rational thought.
The last decades have seen many applications of these crucial insights in the functional,
efficient (educative) side of the process of cognition. An example is schema theory, at work

across the fields of linguistics, anthropology, psychology and artificial intelligence. Human
cognition utilizes structures even more complex than prototypes called "frame", "scene",
"scenario", "script" or "schema". In cognitive sciences and in ethnoscience they are used as
a model for classification and generative grammar (syntax as evolutionary process).
The schema is primarily a set of relationships, some of which amounts to a structure,
generating pictorial, verbal and behavioral outputs. The schemata are also called mental
structures and abstract representations of environmental regularities. Events activate
schemata which allow us to comprehend ourselves & the world around us.
The term is thus used to define a structured set of generalizable characteristics of an
action. Repetition, crisis & reformation yield strands of co-relative actions or stages of
cognitive development. Knowledge begins in the coordination of movement. Ergo, in
genetical sequence, these consensual types of schemata emerge :
● sensori-motoric, mythical thought : aduality implies only one relationship, namely
with immediate physicality ; object & subject reflect perfectly ; earliest schemata are
restricted to the internal structure of the actions (the coordination) as they exist in
the actual moment and differentiate between the actions connecting the subjects and
the actions connecting the objects. The action-scheme can not be manipulated by
thought and is triggered when it practically materializes ;
● pre-operatoric, pre-rational thought : object and subject are differentiated and
interiorized ; the subject is liberated from its entanglement in the actual situation of
the actions ; early psychomorph causality. The subjective is projected upon the
objective and the objective is viewed as the mirror of the subjective. The emergence
of pre-concepts and pre-conceptual schemata does not allow for permanency and
logical control. The beginning of decentration occurs and eventually objectification
ensues ... ;
● concrete-operatoric, proto-rational thought : conceptual structures emerge which
provide insight in the essential moments of the operational mental construction :
(a) constructive generalization ;
(b) the ability to understand each step and hence the total system (1 to 2 to 3 ...)
and
(c) autoregulation enabling one to run through the system in two ways, causing
conservation. The conceptual schemata are "concrete" because they only function in
contexts and not yet in formal, abstract mental spaces ;
● formal-operatoric, rational thought : abstract conceptual structures positioned in
mental spaces which are independent of the concrete, local environment. Liberated
from the substantialist approach but nevertheless rooting the conditions of knowledge
outside the cognitive apparatus itself ;
● transcendental thought : abstract concepts explaining how knowledge & its growth
are possible, rooted in the "I think", the transcendental unity of apperception (or
transcendental Self) ;
● creative thought : the hypothesis of a possible (arguable), conceptual immanent

metaphysics ;
● nondual thought : the suggestion of a possible, non-conceptual but meta-rational
transcendent metaphysics (or pataphysics).
The last mode of cognition is mentioned here ex hypothesi.
§ 20
These modes of thought contain two important demarcations : the lower threshold defines
the border between ante-rational thought (mythical, pre-rational and proto-rational) and
reason. The higher threshold declares the difference between reason (conceptual and
transcendental) & immanent metaphysics (or creative thought).
Each time a threshold is crossed, the potential of the mind has been expanded, deepening
the subtle complexity of the cognitive texture and enlarging its ability to communicate with
its environment and to continue to grow.
Three important stages of cognition emerge :
● prenominal : mythical, pre- & proto-rational (instinctual) ;
● nominal : rational and transcendental (rational) ;
● meta-nominal : creative and nondual (intuitional).
First substage :
from action to ante-rational thought
ANTE-RATIONALITY
1. MYTHICAL or PRE-LOGICAL THOUGHT :
1. adualism and only a virtual consciousness of identity ;
2. primitive action testifies the existence of a quasi complete indifferentiation between
the subjective and the objective ;
3. actions are quasi not coordinated, i.e. random movements are frequent.
Second substage :

1. first decentration of actions with regard to their material origin (the physical body) ;
2. first objectification by a subject experiencing itself for the first time as the source of
actions ;
3. objectification of actions and the experience of spatiality ;
4. objects are linked because of the growing coordination of actual actions ;
5. links between actions in means/goals schemes, allowing the subject to experience
itself as the source of action (initiative), moving beyond the dependence between the
external object and the acting body ;
6. spatial & temporal permanency and causal relationships are observed ;
7. differentiation (between object and subject) leads to logico-mathematical structures,
whereas the distinction between actions related to the subject and those related to
the external objects becomes the startingpoint of causal relationships ;
8. the putting together of schematics derived from external objects or from the forms of
actions which have been applied to external objects.
Comments :
The earliest stage of mythical thought (first substage) is adual and non-verbal. The only
"symbols" and "forms" are the material events themselves in all their immediacy and
wholeness. It is this non-verbal core, which makes the mythopoetic mind analogical. In
mythical thought, everything is immediate and the immediate is all. Ergo, myth goes
against the differentiation which feeds the complexification of thought & cognition. The
myth of myths is the "eternal return" to the primordial state.
Before the rise of language, mythical cognition is embedded in action and allows for the
distinction between an object & a subject of experience by being conscious of the material,
exteriorized schematics connecting both.
The first differentiation occurs when, on the level of material, actual, immediate actions,
the object is placed before the subject of experience. This emergence of subjectivity implies
the decentration of the movements of the physical executive agent (the body), which
unveils the subject as source of action and prepares for the interiorizations of pre-rational
thought. By this foundational difference between the body & the empirical subject,
consciousness can be attributed to a focus of identity (ego).
Mythical thought is non-verbal but actional. Nevertheless, actions are triggered by a
subject conscious of a whole network of practical and material actualizations, although
without any conceptual knowledge but only through immediate, exteriorized material
schemes. Hence, ritual comes before narrative myth.
In terms of cognitive texture, mythical thought is the "irrational" foundation of anterationality.
Indeed, the earliest layer of human cognitive activity is devoid of logical

necessity, although patterns & schemes are present, but their flexibility and plasticity are a
function of the direct environment and what happens there. There is no cognitive
permanency. Action and its source are distinguished, but coordinations which suggest any
reflection on the action itself (or on the actor) are absent. Hence, idiotic schemes are
obsessively repeated. The "irrationality" being the total absence of means to communicate
meaning in other ways than in immediate physical terms (offering something, going away,
kicking the other, smiling, crying etc.). Nevertheless, the subject is conscious of being a
source of action. There is a non-verbal sense of identity (the I-am-ness of the empirical
ego).
2. PRE-RATIONAL THOUGHT :
1. because of the introduction of semiotical factors (symbolical play, language, and the
formation of mental images), the coordination of movements is no longer exclusively
triggered by their practical and material actualizations without any knowledge of their
existence as forms, i.e. the first layer of thought occurs : the difference between
subject & object is a signal which gives rise to the sign ;
2. upon the simple action, a new type of interiorized action is erected which is not
conceptual because the interiorization itself is nothing more than a copy of the
development of the actions using signs and imagination ;
3. no object of thought is realized but only an internal structure of the actions in a preconcept
formed by imagination & language ;
4. pre-verbal intelligence and interiorization of imitation in imaginal representations ;
5. psychomorph view on causality : no distinction between objects and the actions of
the subjects ;
6. objects are living beings with qualities attributed to them as a result of interactions ;
7. at first, no logical distinction is made between "all" and "few" and comparisons are
comprehended in an absolute way, i.e. A < B is possible, but A < B < C is not ;
8. finally, the difference between class and individual is grasped, but transitivity and
reversibility are not mastered ;
9. the pre-concepts & pre-relations are dependent on the variations existing between
the relational characteristics of objects & can not be reversed, making them rather
impermanent and difficult to maintain. They stand between action-schema and
concept.
Comments :
A tremendous leap forwards ensues. The formation of a subjective focus (at the end of the
mythical phase of thought) is necessary to allow for the next step : interiorization,
imagination and the actual articulation of pre-concepts, leading up to pre-relations between

objects, but the latter remain psychomorph.
The reality of objects is always individualized or made subjective. Natural phenomena,
stones, trees and animals "speak" just as do human subjects. Important objects are those
with the strongest positive (attractive) subjective potential : family, teachers, ancestors,
Divine kings, prophets, angels, Deities, God, etc. These "mediate" when pre-rationality fails
to bridge the gap between what is stable (the architecture) & what constantly moves (the
process).
3. PROTO-RATIONAL THOUGHT :
1. for the first time concepts and relations emerge and the interiorized actions receive
the status of "operations", allowing for transformations. The latter make it possible to
change the variable factors while keeping others invariant ;
2. the increase of coordinations forms coordinating systems & structures which are
capable of becoming closed systems by virtue of a play of anticipative and
retrospective constructions of thought (imaginal thought-forms) ;
3. these mental operations, instead of introducing corrections when the actions are
finished, exist by the pre-correction of errors and this thanks to the double play of
anticipation and retroaction or "perfect regulation" ;
4. transitivity is mastered which causes the enclosedness of the formal system ;
5. necessity is grasped ;
6. constructive abstraction, new, unifying coordinations which allow for the emergence
of a total system and auto-regulation (or the equilibration caused by perfect
regulation) ;
7. transitivity, conservation and reversibility are given ;
8. the mental operations are "concrete", not "formal", implying that they (a) exclusively
appear in immediate contexts and (b) deal with objects only (i.e. are not reflective) ;
9. the concrete operatoric structures are not established through a system of
combinations, but one step at a time ;
10. this stage is paradoxal : a balanced development of logico-mathematical operations
versus the limitations imposed upon the concrete operations. This conflict triggers the
next, final stage, which covers the formal operations.
Comments :
Thanks to transitivity, a formal system of concrete concepts arises. It is not combinatoric
(but sequential) and not formal (abstract concept are not present). Concrete thoughts
manipulate objects without reflecting upon the manipulation. The latter is stored as a

function of its direct use, not in any overall, categorial, librarian or antiquarian fashion,
although within a given manipulation a series may be present. The contextualism,
pragmatism and use of the concrete concept is its stability.
Proto-rationality is always limited by a given context. Moreover, there is no reflection upon
the conditions of subjectivity (just as in the pre-rational stage objects remained
psychomorph). This contextualization leaves in place uncoordinated actions and concepts
which are the expression of many serious (fundamental) contradictions.
As suggested earlier, Egyptian and pre-Socratic thought do not exceed ante-rationality. A
more adequate understanding of the creative products of these civilizations becomes
possible thanks to this Piagetian analysis of the early modes of cognition. Especially in
Ancient Egypt, the power of proto-rational "closure" is exemplaric and makes clear how
grand culture is not necessarily rational.
from ante-rational to rational thought
RATIONALITY
4. RATIONAL THOUGHT :
The formal operations leave contextual entanglements behind, and give a universal, atemporal
embedding to the cognitive process through abstraction, categorization &
linearization. Cognition is liberated from the immediate events and able to conceptualize
logical & mathematical truths (deduction) as well as physical causalities in abstract terms,
without any consideration for their actual occurrence, if any (cf. the inner thoughtexperiment).
Thought is able to combine propositions.
However, although object and subject of thought are differentiated, and grasped as
abstract parts in an epistemological inquiry about the origin of human knowledge,
continuity and stability in the becoming and fluctuating world is found by projecting these
conditions outward (instead of inward, i.e. as particular conditions on the side of the
subject of experience). The concordia discors of reason is approached with a reduction.
Idealism (Plato and the tradition of a subject without an object) and realism (Aristotle and
the tradition of an object without a subject) ensue. The antinomies caused by these major
reductive set of explanations of the possibility of knowledge, have dominate pre-Kantian
thought. Therefore, pre-critical rational thought is the first, somewhat primitive subphase
of the mode of decontextualized conceptualization, as it were the infancy of reason.
The inventive, Greek adaptation of these strong direct influences, the linearization of the
underlying ante-rational thoughts and eventually the rational universalization of anterationality
itself, constituted the formalizing streak which characterized Hellas. Indeed, in
the eighth and seventh centuries BCE, a fair number of technical processes and decorative
motive of Mycenæan Art reappeared in Greece. They are probably reintroductions from the
East, where they had been adopted in the days of the Mycenæan empire and kept alive

throughout the Dark Age. Mycenæan Linear B was never used again, but parts of the "old"
Greek cultural form had survived and was presently seeking its renewal by good, strong &
enduring examples : Phoenicia, Egypt, Mesopotamia.
"Perhaps the greatest contribution of the Bronze Age to Classical Greece was something
less tangible, but quite possibly inherited : an attitude of mind which could borrow the
formal and hieratic arts of the East and transform them into something spontaneous and
cheerful ; a divine discontent which led the Greek ever to develop and improve their
inheritance."
Higgings, 1997, p.190 (my italics).
5. TRANSCENDENTAL THOUGHT :
When reflection upon the conditions of object and subject of thought happens and the
internal, transcendental pre-conditions of the cognitive apparatus are discovered, a new
mental world is opened up. The "natural" approach is over, and a new
"transcendental" (not "transcendent" !) layer becomes active. This marks the birth of
critical rational thought.
With the completion of the rational mode, and as soon as the conditions of the process of
thought become the object of thought, a new conflict arises. The transcendental approach
aims to understand the reflection of the process of thought on itself, as it were unveiling
the ongoing operations of thought without disturbing the flow of empirical consciousness
and its continuous cognitive, affective and motoric activity circumambulating an empirical
ego. However, the transcendental "I think", placed at the heart of the whole edifice of
transcendental inquiry, is formal and devoid of intellectual perception of itself. It is not a
substance, but a mere idea accompanying the cogitations of the empirical ego.
The intellect integrates and unifies the two ideas of critical reason : the real
(correspondence) and the ideal (consensus). Fed by the senses, the categories produce
empirical-formal propositions, or statements of fact. This manifold is brought into focus by
reason by means of these two regulative (not constitutive) ideas, which define the
"essential tension" (Kuhn) or armed truce of reason, and their various categorial schemes.
These mechanisms are discovered by transcendental thought.
from scientific to metaphysical thought
META-RATIONALITY
6. CREATIVE THOUGHT :
According to Thomas Aquinas (1225 - 1274), metaphysics has its own mode of knowledge,
ascribed to what he called the "intellectus". This mode captures one single truth, and
implies a direct, immediate intake of knowledge which differs from the mediate ways to
gather it. So "ratio" (related to science) and "intellect" were divided. Metaphysics offers a

unique synthetical, intellectual insight regarding being-as-such. But Thomas (like Kant),
denied reason its "terminus". A direct knowledge of what lies outside the "ratio" was
deemed impossible. It was Nicolas of Cusa (1401 - 1464) who introduced the famous
expression "intuitio intellectualis" to define the direct knowledge of an evident truth.
To experience the unity of apperception (Kant's formal "Ich Denke") as an active,
dynamical and creative Self, is, ex hypothesi, a prehension of the unique, individual &
creative ideas of the immanent Self of each person, i.e. the true observer. To witness these
ideas is the origin of all creativity and also the fundamental completion of the
individualizing cognitive process, for this wholeself is the intuitional stepping-stone to the
non-verbal, unknowing, ineffable "special knowledge" of poets and mystics alike.
The Self-ideas witnessed in the creative mode of thought thirst for manifestation and
succeed through intellectual flashes of insight to inspire, initiate & engage new, creative
activities of reason. Immanent metaphysics works with arguable statements and in tune
with the unification reason seeks (namely that of understanding). The own-form of
creativity of every actual entity in general and of human beings in particular, i.e. their
specific form of definiteness, escapes reason and belongs to the ontological, noumenal Self.
Hence, insofar as immanent metaphysics tries to objectify man (in a possible speculative
anthropology), it cannot eliminate the Self of every individual.
The realization of this (higher, more aware) Self is the conditio sine qua non of every truly
creative act, whether occasional or sustained over long periods of time. The true observer,
a higher Self different from the empirical and its wanderings, is more than "of all times".
Here a hidden, invisible, intimate and inner stratum is delved deeper into. Intuitional
philosophers do accommodate the creative ideas of the Self and are thus able to witness,
from the vantage point of the true observer, the latent possibilities of consciousness and its
potency to expand its creative and inventive horizon.
Although this higher Self has given contents to the formal, empty transcendental Self of
rationality, it does so for the sole purpose of fostering creativity, not to formulate
propositions about the world. Creative concepts have the purpose of expanding the horizon
of the empirical ego and are necessary to introduce a panoramic view. This view is not an
insight into the real status of things, but a more comprehensive outlook on nature, life and
man. Ultimate analysis shows how a substantial own-Self cannot be found. As a construct
of consciousness, it assists creativity and helps inventivity. It guarantees the totalizing view
offered by immanent metaphysics, a view designated by a more elaborate subjectivity.
Albeit one more extended than what the empirical ego offers, the own-Self is not a way to
gain access to "reality-as-such". This access cannot be given by conceptuality, even not in
terms of its creative concepts.
7. NONDUAL THOUGHT :
This non-conceptual and non-propositional mode of thought allows us, so our living
examples teach, to integrate knowledge beyond the point of scientific & speculative thought
and relate the immanent whole achieved by immanent creative thought with the suggested
transcendent totality, or absolute reality (ideality), the absolute Real-Ideal (or absolute
coincidence of the order of reality and the order of ideality, of being and thought).
Transcendent metaphysics is ineffable.

Even the latter qualification is only poetical and suggestive. This mode of thought reveals
the most subtle aspect of cognition, one most philosophers would not consider to be
"thought" at all. This mode is put into evidence by the life of the great mystics. But such
examples of grand sublimity know paradox & are incomprehensible to reason.
Indeed, it seems as if the pinnacle of thought (mysticism) and its startingpoint (namely
non-verbal myth) touch. Mystical elocutions are works of art, not of science or philosophy.
As such, they can be an object of faith, which at best, involve direct experience of the
radical other (totaliter aliter).
I
prenominal
II
nominal
III
meta-nominal
HUMAN COGNITION :
3 STAGES OF COGNITION and 7 MODES OF THOUGHT
anterationality
1. Mythical
libidinal ego
2. Pre-rational
tribal ego
3. Proto-rational
imitative ego
barrier between ante-rationality and reason
rationality
4. Formal
formal ego
5. Critical
critical Self
barrier between rationality and intuition
metarationality
§ 21
6. Creative
own-Self
7. Transcendent
nonduality
the irrational
INSTINCT
(imaginal)
REASON
(rational)
INTUITION
(intuitional)
In the present genetico-epistemological discussion of a possible critical theory and practice

of knowledge and its growth, human cognitive growth is not halted at the level of reason.
The nature of things is the constant dynamism of mental forms, propensities and
differences (energies, particles & forces). As long as conflicts remain, the process
continues. All actual entities are dynamical. "Panta rhei !" (all things are in constant flux) is
one of the more famous sayings of Heraclitus, the pre-Socratic Greek philosopher
of Ephesus quoted by Plato. In his view, as in Whitehead's, the world is all there is and all
of that is constantly changing. This ongoingness of the world-process or universal
dynamism does not deny the presence of architecture and lawfulness (forms of
definiteness). Without these (for example in the form of the constants of nature, the laws
of physics or biology), all this movement would have no order or coordination. Hence, no
forms would have come into actuality and nothing but the primordial soup would have
continued to exist (given the question of the coming into being of this crucial primordial
matrix is postponed, or worse, abrogated, for indeed, who or what "banged" at the Big
Bang, i.e. at t ≤ 0 ?).
Thinking change and an evolving cognitive texture, leads to inquire after meta-rational
states of cognition. Is a faculty of cognition exceeding reason possible ? This faculty of
creativity, exerts its efforts either on the totality of the universe, lacking facts but arguing a
totalizing intent (immanent metaphysics), or, as suggested by the most sublime art and
poetical harmony, tries to promote faith in the transcendent Being, encompassing -so do
revelations tell- the complete contingent world-process.
Reason occupies the middle-ground between instinct and intuition, between, on the one
hand, multi-layered thought (a variety of different approaches) and, on the other hand, at
best, an arguable immanent metaphysics and/or the echoing suggestion or poetry of a nonconceptual,
transcendent mode of thought (rooted in the nameless and the nondual).
Reason, as the string of a violin, is stretched between instinct and sublimity.
The exercise is to understand thought as both instinctual, rational and intuitional, i.e.
conjunctive rather than disjunctive. To properly think, the three stages of cognition need to
be integrated and functional. Although science must limit itself to rational, formal
structures, thought is not confined to these boundaries necessary to produce probable
empirico-formal object-knowledge. Thanks to the modesty of science, instinct and intuition
may be checked and curtailed. Exceeding its own possibilities, science delegates instinct to
the realm of inferior tendencies (cf. the Greeks) and/or ridicules intuition (cf. the logical
positivists). Without limits, it becomes dogmatic and a perversion of reason (cf. Kant). But
staying within its domain, it exercises its crucial intersubjective and factual role and assists
the development of thought beyond its own domain. Intuition is possible but not contrary
to reason. In the tribunal of our cognition, mind is the defense (bringing in evidence),
reason the prosecutor (putting data into given categories) and intellect the judge (unifies
the two scales in one judgment). To separate them when they work together is essential to
know and continue to know.
Even if reason is critically watchful and not deluded by ontological illusions, so that the
ideas of reason (the "real" and the "ideal") are not seen as ontological hypostases, but as
regulative principles holding a hypothetical (not an apodictic) claim, reason, in tune with
the concordia discors, entertains a conflictual interest (cf. Kant's "widerstreitendes
Interesse"). On the one hand, it seeks unity in the variety of natural phenomena (the
multiple is reduced to a type). On the other hand, in order to guarantee the growth of
knowledge, reason wants heterogeneity (the unique, not repeatable & singular). Kant could

not reconcile the law of variety and the law of types (as there is no intellect, there is no
"faculty" of cognition higher than reason, as it were working from behind the surface of the
"mirror" of reason). The genetic process is stopped ad hoc and the "nominal" is made
absolute. In Kant's court, the seat of the judge remains at best empty, or, worse, reason is
the only player, leading to confusion, apathy or insanity.
Thought and cognition, fed by the coordination of movement, are
psychobiological organs in constant development. In the course of their
growth through action, various stages are run through and at each stratum
new cognitive texture is acquired, allowing the subject to experience,
understand and manipulate him/herself and the world better and better.
Rational cogitation (problem-solving knowledge-manipulation) stands inbetween
the instinctual and the intuitive stages of the development of
thought. The strata are not disconnected, but form a whole. One-dimensional
reason rejects instinct (too primitive) and intuition (too unworkable). Seven
stages persist, called : mythical, pre-rational, proto-rational (together anterational,
instinctual thought), rational, transcendental, creative and
transcendent. Only the last stage is hypothetical, whereas the last two are
intuitional.
§ 22
If the organization of thought in general and of mind in particular may be characterized as
"dual" (sensoric versus categorial), the overall logic behind reason, although layered, is
"monadic". Reason is prepared & equipped for the immanence of the intellect, but has to
give up its role of master and become a servant of the own-form of its own Higher Self.
This ontological necessity, in particular its constant negation (not this, not that), reflects on
the creative potential.
If variety & unity are active on the same level, reason is crippled. A schizoid fluctuation
between variety & unity is accommodated. Judgment is constantly postponed and
knowledge becomes anecdotal. Kant projected the inherent dualism of the mind on reason.
Nothing can be its own tribunal except in madness. Reason needs intellect to replenish
itself and acquire the intention of the beginner unhindered by the consequences of wrong
thought, unbridled affects and immoral actions.
Distinguish between three factors :
● mind ("Verstand") : or understanding, together with the senses, co-conditioning
facts tending towards differentiation (variety) ;
● reason ("Vernunft") : regulating dualism with ideas converging on unity & the
unconditional ;
● intellect : faculty or stage of cognition allowing for the creative, intuitional
manifestation of one's immanent own-Self and the intellectual perception, ex
hypothesi, of its unconditional transcendent core.

The law of types is more fundamental to our prosecuting reason than the law of variety,
which is fundamental to our mind, the advocate of the senses. By working with the law of
types, reason invokes the intellect, who's role Kant tried to limit to the bare, formal
minimum necessary to make the mind work properly "for all times"... He eliminated the
notion of "own-Self", i.e. the specific, unique ontological form of actual definiteness
characterizing each and every individual and crucial to promote creative thought.
The critical position defended here can thus be summarized as follows :
1. in human cognition, rooted in action (coordinated movements), sensoric synthesis,
affect, mind, reason & intellect prevail ;
2. under the ægis of the transcendental unity of apperception (the formal,
transcendental Self), the mind, hand in hand with -so must we think- sensoric and
affective events, produces knowledge in the form of probable, fallible empirico-formal
propositional statements of fact ;
3. reason is meta-mind unifying & expanding mind ;
4. intellect is meta-reason unifying reason ;
5. the unification of mind by reason implies a transcendental Self, the capstone of the
pyramidal structure of the spatio-temporality of the mind ;
6. the unification of reason by intellect implies a Higher Self, the own-form
of the individual and unique ontic definiteness (difference and thus
energy). Immanent in the ontological sense (not exceeding nature as
such), this Self is "transcendent" in the epistemic, creative sense
(transgressing the possible experience of the empirical ego and its mental
cogitations) ;
7. "intellectual reason" is the ideal of a real harmony between ante-rationality, the
science of facts, immanent metaphysics and transcendent pataphysics.
Fundamentally, cognitive activity is dualistic. The two sides of its equation,
the object and subject of knowledge, cannot be reduced to one another. This
dualism is complex. On the one hand, mind aims at concrete knowledge and is
assisted in this by reason. On the other hand, intellect aims at intuitional
knowledge, and assists reason to bring it and thus mind under the highest
unity. If reason converges on unity, then intellect is that unity. If the former is
able to articulate its aim (namely the ideas of the real and the idea), intellect
is ineffable and non-verbal. Intellectual perception is possible, but does not
yield propositions.
§ 23

Scientific knowledge is a system of empico-formal propositions involving "facts" produced
by an experimental set-up or set of instrumental actions and a chain of dialogal processes,
both strategic (with asymmetrical dialogal structures based on the media money,
propaganda & money) and communicative (devoid of the latter).
Besides scientific knowledge, metaphysics speculates to arrive at a global perspective on
the world. Being no longer the foundation of science, it aims to understand the world and
man as a whole, feeding its arguments with scientific facts, the condensation of the activity
of objective and (inter)subjective principles, norms & maxims. Situated "next" to
"physics" (or science), meta-physics is the inescapable background of all possible scientific
knowledge. The demarcation between both is clear, for science is testable and arguable,
whereas metaphysics is only subject to the laws of logic and argumentation. Metaphysics is
speculative and demonstrative, but never experimental and factual. Hence is can never be
a science nor acquire the nature of one (as in a "scientific metaphysics"). Precluded of
arguability, metaphysics and irrationality cannot be distinguished.
We define "rationality" as the set of cogitationes uniting 3 subsets :
1. normative philosophy :
the normative disciplines delving up the principles governing thought
(epistemology), affect (esthetics) and action (ethics) ;
2. scientific knowledge :
all empirico-formal propositions which are probably true in most tests
(regulated by the idea of correspondentio) and for most concerned signinterpreters
(regulated by the ideal of a consensus omnium), but never
absolutely true or certain ;
3. metaphysics :
all speculative propositions which have been the subject of a dialogal &
argumentative process (argued plausibly, i.e. defended in argument).
Philosophy aims to dig out the laws of thought (truth), affect (beauty) and
action (goodness). These laws, which we have been using all the time, give
body to normative disciplines, defining epistemology, esthetics and ethics.
Furthermore, once it is known what we must think, feel and do, philosophy
tries to develop a total picture of the world, in which nature (physics,
cosmology), life (biology) and man (anthropology) are brought together in a
way able to explain everything. This theoretical (metaphysical) pursuit aims at
answering the questions : What is nature ? What is life ? What is man ? These
answers finally yield the most cherished quest of philosophy : What is the
purpose of man's life on Earth (and in the universe) ?
Book Naught
Transcendental Logic

0. No rational thought without, on the one hand, a transcendental object,
which appears as an object of knowledge (what ?), and, on the other hand, a
transcendental subject, which -as a subject of knowledge (who ?)- is a
member of a community of intersubjective sign-interpreters and hence coexists
with language.
A. The dyad of formal thought.
Thought is not monadic nor triune. The monad is the standard of standards, a onefold
unity. Evidently, the absolutely transcendent exceeds the limitations imposed by the dyad.
The triad is the standard of process, defining initial position, movement and final position.
Unity and process do not constitute thought.
Transcendental logic formalizes thought as the necessary product of two irreducible factors
constituting all possible thought :
● the transcendental subject : the one thinking, as it were possessing the object ;
● the transcendental object : what is thought, or what is placed before the subject.
Suppose a thought without a (thinking) subject. This implies there is no one thinking the
thought. This is a contradiction in actu exercito. Thinking the subject away implies
subjectivity. Likewise, a thought without something being thought involves objectifying the
thought which has no object. Hence, all possible thought is a function of both
transcendental subject and transcendental object.
Division, opposition and duality are expressions of the dyad of rational thought. This
discordance is necessary and cannot be taken away without leaving the domain of
concepts. The conflict does not intend to cause cleavage, schism or separation. Its aim is to
maintain both sides together and apart and to engage communication, empathy and
cooperation to achieve a common goal : correct thinking. The two sides of thought may
move away from complementarity by reduction (subject to object or object to subject), or
"split" into two quasi-independent parts (cf. nature versus culture). Clearly to no avail.
In the political arena, the discordant concord or armed truce can only be realized if both
sides have relinquished all intentions to eliminate or harm each other. Only if both show
respect, can open communication (re)start. Likewise, before both sides of the function of
conceptual thought are integrated in all cogitations, correct thinking is impossible.
The transcendental subject is not a closed, Cartesian substance. It is more than a mere
Kantian "I Think" accompanying all cogitations. Intersubjectivity, language-games (cf.
Wittgenstein), the use of signals, icons and symbols by persons and groups, enlarge the
scope of the transcendental subject, appearing as a community of language users, both in
terms of personal membership(s), the actual discourse, as well as their historical tradition
(the magister of past, successful games).
The transcendental object is not a mere construct of mind, a shadow or a reflection of ideal
realities. Although the direct evidence of the senses is co-determined by the observer,
object knowledge is possible and (also) backed by, so must we think, an extra-mental

eality, or reality-as-such. This is absolute reality, whereas thought is bound to produce
fallible object-knowledge (reality-for-us).
B. The fact of reason.
Transcendental logic is a formal explicitation of the normative system of rational thought,
discovered a posteriori and at work in each cognitive act. In this logic, the fundamental
form of thought itself, the Factum Rationis (cf. Kant) is approached. This is the primitive (in
the sense of first), undeniable given of thought which cannot be explained by anterior
causes. These principles are the groundless ground of thought and knowledge. They form a
set of unproven principles used in every cogitation. Ergo, they evoke the limitations of
thought, in particular if all conceptual modes of cognition.
A hermeneutical circle emerges, showing that the foundation of the principles of thought
cannot be found in anything outside these principles. The circle starts with the study of the
cogitations produced by our cognitive apparatus, in other words, by investigating the mind.
This brings us to principles which are presupposed and at work in every single cogitation.
Afterwards, epistemologists "discover" how the abstract formulation of these principles is
the necessary and irreducible condition of the conceptual self-reflection of thought. At the
end of the exercise, they place its "transcendental logic" at the head of epistemology, while
in fact it comes at the end of the circle.
C. The groundless ground of knowledge.
Being the support of the edifice of thought itself, and this for all times, this Factum Rationis
cannot be grounded. All efforts to do so have failed and are bound to fail, for to ground
thought outside thought entails the elimination of one of the conditions of thought, made
explicit by transcendental logic. So in effect, they are only a perversity of thought.
Book 1
Theoretical Epistemology
1. The solution to the problem of the foundation of knowledge is an
epistemology giving a valid answer to the question how true knowledge and its
development are possible ?
1. The normative solution.
In any theory of knowledge, the two vectors posited by transcendental logic are called to
appear as the concrete subject and object of knowledge. Epistemology tries to explain the
possibility of knowledge and to do so is backed by the universal form of thought itself.
In the precritical discourse, foundational approaches dominate epistemology. This implies a
reduction of the discordant concord of thought (the vector-field defined by opposing
interests) to either the subject of knowledge (idealism, spiritualism) or the object of

knowledge (realism, materialism). The problem of how knowledge itself can be justified, i.
e. given certain grounds, remains unsolved. The ontological epistemologies associated with
these incomplete solutions (exclusively promoting human consciousness or physical reality)
subreptively re-introduce the other vector (idealism needs a "something out there", realism
implies a "someone in here"). Hence, they fail to answer Kant's first question of
epistemology : "Was kann ich wissen ?" What can I know ?
Three questions dominate theoretical and applied epistemology :
● How is knowledge possible ? What are the criteria or conditions of knowledge ?
● How is true knowledge possible ? Which theory of truth is applicable in the game of
"true" knowledge ?
● How can true knowledge be developed ? If we know (a) how knowledge is possible
and (b) to define true knowledge, then which method allows us to produce knowledge
and so expand our knowledge-horizon ? This last question is the object of applied
epistemology.
The échec of the ontological epistemologies was countered by Kant and his "Copernican
Revolution", culminating in neo-Kantianism and its critical theory. The latter made a
decisive step away from the foundational intent still present in Kant (namely his synthetic
propositions a priori). Object-knowledge is relative, historical, fallible and a posteriori. This
does not lead to the skeptic "anything goes", for the principles of transcendental logic, the
norms of theoretical epistemology and the maxims of the practice of knowledge must be
accepted if the game of "true" knowledge is to be played well.
Instead of a description of how knowledge is possible, critical theory offers the principles,
norms and maxims by which "true" knowledge must be possible and productive.
2. An epistemology articulating a valid answer is necessarily free from
(outrageous) internal contradictions.
Epistemology must apply the principles of thought. This is a transcendental condition
overlooked in onto-epistemologies. In principle, the architecture of the answer to the
question How knowledge is possible ? should reflect both vectors of thought, namely the
Who ? and What ? of all possible thought.
In practical thinking, these transcendental considerations are postponed. Epistemology
does not have that luxury. It must explain how knowledge is possible. Without a valid
answer, science cannot be certified, and everything remains in doubt. So let the
transcendental principles of all thought become the theoretical norms of all knowledge : the
Who ? of thought appearing as the subject of knowledge, the What ? of thought as the
object of knowledge.
These norms of knowledge are necessary and a priori.
3. All previous attempts to build-up epistemology from a sufficient ground
outside knowledge are rejected by logic.
As the transcendental structure of all thought is a dyad, all foundational attempts reduce :

● the object of knowledge to the subject : idealism will eventually disregard the facts,
in particular their, so must we think, extra-mental reality. Its logic is rejected not only
because it tries to undo what cannot be undone (namely to think without an object),
but because it needs to subreptively reintroduce the excommunicated. In order for
"objectivity" to have meaning, idealist theory of truth (consensus) must refer to
something extra-mental. This is nothing less than the object of knowledge it banished
(in vain) from its mental arena ;
● the subject of knowledge to the object : realism will epiphenomenalize and eventually
deny the existence of the subject, in particular the first person perspective, giving
birth to intimate, personal worlds (reality-for-me), and co-creating the world by the
constant use of signals, icons & symbols. Its logic is rejected not only because it tries
to think without a subject, but because the latter is necessarily reintroduced.
Logically, realism cannot escape the first person perspective, for no two observers
share the same spatial coordinates. Moreover, as every observation is dependent of
both theoretical connotations and fact, realist theory of truth (correspondence)
cannot eliminate the role of intersubjectivity. Hence, also realism reintroduces the
eliminated, and so fails to deliver.
4. Each attempt to ground epistemology leads to unacceptable logical
difficulties. For this gives or an infinite regress, or a logical circle or a dogmatic
break with the attempt of justification (the trilemma of foundation).
Accommodating the postulate of foundation, three logical impasses occur. A justification of
proposition P is a deduction with P as conclusion. How extended must this deductive chain
be in order to justify P ?
1. regressus ad infinitum :
There is no end to the justification, and so no foundation is found. The presence
of an infinite series begs the question of the status of infinity, whether or not it
is objective ? In general terms, logicians and mathematicians try to avoid this
kind of endless succession and dislike attributing reality to infinity (and so
renormalize their equations to fit their finite parameters). The regressus ad
infinitum is pointless, leads nowhere and can never deliver solid,
decontextualized principles ;
2. petitio principii :
The end is implied by the beginning, for P is part of the deduction ; circularity is
a valid deduction but no justification of P, hence no foundation is found.
Transcendental logic involves such a circle. Thought can only be rooted in
thought itself. Normative epistemology is based on the groundless ground of
thought. Normative philosophy articulates the principles, norms & maxims of
correct thinking (epistemology), correct judgment (esthetics) and correct action
(ethics). These are discovered while having used them and using them. Insofar
as this circle is "hermeneutic", normative disciplines are more than formal and
contribute to understand the fundamentals of thought, in particular truth,
beauty and goodness. The petitio percipii is limited and of little use outside the
normative sphere, where it equals the tautology. But, although tautologies,
offering perfect identifications (A = A), do not add to the contents of thought,
they do add structure, associations, correspondences & internal harmonizations

of large associated blocks of information ;
3. abrogation ad hoc :
Justification is ended ad hoc, the postulate of justification is abrogated, and the
unjustified sufficient ground is accepted because, being certain, it needs no
more justification. This has been the strategy of all ontological epistemologies, i.
e. descriptions (not laws) of how knowledge is possible in terms of a theory of
real or ideal being (viz. the Peripatetic and Platonic schools). When the subject
is eliminated, knowledge is rooted in an hypostasis of the object of knowledge.
This is the real, absolute, extra-mental reality of the thing-as-such, considered
as the cause of the sense-data feeding the mind in order for it to know. When
the object is eliminated, knowledge is grounded in the hypostasis of the subject
of knowledge : the ideality of the thing-as-such, as in Plato and his variants.
The abrogation ad hoc is dogmatic and one-sided.
The trilemma is avoided by stopping to seek an absolute, sufficient ground for knowledge
outside knowledge. The ground of knowledge is the groundless principle of thought itself.
This is the simple fact conceptual thought is impossible without the discordant concord of
transcendental subject and transcendental object.
5. Only a normative approach to the problem of the foundation of knowledge
makes it possible -through reflection- to discover the necessary basic system.
These are the principles & norms we have always been using and hence which
we can not deny without using them in the denial.
Transcendental logic dictates the principle of rational thought. This is the concordia discors
of the Factum Rationis. Duality is its architecture. On the one hand, thought has a
contents, an object of knowledge, on the other hand, cogitation implies a thinker. Both are
necessary and form a system. In epistemology, these logical conditions are translated by
the simultaneity of two vectors : the vector of the subject of knowledge, its languages,
theories and theoretical connotations and the vector of the object of knowledge, its physical
apparatus, tenacity, inertia and, so must we think, factuality & actuality.
The normative status of the system of epistemology is given by the necessity of the
principles & norms implied. Each time we deny one of them, we use them in the process of
the denial. A stronger case cannot be made. They represent what has been, what is and
what shall be the game of "true" knowing, based on correct thinking (logic) and
epistemology, both theoretical (the possibility and truth-value of knowledge) and applied
(the production of knowledge).
6. On the one hand, a valid epistemology makes it possible to delimit factual,
true knowledge from only arguable, speculative knowledge. On the other hand
and based on the basic system, it becomes clear which cogitations we rather
call rational than irrational (and vice versa). In this way, a model of rationality
ensues which joins the sought epistemology.
Logic and epistemology do not stand alone. They are part of a larger positioning of
rationality as open at two ends of its cognitive texture, for rationality is ante-rational or
instinctive in its genesis or historical origination (arch•), and trans-rational or intuitive in its

goal (telos). Rooted in the mythical (non-verbal), pre-rational (semiotics) and protorational
(concrete concept and mental closure) layers of thought, reason must learn to (a)
operate itself, (b) be aware of its relationship with instinctual thought-patterns and (c) not
abrogate its higher aim, to wit : lead thought to unity, creativity and intuitive insight
(nondual gnosis).
On the one hand, instincts force thought to root itself in a sufficient ground outside thought
itself. The idea of such a ground, satisfies our human longing for security, stability and the
guarantee things stay the same (tenacity). These stem from our emotional constitution, are
intertwined with ante-rationality, and dominate our life from pre-natal conditions to early
puberty, when formal thought enters the arena. On the other hand, intuition tends to root
thought in a transcendent ground, and reduce the products of knowledge to illusions and
"lower" states of consciousness. Although rationality must remain open at both ends, it
should not loose itself in either instinct or intuition, but neither should it block the latter
out. Hence, to be reasonable is a rather difficult exercise ...
A critical epistemology draws the lines. In terms of possible knowledge, the most important
border holds speculative and factual knowledge apart. The latter is knowledge we, for the
time being, may consider as "true", constituting the paradigmatic core of the edifice of
scientific knowledge. This object-knowledge is science proper, and is cast in synthetic,
empirico-formal propositions a posteriori. They are called "synthetic" because they operate
the domain of direct observation, "empirico-formal" because observation is the product of
both theory and, so must we think, extra-mental reality, and "a posteriori" because their
contents is not a given and largely unknown beforehand.
Speculative knowledge is clearly metaphysical. When pursued, metaphysics is indicated and
(dialogal) logic inevitable. As no crucial experiment is possible, only argumentation
prevails. So to erect a solid speculative system is a gigantic enterprise, even if
deconstruction is allowed to unmask the transcendent terms and the idea of a system is
asterixed (cf. equiaeon-system*). Given these difficulties, speculative knowledge remains
problematic.
7. Every cognitive act presupposes an object of knowledge which has to be
thought of as unsurmountable. If not, we commit a contradiction "in actu
exercito".
2 The object of knowledge.
The object of knowledge is always placed before the subject of knowledge. This is either
another thought (mental object) or a fact (sensate object). In both cases, the presence of
the object is a given.
It is not always possible to cause change just by thinking it. Even while we reflect, an
internal object is present. Besides mental cogitations, we must posit an object which has
intrinsic power-of-tenacity-in-opposition, as objects confront subjects. Together with our
mental constructions, this reality must co-define the contents of our cognition. Only by
eliminating the architecture of thought itself, rejecting its transcendental logic, can the
mind regress into believing in the confounded one-sidedness of the real or the ideal.

The object of knowledge is particularly dear to science. Without it, no empiricism is
possible. However, to integrate perception into epistemology, does not license the return of
ontological realism to ground knowledge, although the temptation is strong. Materialism,
epiphenomenalism, scientism, logico-positivism, instrumentalism take a bridge too far.
Unavoidably, epistemology is perverted and so the ante-rational longings for the
correspondence of ideas with an eternalized reality are attached to "pure" principles &
norms.
If one says : "There is no object of knowledge.", then this statement itself is the object of
knowledge to those who hear what is said. Denial of the object of knowledge entails the
use of the object of knowledge. Hence, it is unsurmountable and never eclipsed. If
repressed, it re-emerges subreptively, for nothing can be thought, said or written without
its constant use. This is the case in idealist onto-epistemologies, were the object of
knowledge is driven out at the profit of an intersubjective, object-constituting consensus
about the coherence between propositions and/or theories.
For cogitations to be possible, the object of knowledge has to be conceived as a
"Gegenstand", and this a forteriori.
8. The unsurmountability of the object of knowledge does not imply it grounds
the possibility of knowledge absolutely & a-historically (as tried out in a model
of knowledge devoid of subject of knowledge). It does mean -so must we
think- our knowledge always tells us "something" about reality-as-such. We
have to think reality as knowable.
The foundational approach seeks certain knowledge. Critical theory aims to produce
probable knowledge. Realism, exorcising the subject, aims to ground the possibility of
knowledge in a reality outside the cognitive act, thereby introducing a passive subject,
invoked to accept and register stimuli. In its simple form, induction and verification by
correspondence with sense-data are called in to explain the development of knowledge.
The fact these mental arrangements exceed the sense-data eludes the realist.
There is no absolute, a-historical ground of knowledge outside knowledge itself. The
normative discipline works in a circular way. On the basis of a hermeneutical circle it
argues a logical deduction but offers no new contents. It makes evident what thought has,
is and will be been doing all the time. The groundless ground of knowledge is the
irreducibility of the discordant concord, forbidding the reduction of object to subject or vice
versa.
By rejecting ontological realism as a sufficient ground, one does not necessarily reject the
necessity of thinking the object of knowledge. If one seeks "true" knowledge, one must
think this object, and so accept that, while thinking, there is no other option than to
conceive the "other" facing the subject. Cogitations aside, this is an extra-mental reality
which cannot be divorced from the act of "true" knowing.
9. Justificationism (the justification of knowledge by intuitional, rational or
empirical foundational attempts) has to be rejected on logical grounds.
Onto-epistemologies need to justify how knowledge can be true and certain. They seek a

sufficient ground outside knowledge. Historically, justificationism worked along two lines :
either mind or reality were put forward as the rock-bottom of certainty. Insofar as interests
were dominated by the mind, true knowledge adequately reflected reality-as-such, and a
symbolical adualism (Platonism) was indicated (intuitionism, rationalism). Insofar reality
was pushed forward, true knowledge was deemed the direct, immediate correspondence of
theory and reality-as-such (empirism, materialism). In terms of the possibility of
knowledge, avoiding the trilemma, both positions are deemed outdated. Knowledge is not
called "true" because everybody says so or because we think reality triggered it.
To avoid the transcendental contradiction caused by banishing either mind or reality from
the logic of thought itself, the two vectors of knowledge have, in every cognitive act, to be
used simultaneously. Empirical justification as it were hopes to bracket the subject, directly
observe reality-as-such without interpretation, and finally remove the brackets to talk and
write about the acquired knowledge. Will at some point, repeating this successful process,
the justificationist be allowed to make the crucial logical jump from a finite number of
observations to a universal statement of fact (encompassing an infinite number of
observations) ? Clearly not. Can one eliminate the subject of knowledge and observe
without interpretation ? If so, can this still be called rational knowledge ?
The problem of induction is not the crucial logical ground to refute justificationism, nor is its
subreptive use of the Factum Rationis (realism calling in the subject, idealism the object).
The position itself is untenable for it invokes what it intends to banish. It is impossible to
directly observe reality-as-such without there being someone observing. This may be a
formal transcendental subject, but this makes the point. Likewise, it is impossible to realize
a consensus about a state of affairs without there being something to which this consensus
refers to. Knowledge cannot be without object. Knowledge cannot be without subject.
10. Refined falsificationism, coherence, pluralism & interdisciplinary dialogue
are crucial in a model of knowledge which joins the critical tradition and this
without (extra-epistemologically) grounding the possibility of knowledge in the
object of knowledge.
Critical theory is not realist or idealist. Its aim is to discover, make explicit and maintain
the principles, norms and maxims of thought and knowledge. These are not rooted in
anything outside the latter.
Dogmatic falsificationism avoids the problem of induction by turning things upside down.
Instead of starting with a number of individual propositions from which to derive a general
law, they begin with a universal statement and try to find exceptions. If one is found, then
the general statement is refuted or falsified. This variant of empirical justificationism
accepts a theory can never be completely justified. Hence, the more it is corroborated, i.e.
withstands attempts at falsification, the more trustworthy the theory becomes. But the
naturalistic, onto-epistemological presence of a given empirical ground is not yet left
behind.
Refined falsificationism no longer accepts any "ontological" confrontation between theory
and fact. Coherence replaces correspondence. Only theories clash. This answers the
question of how to translate sense-data in propositions. Only propositions clash. Critical
theory adds the hybrid nature of facts. Janus-faced, they are two-faceted : one, turned
towards the subject of knowledge, is theory-dependent and intra-mental and the other,

turned -so must we think- toward the reality of the object of knowledge, is theoryindependent
and extra-mental. We recognize something as a fact because our theories
allow us to do so AND because it acquired, so we believe, the guarantees of reality-as-such
(the Real-ideal).
11. To consider the object of knowledge as an "existing thing" to be divorced
from the cognitive act and with which our knowledge does or does not
correspond (cf. Popper's critical rationalism), leads to an ontological theory of
knowledge which is in conflict with the strict nominalism necessary for
normative theory (in which knowledge can only be justified through
knowledge).
In science, the object of knowledge is fact X placed before the subject of knowledge. On
the one hand, a theory makes it possible for the observers to witness fact X, on the other
hand, we must think the tenacity with which fact X kicks in terms of the letters of belief it
holds. Facts exist "out there", but they are not divorced from the cognitive act. This is the
skeptic streak of theoretical epistemology. It could be possible rational thought is sheer
illusion. The subject of knowledge cannot rationally know reality-as-such precisely because
it cannot escape its own active mind. The latter is highly symbolical and constructivist. The
co-authorship of the mind in what is observed and symbolized is therefore considerable.
The "nugget of gold" found in realist onto-epistemology is the idea of the real, the
conviction knowledge has to be about some thing. When considering the status of facts, in
particular their extra-mental, theory-independent, kicking tenacity and inertia, critical
epistemology retains this conviction as an imperative of thought, but not as an ontological
description of the theory-independent side of facts (which, given the dyad of thought, is
impossible).
12. Every cognitive act presupposes a subject of knowledge which has to be
thought off as unsurmountable. If not, we commit a contradiction in actu
exercito.
3 The subject of knowledge.
A parallel argument is developed, but this time focused on the subject of knowledge.
Realist onto-epistemology need to think it as wholly passive, unable to add substance to
what is observed. The stimuli are deemed to be caused by the outside, extra-mental world.
They are the fuel of the "motor" of the formal categories, and make the system work. In
the even simpler view of empirism, the mind is considered a tabula rasa at birth.
Subjectivity is "necessarily" (sic) eliminated by those playing the game of science and
using, so is assumed, its extraordinary language and method of objectification.
On the one hand, observational psychology has shown an absence of priority between the
conceptual frame and the so-called "data of observation". On the other hand, if the
constructivist powers of an active mind cannot be refuted, then a severe logical problem
haunts any epistemology without a subject. Indeed, if one says : "There is no subject of
knowledge.", then, to those who hear what is said, this statement itself is made by a

subject of knowledge. Denial of the subject of knowledge entails the use of the subject of
knowledge. Hence, it is unsurmountable.
13. The unsurmountability of the subject of knowledge does not imply it
grounds the possibility of knowledge absolutely & a-historically (as tried out in
a model of knowledge devoid of object of knowledge). It does mean the
subject of knowledge has to be thought off as active, open and theoretizing.
Again, the subject of knowledge is not introduced to ground the possibility of knowledge.
The subject is not divorced from the cognitive act, for this cannot be without resorting to a
transcendental contradiction pushing epistemology to accept the ontological illusion stating
the object exclusively constitutes knowledge or, instead, the subject does so. Knowledge is
constituted by knowledge, not by the idea of "the real" or the idea of "the ideal".
To organize the experience of itself and the world, the subject of knowledge produces
signals (movement), icons (affects) & symbols (cogitations). This is an activity, not a mere
passive reception. The subject creates structure, form, architecture and fills in the holes
with expectations. This makes it the opposite of a passive registrar. But, this obvious
activity cannot be invoked to move to the extreme of positing truth-bearing subjects.
Although the mindset of the subject co-determines what is observed, the facts also, so
must we think, refer to the absolute, extra-mental Real-Ideal, although the latter escapes
any direct confrontation with a subject of knowledge. Indeed, subjectivity cannot remove
its own coloration.
14. The observations made by a subject of knowledge are always theoretically
connotated, i.e. they happen in a pattern of expectation developing in the
observation itself. Such a pattern of expectation structures and co-determines
the facts observed. Between this conceptual frame and the data of observation
no priority exists. The notion of a "pure, objective observation" is part of a
realistic metaphysics.
Showing the impossibility of attributing logical precedence to an observation over the
pattern of expectation allowing it to happen, is to make an end to the naturalism of
empiricism and its passive subject (as in realism). It also marks the frontiers of the
opposite intention : to make the expectation precede the observation (as in idealism).
Staying within the limitations imposed on rational knowledge, there are no objective
observations devoid of subjectivity and no subjective creation of things observed. The
former is impossible, because the activity of the subject cannot be eclipsed. The latter is
impossible, because knowledge is always about some thing escaping subjectivities and
transcending, so must we think, the theory-dependent facet of facts.
There are many levels of expectation. In its simplest form, recall the famous cube of
Wittgenstein published in his Tractatus Logico-Philosophicus (5.5423). Whether it is
observed as standing or lying down is independent of the objective drawing, but is caused
by the expectation of the observer (focusing either on this or another angle of the cube).
Escherian paradoxes are of the same type, and are linked with the problems arising when
three dimensions are projected upon a plane. Optical illusions, which do not go away when
discovered, are yet another level of expectation. They are intertwined with our
observational apparatus and its natural defects. Hallucinations (to be distinguished from

visions in trance-states) are exceptional examples of subjective pathological fabrications,
and show how subjective states may directly affect the auditory and visual pathways of the
central nervous system.
15. The community of subjects of knowledge talk about theories. Differences
of opinion ensue (the ruling consensus breaks). The ideal speech-situation is
necessary to regain consensus. In every factual speech-situation the ideal is
presupposed and anticipated. This does not mean the truth of statements can
be determined by excluding the object of knowledge.
The subject of knowledge is not posited in isolation. In a closed, substantialist approach of
the subject, subjectivity is rooted in an ontology. Likewise, truth is also subjectified as a
super-subject (cf. the Platonic idea of the Good). In the present critical approach, the
subject of knowledge is always communal and so cannot be divorced from the community
of subjects to which it belongs. A solipsist subject is an illusion and a misconception of
subjectivity. A variety of communities emerge around the subject and in each, by way of
interaction, the subject as it were shows another profile. Hence, the solitary subject, its
family, relationships and professional vocation are to be set apart as the pivotal areas of
subjective functioning. Each time, otherness cannot be bracketed. As one's inner dialogue
testify, even the solitary subject defines itself in terms of others, albeit imaginal. The
empirical ego calls itself an "I" only, because some "non-I" identifies it as such (cf. Lacan
and the mirror-stage). And between subjects, the use of languages to signal, represent or
symbolize thought is outstanding.
In the advocated model of rationality, the linguistic capacity of the subject of knowledge is
(a) either turned towards goals projected outside the speech-act, or (b) aiming to realize
the ideal speech-situation. In the former case, the discourse is instumental or strategic, in
the latter it is communicational, for in harmony with the norms of discourse. A strategic
discourse does not satisfy the ideal of communication, but, because of its a-symmetry, is
able to top-down imperative knowledge to manifest a target. Because of the inequality in
speech and the lack of freedom to speak, a "military" strategy is at work and the success of
the operation is forthcoming in a linear way.
To share propositions, theoretical connotations and theories, open subjects of knowledge
communicate with one another. This discourse is communicational and has no outer
targets. The issue at hand is a thought, a concept, a proposition, a theory ... The invoked
words intend to bring into evidence coherent novel contents and architectures between
other words. The aim being consensus between all involved subjects. To realize this
consensus, the concrete speech-situation must be symmetrical. No coercion rules. Although
this ideal speech-situation is the limit-concept of the logic of communication, and thus
never actual, it is presupposed and anticipated in every actual communication. It is
presupposed, because otherwise external coercion would be allowed to enter the picture,
perverting the possibility of communication itself (namely the ideal speech-situation). It is
anticipated, because in order to communicate, all parties must accept the normative status
of the ideal. If not, then their intention before starting to communicate was not to
communicate at all (cf. culpa in contrahendo or culpable conduct before contract
negotiations).
The ideal speech-situation or logic of communication is at work between subjects of
knowledge, ruling their communicational discourses. As it does not refer to the theory-

independent facet of facts or to the extra-mental objects of knowledge, but only to the
speech-acts of other subjects of knowledge appearing as objects of knowledge, it cannot be
a used to judge the truth of propositions. Intersubjectively valid insofar subjects, to seek
consensus, communicate in non-strategic ways, the ideal speech-situation is not a truthcriterion.
It is not because everybody thinks the same thought, that this thought should be
considered "true", for they could all be wrong. Thoughts do no constitute things.
16. To think the subject of knowledge as constitutive of an object
(independent of the cognitive act, as in Habermas' transcendental philosophy)
leads to an unacceptable ontological theory of knowledge which idealistically
deobjectifies the basic system.
Starting with Fichte, idealism ontologised Kant's transcendentalism. For Kant, the
transcendental system is not a thing among things, nor is it a (higher) reality of ideas. The
Copernican Revolution roots the system of thought in the Thinker, and in nothing else. For
Kant, the transcendental "I Think" or transcendental unity accompanying every cogitation
of the empirical ego, must be kept totally empty. The "I Think" is "of all times", but not
above time. Transcendental and transcendent have to be sharply distinguished.
The transcendental ego can be made historical as a series of essences in constant
transformation. This historical, hypostatic Self-reality is epistemologized as the ideal
consensus between all possible language-users. Like the leaders of Plato's ideal state, this
consensus catholicus is the guardian of truth and hence the sole power to define falsehood.
In contemporary transcendental philosophy, and the philosophy of Habermas in particular,
the intersubjectivity of knowledge eventually constitutes the object of knowledge, i.e.
defines the What ? or contents of knowledge. This is like taking away objectivity from
thought.
17. Knowledge can be divided into mental knowledge (aiming at an object or
object-knowledge) and rational knowledge (aiming at the mind). The former is
related to the categorial scheme, the latter to the ideas.
4 The categories (mind) & ideas (reason).
When reflecting upon the cognitive act, cogitations have the mind itself as object of
knowledge. This is rational knowledge, for the mind is its object, and reason is the metafaculty
ruling the mind. The ideas of reason are those concepts which are necessary to
guarantee the coherence and development of the mind. As contents of mind are addressed,
mental knowledge ensues when the functional product of the two vectors of mind is at
hand. This knowledge is called "scientific" because it is backed by both sides of the
equation of knowledge and its categorial scheme. The latter is an explicitation of both
vectors, introducing the notions of "test" (experiment) and "dialogue" (argumentation).
This happens in the context of the proposed theory of truth.
The categorial scheme works for the mind and its mental knowledge. The ideas of reason
work to organize the two vectors, regulating, on the one hand, the object of knowledge and
its experimental definition with the idea of the real, and, on the other hand, the subject of

knowledge and its discourses with the idea of the ideal.
18. The ideas guarantee the order (unity) and the expansion (totality) of our
mental knowledge. They aim at the unconditional. If we use reason in the
same way as we use the mind (i.e. if we use the ideas in the same way as we
use the categories to acquire object-knowledge) then and only then does the
transcendental illusion ensue.
A transcendental contradiction happens when thought allows the dyad to become a monad,
and this by reducing the transcendental subject to the object or vice versa. A
transcendental illusion does not belong to transcendental logic, but to theoretical
epistemology. There it happens when the ideas regulating the process of cognition are
made to constitute it. When a "real" object of knowledge is said to stimulate a passive
mind, or when an "ideal" subject of knowledge is said to constitute the object of
knowledge. The ideas of reality and ideality serve the mind, but not the senses.
In neurophysiology, the primary information gathered by the senses is filtered by
secondary & tertiary sensoric systems. Observation happens in a pattern of expectation
which develops in the observation itself. The field of connotation defined by the expectation
cannot be removed from the observation (cf. Chapter 4).
The two ideas of reason dominating epistemology aim at the unconditional. The idea of the
real pushes reason to seek the ultimate correspondence between theory and fact. The idea
of the ideal stimulates the notion of the consensus omnium between all sign-interpreters of
signals, icons and symbols. This optimalization is like a receding horizon. How could it be
realized ? In terms of applied epistemology, the expansion of knowledge has no end, for
the totality of all possible experience is never given.
19. This illusion (which cannot be taken away but only unmasked by way of
criticism positing limitations so it can no longer deceive us) shows the borders
of our possible mental knowledge have been transgressed, making the mind
slow & perverse. In this way, ideas become objects, i.e. things amongst things.
Hence, this illusion is also an ontological illusion.
The transcendental illusion (using the ideas of reason to constitute the possibility of
knowledge) is an ontological illusion, making the object of knowledge appear as reality-assuch
or the subject of knowledge appear as ideality-as-such. But absolute reality (realityas-such
and ideality-as-such or the Real-Ideal) cannot be an object of knowledge, for how
to eliminate the theory-dependent facet of facts ?
Caught in the net of illusion, the mind either makes the idea of the real into a real world
"out there", or the idea of the ideal into a truth-bearing ideality "in here". When the mind
thinks it faces the Real-Ideal, it not longer needs to push the limits of possible knowledge (i.
e. develop it), for everything is known to everybody. Hence, because of this mirage, our
mental knowledge receives a wrong sense of completion, for totality duly belongs to reason
and not to the mind. This sense of completion halts the development of knowledge,
whereas the one-sided reliance on a sufficient ground (either of the real or of the ideal)
makes the cognitive apparatus function in a debilitating way, as it were sucking the
strength out of our capacity to know.

20. Realistic answers to the problem of the foundation of knowledge step
beyond the boundaries of all possible mental knowledge because the idea of a
"reality devoid of the subject of knowledge" (i.e. reality-as-such or Kant's
"Ding-an-sich") becomes the foundation of epistemology (so facts coincide with
this reality and the subject of knowledge becomes secondary) .
21. Idealistic answers ground the possibility of knowledge in the idea of an
"ideal, object-constituting subject" (reality becomes secondary). Both are in
conflict with the necessary conditions of the possibility of knowledge.
5 Idealistic & realistic transgressions.
Both foundational approaches have to be explicitly ruled out. Scientific knowledge, as a
particular type of mental knowledge, must not eclipse the subject of knowledge, nor is the
object of knowledge manufactured by the subject. Realism and idealism represent
metaphysical answers to the problem of knowledge and although arguable, the decisive
role of the ideas of the real and the ideal in epistemology is restricted to assist (mental)
knowledge in its unity and expansion. As such, they belong to reason and their knowledge
is reflective.
The ideas of reason have the categorial scheme of the mind as their object, not its fuel, i.e.
the contents of the mind given by the facts. Because of the rules of logic and the workings
of the active mind, the reality aimed at by the idea of the real (namely, that this-or-that
fact is absolutely real) is not an object of the mind. Likewise, the ideality aimed at by the
idea of the ideal is never before the mind, for the ideal speech-situations is never the
actual discourse (indeed, this-or-that discourse is never absolutely ideal).
22. By shaping the unconditionality of the object of knowledge, the idea
"reality" (the real-as-such) guarantees the unity & the expansion of the
monologous object-oriented conceptual knowledge .
23. By shaping the unconditionality of the intersubjectivity of knowledge, the
idea "ideality" (the ideal-as-such) guarantees the unity & the expansion of the
dialogal subject-oriented conceptual knowledge.
6 Idealistic & realistic regulations towards unity & expansion.
To observe and experiment involves the study of regulation, determination and lawfulness,
among which that of efficient causes. The asymptotic "ultimate determination" of reason
lies beyond the finite borders of possible mental knowledge. Being no longer conditioned, it
belongs to the idea of the real-as-such, i.e. the absolute, unconditioned reality-as-such.
Communication aims to establish a consensus between all involved subjects of knowledge,
but the ideal speech-situation is an ideal beyond the reach of any actual discourse. Being
no longer conditioned, it belongs to the idea of the ideal-as-such, i.e. the absolute,
unconditioned ideality-as-such.

In every observation of fact, both regulations are simultaneously at work. The idea of the
real pushes the mind to pursue sensate adventures, whereas the idea of the ideal brings its
constructions in the larger arena of the community of interpreters of signals, icons &
symbols, seeking consensus and approval. Experimentation concentrates on the real.
Discourse, dissensus, argumentation and consensus on the ideal. They are special cases of
observation of fact, intended to articulate empirico-formal propositions or statements of
fact, in casu scientific knowledge.
Experimentation, regulated by the idea of the real, involves a one-to-one relationship with
the object of knowledge, at the maximal exclusion of intersubjective dialogue and
discussion. It is always instrumental. This is the image of "objective" science as the
monologue of Nature with herself (as in realism). The highest art of dialogue, regulated by
the idea of the ideal, involves the constant dialogue with & between other subjects of
knowledge about ideas, concepts, theoretical connotations, conjectures or theories. Here
we have the image of a community of people seeking the truth about something and
communicating to find out what it is (as in the more contemporary forms of idealism and
social theory).
24. Both ideas converge towards an imaginal point which, as a postponed
horizon, is a complete, universal consensus on the adequate correspondence
between our knowledge and reality-as-such. This is a heuristic fiction,
suggesting a position "beyond the mirror surface", a "world behind" regulating
the possibility of knowledge without grounding the latter or serving as its
foundation.
Epistemology, esthetics and ethics are the three normative disciplines defining the formal
conditions of rationality. They draw the lines between "correct" (valid) and
"outlawed" (invalid) and also define the borders of the inner architecture of cognition. In
epistemology, empirico-formal propositions are at hand, as is their truth-value and method
of corroboration. In esthetics, judgments of beauty prevail, and in ethics moral valuations
are made. Propositions involve object-knowledge and probable truth. Judgments of beauty
imply subjective keys to harmony and escaping sublimity. Moral valuations are imperative
and intend the good.
The absolute mind is visualized by our faculty of imagination as an adequate
correspondence. Both ideas are optimalized and projected outside the limitations of
rationality, for neither science (mental knowledge), nor transcendental philosophy (rational
knowledge) is equipped to know in an absolute way. The "adequatio intellectus ad rem" or
"veritas est adequatio rei et intellectus" of the realist is coupled with the "leges cogitandi
sunt leges essendi" of the idealist. Both ideas are pushed beyond any possible limit.
Unconditional, they represent what transcends rational thought ; a perfect unity between
thought and fact, as it were the dwindling away of the theory-dependent facet of facts, a
fiction brought about by the faculty of imagination and reason.
25. These ideas of contemporary epistemology characterize the "essential
tension" (cf. Kuhn) typical for thinking and knowledge itself. In this way, it
voices the fundamental property of scientific thinking, i.e. the continuous &
permanent confrontation between "testing" (object of knowledge) and
"language" (subjects of knowledge).

Both in thought, theoretical & applied epistemology, the concordia discors is what has been
going on since the Homo Sapiens sapiens emerged as the result of his pre-frontal lobes and
angular gyrus starting to compute or process consciousness thinking (cf. Chapter 4).
In science, especially interested in object-knowledge, this armed truce makes both parties
persue their proper vector. During experiments, discussions are, for the time being,
stopped. This separation is followed by confrontation. Test-results are discussed and face
competitive explanations and interpretations. Dissensus may arise and at this point
argumentation comes in to decide who is right and to foster consensus. Conclusions are
formulated and new experiments are made ... In theory this circle is unending.
26. On the side of the object of knowledge, we must think "reality-as-such" as
knowable (without being conceptually equipped to know whether this is the
case). Facts are both intra-linguistic (are co-determined by the theories of the
subject of knowledge) and -so must we think- extra-linguistic, i.e. the
messengers of "reality-as-such". Hence, they correspond with reality-for-us.
27. On the side of the subject of knowledge, we have to think the "consensus
omnium" as possible (without us ever reaching it in fact). In this way, the
distinction between "my" consensus (with myself), "our" consensus here & now
(i.e. the agreement between the users of the same language) and the
"consensus omnium", the regulative idea on the side of the subject of
knowledge, ensues.
7 Correspondence versus consensus.
For the philosophers of old, true knowledge was certain knowledge. And certain knowledge
was perennial. Truth was eternalized. Pre-critical epistemology, seeking to make this
postulate of foundation explicit, sought a sufficient ground outside knowledge, either as a
Real World "out there" or an Ideal Idea "in here". In Greek metaphysics, concept-realism
dominated and rooted the possibility of knowledge in an ideal world (Plato) or in the
abstraction of the essence of things by observing them (Aristotle). In Scholastic thought,
the crucial difference between (Platonic & Peripatetic) realism and (moderate & strict)
nominalism emerged, replaced in modern thought by empirism and rationalism. All these
efforts were pointless. Reason cannot find the sufficient ground of thought outside thought
and this a priori (cf. transcendental logic). We are unable to escape the necessity of the
Factum Rationis. Pre-critical modern thought was termed "scandalous" precisely because of
this prevailing antinomy. Both rationalism and empirism could be argued relatively
successfully, but, taken together, constituted a contradiction. This meant philosophy, if it
were for example to compete with the universality of the G-force expressed by Newton's
law of gravity, could not endure in this format.
With the Critique of Pure Reason, the first step was taken to formalize (or empty of its
ontology) the Cartesian cogito and integrate both sides of the equation of possible thought.
But Kant retained the senses as "quasi-causes" and hoped synthetic propositions a priori
could be found. He was still a foundationalist. Because of these problems, German idealism
rejected the transcendental method itself and did not try to reconstruct Kant (or read him

properly). A return to brontosauric ontology emerged, both idealist (cf. Hegel) as realist
(cf. Marx). Worse, protest philosophy (cf. Schopenhauer, Nietzsche, Bergson) rejected the
necessities of rationality, and plunged Western thought in the nightmare of irrationalism,
spawning the horrors of the 20th century (communism, fascism, militarism, blind global
capitalism). The development of knowledge itself deemed too Platonic in a world supposed
to have killed God. Serious epistemology is absent here.
The more radical forms of postmodernism are the successors of these illicit and vain
attempts at denying thought with thought. In fact, they are the contemporary forms (cf.
Feyerabend) of a radical skepticism already known to the Greeks (cf. Gorgias, Protagoras).
The échec of foundationalism multiplied with epistemological irrationalism, heralds the end
of any rational investigation of the possibility, expansion & production of knowledge in
general and "true" knowing in particular. Must be avoided : (a) a radical denial of the
ongoing complexification of the cognitive texture of human beings, (b) all foundational ontoepistemologies
(metaphysical realism or metaphysical idealism) and (c) radical scepticism
& relativism.
The second step was made by neo-Kantianism, a general term to designate the adoption of
Kantian views in a partial or limited way. In particular, the rejection of the postulate of
foundation is another crucial move, which calls for a normative appreciation of the problem
of knowledge. Avoiding radical skepticism by discovering principles & norms, critical
epistemology accepts the terministic and probabilistic status of mental knowledge in
general and scientific knowledge in particular. On the one hand, absolute certainty is lost,
but, on the other hand, the real, so is discovered, must be at work in every proposition
corroborated by facts, because this must be the case. The real is not a quasi-cause of
perceptions, for, as explained by contemporary psychology, observation and patterns of
expectation coincide in every fact.
The theory-dependent facet of facts is intra-linguistic. It belongs to a theory to form a
pattern of expectation. But this pattern, although always rooted in my subjectivity, is intersubjective
and belongs to a community of communicators.
In the present critical theory of truth, seeking to find reasons to accept a theory as if true,
the following categories emerge :
● the subject of knowledge / the one thinking / intersubjective discourse (consensus,
dissensus, argumentation, consensus, etc.) / consensus omnium / the idea of the
ideal ;
● the object of knowledge / what is thought / monologous testing (experimental setup,
tests, observations) / adequatio intellectus ad rem / the idea of the real.
28. In this way, the idea "reality" regulates the objectivity of knowledge and
the idea "ideality" its subjectivity.
Paradigmatic paralysis is the collective result of scientific knowledge perverted by an
ontological illusion unchecked by transcendental criticism. If individual scientists do not
have the discipline to regularly reconsider their position vis-à-vis the ideas of the real and
the ideal, they will be bewitched by the identification of (a) their factual accounts with
reality-as-such and (b) the results of their intersubjective discourses with the ideal idea of
scientific dialogue. This creates a closed scientific community, an institution, cherishing the

monolith of the paradigmatic core, the new desacralized idol of those who know how to
speak the scientific language and claim a privilege over others in terms of their knowledge
of reality and intersubjectivity (language), either in the name of an exclusive window on
reality, or to accommodate the common good of an intellectual elite and its cherished
fancies.
To notice the illusion on the side of "reality", the use of the idea of the real is to be
restricted to three different contexts :
● reality-for-me : the irreducible perspective of the first person, the whole area of
covered by intentionality, intimacy, secrecy, privacy and the inner world of each and
every single conscious observer or subject of knowledge ;
● reality-for-us : factual, scientific object-knowledge produced, within a conventional
framework discussed, agreed upon & given beforehand, by testing, experimentation,
systematic observation, etc. ;
● reality-as-such : limit-concept of formal & critical cognition, representing, so must we
think, the extra-mental, extra-linguistic, theory-independent absolute, sheer absolute
reality or the ultimate nature of all.
To notice the illusion on the side of "ideality", the use of the idea of the ideal is to be
restricted likewise :
● ideality-for-me : the irreducible inner language-game of the first person, the whole
area of covered by conscious meaning, thoughts, imaginations and volitions, i.e. inner
mental objects giving form to signs as signals, icons and symbols ;
● ideality-for-us : the intersubjective object-knowledge produced by discourse and the
art of argumentation about the interpretation of ourselves and reality-for-us ;
● ideality-as-such : limit-concept of formal cognition representing the Ideal idea of an
absolute system of concepts encompassing all possible (inter)subjectivity, the "ideal
of ideals", the sheer absolute ideality or the ultimate mind knowing all.
The probable, historical but paradigmatic system we hold for true is possible if (a) subject
and object of knowledge are always both implied, and (b) the ideas of the ideal and the
real are used to regulate the process characterizing mental knowledge, not to constitute
the latter.
29. Let us distinguish between :
A.on the side of the object of knowledge :
theory / fact-for-us / REALITY =
regulative REAL OBJECT AS SUCH
criterion of truth : correspondence
B.on the side of the subject of knowledge :
"my" opinion / "our" discourse / IDEALITY =
regulative SUBJECT : IDEAL & UNIVERSAL
criterion of truth : consensus omnium

8 The coherency-theory of truth.
Successful experiments bring something to the fore. Creative thinking names the
something. At the point where the stuff of tests is symbolized, a proposition is formulated.
The extra-linguistic factor must not be exorcised and so "coherency" does not imply "truth"
to be mainly an intersubjective decision. Likewise, the truth-value of the proposition must
not solely depend on correspondence with reality, for facts are facts-for-us and, so must
we think, the heralds of the real thing, which is not quite the same.
Coherency then points to the balance between the two vectors and the leading ideas of the
critical theory of truth : language and consensus versus experiment and correspondence. A
"true" theory is one corroborated by repeated testing and approved after elaborate
discussions. It is "true" because the force-fields of both vectors have been allowed to play
and contribute to object-knowledge and its empirico-formal propositions and theories.
30. The imaginal, heuristic point of intersection between the ideas reality &
ideality is a knowledge-leading & knowledge-regulating fiction which
guarantees the progress of knowledge without ever constituting knowledge
itself. If it does, then it misleads knowledge, thus curtailing its unity & progress.
The progress of knowledge is guaranteed if we never allow its expanding movement to
stop. The latter happens when, after having considered "truth" as eternal, we fixate our
conceptual knowledge and replace its temporary status with a dogmatic closure, identifying
facts with reality-as-such and/or theories with ideality-as-such. The knowledge-horizon is
never attained and so knowledge is allowed to progress for ever. Practically, the actual
horizon may be limited by the extension of the observable physical universe, but given its
humungous size, millennia of discovery lie ahead.
To deeternalize truth in epistemology does not make eternal truth impossible. Like infinity,
and the absolute Real-Ideal, truth, beauty and goodness are limit-concepts of
transcendental thought, the ideas of reason. If we speculate about their being (as in
metaphysics), and use these ideas heuristically (as in immanent metaphysics), then we use
them to actualize truth, beauty & goodness. In transcendent metaphysics, a direct,
ineffable radical experience of them is at hand (cf. mysticism).
31. One of the tasks of epistemology, is to reflectively reconstrue the basic
normative system already used by scientists all the time.
32. Being part of epistemology, one of the tasks of methodology is to make
the normative system more concrete in terms of testability (experiment) &
linguistics (dialogue & argumentation).
9 On methodology.
Scientists are cognitive actors producing object-knowledge by way of corroborated
empirico-formal propositions and theories. Everyday observation also involves
experimentation & (inter) subjective naming, but, in the language-game of true knowing, a

more solid, inert and tenacious objectification is at hand. Here, a series of more lasting
connections between direct observable events is made, and categories of determination are
put forward to organize these connections. The following irreducible types of lawfulness
may be posited :
● causal determination : effect by efficient, external cause (example : a ball kicking
another ball) ;
● interaction : reciprocal causation or functional interdependence (example : the force
of gravity) ;
● statistical determination : end result by the joint activity of independent objects
(example : the long-run frequency of throwing two aces in succession is 1/36, the
position or momentum of a particle) ;
● teleological determination : of means by the ends (example : standardization) ;
● holistic determination : of parts by the whole (example : needs of an organ
determined by the organism).
Methodology transposes the necessities of experiment and communication to the local
research-cell in general and to the practical logic of its specific scientific studies in
particular. This causes a variety of local coordinations of scientific activity.
In physics, experiments will be at the core of research. But, unassisted by a constant
dialogue enabling refinements, novel interpretations and alternative views, testing is rather
futile, often off-mark and reduced to a standardized confirmation of established points of
view.
In human sciences, methodology turns into hermeneutics and participant observation. But,
if the interpretation of signals, icons and symbols is not balanced by a practical, open and
honest experience of a variety of intersubjective communities, then a fossilization takes
place, and the institutions of knowledge are an easy prey for the media money,
propaganda and power. As such, they cannot guarantee free study and, as authorities ex
cathedra, will eventually see their monolith crumble. The production of knowledge should
be protected against extreme forms of subjectification & objectification.
33. All conceptual knowledge is fallible. According to its form, the normative
system is necessary (universal & absolute), but according to its factual
contents, it is historical (particular, local & relative).
34. We have to think reality-as-such (ideality-as-such) necessarily as
knowable, without our minds ever being able to know whether we know this or
not.
The fallibility of empirco-formal knowledge does not invite radical skepticism. Not
everything is relative. Anything does not go (against Feyerabend). Some principles &
norms still necessary and constitute the normative discipline of knowledge. This has truth
as its aim, in the same way as taste has beauty and the justice has goodness as object.
The normative solution does not call thought & knowledge to find a sufficient ground
outside thinking & science. The ideas of reason have been used and are used. Epistemology
explains why this must be so. Rational (conceptual) thought cannot discover whether there
actually exists an absolute Real-Ideal behind (beyond) the theory-dependent facet of

object-knowledge. Facts remain "for us" and we must assume they reflect or mirror the
Real-Ideal. But, insofar as normative science goes, this could as well be a universal illusion.
35. Two antinomian regulations are necessary to arrive at valid, i.e. true
knowledge : on the one hand, a monological regulation (the path of
experiment), on the other hand, a dialogal regulation (the path of discourse &
discussion).
36. The imaginal point of intersection between the regulating norms is like the
permanently postponed horizon of our mental knowledge, guaranteeing its
order & expansion.
10 The fundamental norms of knowledge.
These compel science to walk the Two Ways, namely the paths of experiment and
communication. Focus on the object of knowledge leads to a monological regulation of
every experiment by the correspondence with the idea of the real. Likewise, every dialogue
aims at consensus and presupposes the idea of the ideal (of communication). Not to use
both norms in every cognitive act, is to move outside the domain of (formal) rationality.
37. A theory is "rational", when it (a) is logically well-fashioned, (b) does not
exclude dialogal symmetry and (c) allows for dialogue & discussion. If so, it is
an "arguable" theory.
11 The scientific status of a theory.
A theory is an arguable unity of propositions about ideality and/or reality. If a theory
cannot be discussed, then an irrational, ante-rational or trans-rational factor is implied.
These kind of theories are not rational, either because they reject the Factum Rationis, just
prelude rationality or pertain to Unknowing. Rationality and arguability are intimately
linked. In the adjacent theory of language, three criteria are fundamental : (a) rational
theories have a certain logic and format, (b) they do not exclude the ideals of
communication a priori and (c) they are open for discussions and confrontations with
opposing views. Note that for a theory to be rational, it does not need to be testable.
Scientific thought is rational and testable.
38. "Testability" & "arguability" are predicates which both must be
ascribable to every scientific theory.
Insofar as arguable, rational theories are not put to the test, they cannot belong to science
proper. A scientific theory X belongs to strict science if, and only if, X is corroborated and
consensual. For a rational theory to be strict science, it needs to be factual and trigger the
approval of all involved. Hence, strict science is the outcome of an application of both
vectors and adjacent regulations.

39. As a function of the status of a theory, three subdomains of scientific
endeavor ensue :
- proto-science : not tested and arguable ;
- strict science : corroborated and agreement ;
- semi-science : falsified and/or disagreement.
If a rational (arguable) theory does not refuse testing, it already belongs to the domain of
science. As proto-science, it reflects the order book of science, its tasks ahead. In
particular, the specific activities planned by each research-cell. If corroborated and
approved by others, it becomes strict science. If falsified by new experiments or
disagreement about it prevails or both, it becomes part of the large storehouse of outdated
(semi-) scientific theories.
40. Formally speaking, a theory may at first be proto-scientific, become strictly
scientific, and then semi-scientific. Finally, it is "metaphysical".
If a rational, semi-scientific theory can no longer be tested, it becomes metaphysical.
Likewise, all rational theories refusing or somehow escaping testing are metaphysical. The
only regulation left is arguability.
41. Two lines of demarcation stand out : on the one side, between the
sciences (proto-, strict & semi-) & metaphysics, in other words as a function of
the testability of done statements and, on the other side, between valid &
invalid metaphysics, in other words, as a function of the arguability of done
statements.
Science and metaphysics have arguability in common. Both can be checked using logic. But
testability is the crucial demarcation between them. Metaphysics cannot be tested. Science
is all about intelligent experimentation. Given the vast domain of metaphysics, covering all
rational theories and all former scientific theories, a second demarcation is introduced.
Valid metaphysics is arguable. As an immanent metaphysics, it must be able to argue a
comprehensive rational picture of the metaphysical horizon. Insofar as transcendent
metaphysics, being nondual, cannot be verbalized, all efforts to stretch beyond immanence
must be deemed futile and, at best, of exemplaric poetic value only. Can validation have
meaning in nondual terms ? As authenticity perhaps ?
42. Metaphysics is speculative & theoretical knowledge on being (ontology),
the cosmos (philosophical cosmology), life (philosophical biology), the human
(philosophical anthropology) & the Divine (philosophical Divinity). Metaphysics
may be divided into :
- valid metaphysics : arguable ;
- invalid metaphysics : unarguable.
12 Metaphysics and science.

Metaphysics is a rational theory dealing with the totality of possible relationships between
seer and seen. Elaborating upon this, brings the seer in touch with him or herself, with
other seers, with the world, and finally, with what transcends the world. If the first
relationship is the neutral core of the experience of seership, then the second and the third
bring to the fore the horizontal plane around this core. When the latter is transcended, the
vertical plane emerges. These three represent the personal, intersubjective and absolute
use of the ideas of reason (in particular, reality & ideality).
Let us, to format our proposed immanent metaphysics, devise a linguistic framework which
is directly derived from the structure of the sphere of observation. This is a universal &
necessary empirico-linguistic framework. Let us ponder this :
All empirico-formal statements of fact made by a seer about the seen are always &
everywhere necessarily framed by the local sphere of observation of the seer, globally
defined by a horizontal plane with four cardinal points of reference (East, South, West,
North) and a vertical plane with two points of reference (Nadir, Zenith), i.e. six directions.
Consider the following :

● horizon of observation = field of consciousness of the observer, defined by four
possible divergent quarters and situated in the neutral origin of the sphere, O (0,0,0)
and the divergent interconnectedness of all objects facing the seer ;
● prime vertical = evolutionary field of the seer, from origin to final goal and the
convergent evolution of each seer ;
● P1, P2, ... = set of orientations given to the observer within the boundaries of the
sphere ;
● diurnal hemisphere = the realm of rational consciousness ;
● nocturnal hemisphere = the realm of irrational and ante-rational consciousness ;
● the sphere itself = the totality of all immanent realities and idealities of every
observer ;
● beyond the sphere = the trans-rational, the ineffable.
Although each observation is unique (using a exclusive local sphere), its constituents are
universal (defining the global sphere). If each local sphere is linked with a particular
"reality-for-me", the global sphere is related to the planetary "reality-for-us". The
horizontal plane is associated with the diversity of beings, the way they interconnect
(although divergent) and their respective "horizon" or limitations, whereas the vertical
plane is used to construe the evolutionary process in which each is involved (moving from
origin -Nadir- to final end -Zenith-), implying the dynamical convergence of each.
Metaphysics formulates an onto-categorial scheme. In it, the basic operators of being are
described.
43. Distinguish normative philosophy from theoretical metaphysics using the
coercive necessity of the rules of the game. These are fixed by the former by
reflecting on the conditions of the possibility of the logical (correct), the
epistemological (true), the esthetical (beautiful) & the ethical (good) conduct
of humanity. Together, normative philosophy & valid metaphysics make out
the field of philosophy.
Over time, the role of philosophy has been more and more narrowed down. Gradually,
many of its pursuits were taken over by theology, psychology, physics, cosmology and
others. In the late 20th century, the difference between academical philosophy and
philosophy per se was made clear. The former focused on the logistics and the strategies of
historical philosophy, whereas the latter is a novel synthesis of theoretical (as in writing
and teaching) as well as practical aims (as in advising and assisting). The interaction
between "theoria" & "praxis" is the corner-stone of the dialectical tension called in to
uphold the effort and avoid fossilization (institutionalization, canonization, eternalization).
Critical philosophy is divided in normative & descriptive philosophy. The former is a formal

discipline involving principles, norms & maxims, and subdivided in critical epistemology,
critical esthetics and critical ethics. Its main task is to syntactically differentiate between
valid & invalid empirico-formal propositions, esthetical judgments and ethical valuations.
The standard used is rooted in the Factum Rationis. So transcendental logic, the rule of
principles, is common to all three normative disciplines.
Valid metaphysics is a semantic discipline, seeking to understand things insofar as they are
and this in a comprehensive way, involving expanding layers of relatedness between a
person and him/herself, the others, the world and the absolute.
44. Metaphysics can never be completely driven out from the field of
knowledge. This means the field of the paradigm of knowledge equals the sum
of scientific statements and valid metaphysics.
45. Valid metaphysics inspires the sciences (heuristics & "ars inveniendi"),
promotes openness & pluralism (it is better to think more possibilities than
only a few) and hence stimulates a critical interdisciplinary dialogue.
Greek and Scholastic philosophy was foundational and ontological. Especially the realists
(Platonic or Peripatetic) sought to subjugate the possibility of knowledge to a theory of
being. Moreover, in the Middle Ages, revealed knowledge was deemed more superior than
rational and empirical knowledge. The former originated from the Divine Mind, whereas the
latter were reflections.
It was this metaphysics of transcendence gone wild, which critical philosophy, starting with
Kant, tries to bridle.
By 1850, spawned by the industrial revolution and its technological wonders, a new
materialist synthesis was reached. Taken beyond itself by hubris, metaphysics and religion
were deemed to belong to an earlier stage of human knowledge. They had to be exorcised
out of science, only based on sense-data. But with relativity, quantum and chaos, the
picture changed, confirming the interdependence of object and subject. The latter is an
open, problem-solving, intelligent producer of signals, icons & symbols. These evolve from
notions, to concepts, ideas, propositions, conjectures and theories. As scientific theories
are not fixed entities, but may become semi-scientific or metaphysical, the spectrum of
knowledge is a dynamical totality, in which metaphysics cannot be eliminated. Moreover, in
order to articulate a propositions and conduct an experiment, an irreducible metaphysical
background knowledge is needed, without which words would remain silent and no test
could be performed (cf. Popper). Hence, to make this implicit background explicit, is the
crucial task of epistemology. This cannot be done without the study of metaphysical
systems and the validity of their arguments.
To speculate is to imagine thoughts systematically. This comes very close to invention and
improvisation. To build an immanent metaphysical system is a creative activity and escapes
the transcendental rationality of formal reason. A creative thinking takes place. The
difference with art is the rational necessities linked with trying to understand the totality of
existence. To do so, the speculative activities of the metaphysician counterpoint the
scientific paradigm.
46. An invalid metaphysics is characterised by :
(a) an incorrect, inefficient & contradictory formal language or syntax, and/or

(b) the unilateral hypertrophy of object and/or subject or semantics, and/or
(c) the impossibility to judge done statements (pragmatics).
47. These characteristics are also valid for our understanding of "irrationality".
Hence, all invalid metaphysics are irrational.
A valid metaphysical system is discussed and approved. This means (a) internally, the
system is without syntactic, semantic and pragmatic flaws, (b) the system per se is
arguable and (c) externally, competing with other systems, it covers more ground in a
better way.
Some metaphysical systems are invalid a priori. Without being discussed and found lacking
strong arguments, these systems are rejected on logical grounds. Besides compliance with
formal criteria, the presence of both object and subject of speculation is necessary, as is
the possibility to argue statements derived from the system.
48. Rationality is the privilege of subjects of knowledge willing to communicate
well, using a well-proportioned and correct language (semantics & syntax),
allowing for discourse, i.e. argumentation & consensus (pragmatics).
49. Inconsistency is a failure of the syntactic conditions which are rationality's
own and is a distinguishing mark of irrationality if and only if :
(a) the inconsistency attacks the axiomatic foundation of the theory ; and
(b) this absurdity can in no way be reduced to a determinable, efficient
measure.
13 Language and the criteria of discourse.
Language is the outcome of the cognitive process of transforming experiences into signs or
glyphs (signals, icons & symbols), intended to be used to communicate with other
intelligent systems. Signs indicate parameters, icons representations and symbols
conceptual content. The latter also refer to the three fundamental parts of the brain :
reptilian, mammalian and human (cf. Chapter 4). This broad definition includes the
languages of the natural world, from crystalline structures and their geometrical qualities to
the complex social structure of the mammal in its biotope, as well as the languages of
science and art.
A glyph (from the Greek "glyphe" or "carved work") is the physical presence of some
distinguishing, differentiating material condition or activity, understood by way of its
meaning (semantics), its order (syntax) and recurrent practice (pragmatics). Glyphs always
trace a contrast with their environment, involving (single or a combination of) visual,
auditive, olfactory, gustatory or tactile experiences. Glyphs are hence meaningful & wellformed
states of matter. To understand this, consciousness is necessary. To measure its
form, information is indispensable.
● pragmatism or matter (hardware) : a glyph is an executive material aggregate,
composed of matter ;

● syntax or information (software) : by virtue of the laws of symmetry which describe
its well-formed code and non-redundant information, a glyph is an ordered
architecture ;
● semantics or consciousness (userware) : a glyph is a source of meaning, develops a
unique perspective or conscious outlook, suggestive of the ability to auto-redefine,
auto-regulate and auto-reorganize as a function of the degree of intelligence (or
freedom).
Language is not only an artifact of the human being. It is not restricted to the spoken or
written word. Art & body-language are good examples of non-verbal languages. Also in the
natural world, signals and icons are used. Signals involve the protection of territory and
show who is on top. Icons try to represent a complex network in a relatively simple image
(like bees dancing the direction to food). So in this broad definition of language, all cultural
forms are languages but not all languages are cultural forms. Culture always implies
conservation and the transmission of meaning to the next generation (which is absent in
most of the mineral, vegetal, and animal world).
Of course, the production of sounds (in music and through the spoken word) is an excellent
way to trace the characteristic distinctions of a glyph. Sound is not noise. The latter is
homogenous & chaotic, i.e. in noise, entropy and redundancy are always high. No distinct
meanings are conveyed, no specific order or differentiation can be recorded and a long
exposure to too much local noise even causes one to hear less (negative pragmatical
result). Auditive pollution by noise has negative effects on health, both physical
(deprivation of sleep) as psychological (stress).
On the one hand, sound-glyphs exist as distinguishable entities "carved" in air. These
distinguishing features are clear and distinct when the level of noise is low and the
articulation of the characteristic meaningful acoustic form is well performed (low
redundancy). 20th century Classical and to a lesser extent Popular music have
demonstrated the line between noise and sound is relative. However, the return of tonality,
polytonality & the non-alleatoric show sounds cannot be produced with (educated) noise
alone ...
On the other hand, sound-glyphs are volatile. Before the technical ability existed to record
them, they were always lost. Hence, as soon as humans understood the advantages of
recording these sounds for future reference and (re)transmission, history started. Oral
traditions were slowly replaced by written testimony. Of course, prehistoric glyphs other
than sounds existed (like artifacts, rituals, pictorial art etc.), but their meaning can not be
established as distinctly and unambiguously, and the information derived from them is
always prone to redundancy.
The process of recording sound-glyphs implied the standardization of sounds, which came
about either by drawing pictures of the object denoted by the sound-glyph (the logogram)
or by isolating individual sounds, as it were reducing the spoken to its elements or
"phonemes" (from the Greek "phonoma", or "speech sound" and "phonein", or "to sound").
The moment these spoken sound-glyphs are recorded as individual written glyphs,
phonograms emerge (from the Greek "gramma", or "the written"). Phonograms are the
foundation of all written languages, although in archaic languages, like early Sumerian,
logography was predominant, suggesting phonography was derived from logography. In

Ancient Middle Egyptian, the phonograms were represented by pictorial representations
without vocalizations, causing a static "sacred" writing system to emerge, which differed
from the spoken language.
The four actors in this cycle are the environment, the sender, the message and the
receiver. Each actor is stimulated by a source and in turn becomes a source of stimuli :
1. environment : collective, conventional information or code is stored in the collective
data bank (or collective memory) which acts as a source of information concerning
the cultural form at hand (education & socialization) ;
2. sender : the stimuli of the environment are received by the info-receptor of an
individual sender, who integrates the information and (tries to) author an original,
individualized response, which is a variation on the theme of the collective code ;
3. message : the actual response of the sender is a message which is a symptom of the
response and the source of symbolic activity sent to a receiver ;
4. receiver : the symbols received are integrated by the receiver who has access to the
collective code and who integrates the received symbols in the repertoire of the data
bank of the collective and communicates the integrated symbols of the message.
Each phase of the process may be flawed by possible errors in transmission : the
information of the collective may be misunderstood by the sender and/or the latter may
represent the info-source by means of an alienating symptom. The message itself may
contain redundancy (due to noise), eclipsing the original intent of the sender. The receiver
may misunderstand the symbol and integrate it inadequately, adding sullied information to
the collective data bank. The more the cycle is corrupted, the less coherent a cultural form
becomes.
50. Rationality implies a principle of symmetry (equality in speech and
freedom of action), a language which is formally correct and a theory of
argumentation.
51. Regarding the theory of argumentation, preference is given to a model of

judgment built on game-theory, i.e. the definition of the logical system and
rules of discussion are chosen beforehand by the discussers.
Strategic speech-acts are not communicational but efficient & utilitaristic. They create the
iron cage of alienation, in which humans only exchange glyphs for the sake of some outer,
material goal, like the production, exchange or acquisition of some thing. By making
language an instrument of some extrinsic process, the essence of communication, namely
to share truth, beauty and goodness, is lost.
The strategic use of language is the arena of the media power, propaganda and money.
Top/bottom relationships, deception and the building up of capital for the sake of capital,
are precisely devoid of the symmetry characterizing genuine communication. They
depersonalize humans and turn them into objects to be manipulated and used for the sole
benefit of those who have the power, the data and the money to take away a person's
freedom or parts thereof. Hence, they are the language of the sadist. Those who willingly
bow and comply because of the received painful benefits, those who put on the chains
themselves and willingly crawl into the cage of their masters, are the masochists, as
Nietzsche correctly observed. Both in philosophy and science this kind of discourse must be
absent. It cannot help to attain truth and so is eliminated from the desktop of those who
wish to truly communicate. In sado-masochistic contexts, equality in speech is abrogated.
The slave can only speak if so allowed by his master. Freedom of action is also gone, for
the movements of the slave are controlled by the master. As the slave exists for the sole
benefit of the master, all communication between them is reduced to signals of obedience,
icons of humiliation and strategic symbols (glyphs intending the satisfaction of the top
only).
If we communicate, we do so on an equal basis. Everyone is free to say what they like and
nobody is able to enforce their position upon another. Besides this symmetry, the value of
statements must be checked. This implies a theory of argumentation. To make sure the
latter is not an idealized canon, its rules must be discussed and approved beforehand. In
this way, all concerned parties agree upon the way to handle dissensus and a clear-cut
assessment of statements can be made. Strong arguments back a statement and make it
more likely than those unable to provide such a warrant.
Book 2
Applied Epistemology
52. Consider the practice of knowledge as a dynamical interplay between, on
the one hand, dialogue and the rules of argumentation and, on the other hand,
participant observation and the rules of experimentation.
14.The practice of knowledge.
To ask : Quid juris ? is to foster the normative approach prevailing in theoretical
epistemology. As such, validity and justification of knowledge rule over how it is produced.

Here, the logic of discovery answers the question : Quid facti ? This is the difference
between the idea of a stable and universal method and the constant revision of standards,
procedures and criteria as one moves along and enters new research areas. The difference
between the principles of transcendental logic, the norms of theoretical epistemology and
the maxims of applied epistemology.
From the perspective of the history of science, most, but not all, rules are violated at some
time or other. The community of science, as the sociology of science testifies, is not a set
of ideal subjects, but a living group of learned people who evidence the oldest rule in the
book : Errare humanum est ! In order not to be entrapped by ontological illusion, scientists
need the basic normative system uncovered by theoretical epistemology. What scientists
have been doing (diachronical) and what they do today (synchronical), is not identical with
the norms of knowledge they are always using (and abusing). These makes knowledge
possible and guarantee its unity and expansion.
Theoretical and applied epistemology are both necessary. The former may be compared to
"statute-law", universal, imperative and normative, the latter to "casus-law", local,
adaptive and descriptive. Contextualism and decontextualization are both necessary, and
so emphasis on either "what must" or "what is", is lacking. Lakatos invoked a pluralistic
system of authority between them.
In applied epistemology, the context of knowledge-production is studied, and so the norms
of knowledge are not made explicit. In every concrete situation they are at work and are
addressed. Theoretical epistemology is general & necessary (a priori), applied epistemology
is contextual & situational (a posteriori). The latter affirms the laws of discovery to be
context-specific and complex, far beyond the capacities of a simple formal logic.
The general structure of applied epistemology is derived from theoretical insights, for (a)
the subject of knowledge and its norms becomes the subject of experience and (b) the
object of knowledge and its norms, the object of experience. In physical science, the latter
is given form as the rules of experimentation, whereas in the human sciences, the rules of
participant observation are applied. Both make use of this-or-that actual discourse, with its
non-strategic communication (dialogue, dissensus, argumentation, consensus).
The principles of transcendental logic (derived from the pre-critical arena of
communication), give rise to the norms of theoretical epistemology. The latter are
normative rules which assist the practice of knowledge as maxims organizing the
opportunistic logic of discovery. These maxims are not like binding norms. Deviation from
them is possible, but not advisable. Violating a maxim does not entail the end of the
possibility, unity & expansion of knowledge, but slows down its manufacture. The process
of production is not halted (and replaced by an illusion), but its efficiency drops. Hence, the
research-cell at hand will suffer and become a less attractive competitor in the market of
available facts.
53. Move against ontological rigidity by regularly investigating all possible
deviations between the norms of the theory of knowledge (what must) and the
maxims of the practice of knowledge (what is).
54. Try, as soon as a given production-process of knowledge demonstrably
deviates from the a priori norms, to bridge the gap by provoking a discussion
between the other actors of the production-process.

The maxims of applied epistemology try to operationalize the effort of maximalizing the
production of knowledge. They are inspired by the norms of knowledge. In this case,
ontological rigidity has to be identified and cancelled. In a research-cell, experiment and
communication are both crucial. If too little discourse is taking place, or a one-sided
experimental course is pursued, provocation is called in to stimulate pluralism and
dissensus.
This could be summarized by saying free study is part of any intelligent research-cell.
55. Consider reality-as-such (and ideality-as-such) as knowable, although this
might be a universal illusion.
Empirico-formal propositions, statements of fact or object-knowledge are the product of the
vectors experimentation and discourse (dissensus, argumentation, consensus). By virtue of
the theory-dependent facet of facts, in other words, their mental and linguistic codetermination,
one cannot know whether our theories indeed coincide with the Real-Ideal
(the point where all of reality is known to all concerned). On the one hand, objectknowledge,
so theoretical epistemology worked out, is always "for us". This limits the scope
of science and stops the foundational and outrageous pretence witnessed in science at the
beginning of the last century, as there were : logical positivism, epiphenomenalism,
materialism, instrumentalism, scientism, etc. On the other hand, one cannot think thought
or knowledge without the necessity of accepting facts also, extra-mentally, extralinguistically
and theory-independently, carry the letters of belief of reality-as-such.
In the practice of knowledge, it is this last "face" of facts which is of particular importance.
For here we temporarily suspend our criticism and so allow the limitations of our
possibilities to be overtaken by our hubris and emotional need to think reality (ideality) in
such a way both become transparant and tangible. We know this cannot be the case, but
realize the question Quid facti ? impels us to do so. For in the latter case, we are no longer
normative philosophers working out the possibility, unity & expansion of knowledge, as it
were guaranteeing for ourselves we may think and know, but, as scientists, are thrown in
the arena of direct observation and discourse. Both entail the need to think reality &
ideality as open books in which we read the story-line of the real-ideal. Surely this is not
the case, and we fool ourselves with an opaque, clouded version of the latter. However, if
this concept, necessary in theory, would be constantly before the scientists in their
laboratory or discourse, a constant bewilderment would ensue, for our emotional need of
security would be in jeopardy and we would fixate this issue instead of what happens "on
the field".
For this reason, this maxim is introduced to allow scientists to suspend this critical
dimension and work as if reality-as-such & ideality-as-such are available in all their
absolute glory ... It is clear this maxim is not based on theoretical epistemology, and rather
conflicts with it. Indeed, the maxim can not be justified in any normative way (as in
statutory norms), but only satisfies the a posteriori descriptions of what scientists do and
need in practice, in this case a temporal satisfaction of an emotional need, which is
particular and contextual (as in casus-law).

56. Act in the practice of knowledge as if facts (reality-for-us) coincide with
reality-as-such.
57. Act in the practice of knowledge as if the factual agreements (the
consensus-for-us) coincides with the universal consensus omnium.
15 Methodological "as if"-thinking.
In the practice of knowledge, scientists, supposed to be aware of the issues raised by
theoretical epistemology, suspend the distinctions between test-results and reality-as-such,
as well as between the actual consensus and the consensus omnium. The game is played
as if it were possible to gaze the Real-Ideal in the face and directly derive true knowledge
from this.
58. Realise this "as if"-thinking can not be legitimised by the theory of
knowledge, but is rather linked up with the anthropological need for regularity.
The reasons why the above maxim is introduced are not normative, but descriptive, in
particular psychological. Human beings, rooted in mammalian, limbic reflexes, need to
experience repeated patterns.
As depth-psychology has shown, we often organize ourselves in such a way as to satisfy
the need to have positive experiences confirmed and negative avoided. This lust-principle is
not processed in the neocortex of the brain, and so cannot be based on symbols. Instead,
the dynamics of lust is mediated by icons, representations, visualizations, images and
fantasy. These trigger the deep-seated memories stored in the hippocampus, the archivekeeper
of the brain. The hippocampus has regulatory effect on the thalamus, the gate
through which all information carried by the sensoric axons enters the central nervous
system. Here, these afferents are pre-processed to branch out to the relevant cortical
areas. The hippocampus may block (with or without the thalamus) sensory input to the
neocortex and regulate the autonomous nervous system by maintaining emotional
equilibrium. As such, the hippocampus does not process the generation of emotional
states, but memorizes them. The recognition of patterns is therefore a highly emotional
affair.
There is no good reason why scientists should expect the same constantly, quite on the
contrary. This need for regularity may lead to dogmatism and an irrational attachment to
identical or quasi-identical frame-works. That this may lead to bad science, is amply shown
when scientists are confronted with effects they do not understand and/or undermine the
stability of their emotional expectations, as parapsychological research had made clear.
Confronted with telekinesis, most of them reject the laboratory-experiences afterwards and
because of this dissensus, no fact can be recorded. This unwillingness to discuss the
possibility of facts contradicting the core of their paradigm, has done more harm to the
science of parapsychology than the so-called impossibility to trigger and repeat
extraordinary instances of remote viewing and the like. Let us call this the Bellarmineeffect,
after Robert Cardinal Bellarmine (1542 - 1621), who administered the controversial
admonition to Galileo not to hold or defend the Copernican theory, in conflict with the
geocentric theology of the Roman Catholic Church of his days ...
The same goes for other disciplines on the periphery of the paradigm, like homeopathy,
astrology, magic, alchemy and other so-called "occult" and "irrational" statements. As

correlation is not causality, and the latter needs theory (i.e. discourse), an irrational block
has been put in place. Because of such an attitude, these irregular claims have not been
properly dealt with, for scientists fear the ridicule of their peers and so prefer to kill the
messenger instead of properly disproving the message.
In science, openness implies not to expect the same effect, but, on the contrary, inquire
whether the repetition is not of our own making. A strict experimental setup, defined by a
stringent protocol, points in that direction. We wish to trace our conditioned reflex, as well
as our need to face the unknown. We want to make sure we are not fooling ourselves, and
so experiments (and discussions) are repeated in different research-cells over the world.
Confirmation by the duplication of results is the best guarantee we have against projecting
expectation on test-results, i.e. fabricating pseudo-facts (as in pseudo-science). This works
out well for theories staying within our common Newtonian perspective on things. But if a
novel and undermining effect is recorded (like non-locality in physics), scientists tend to
turn their backs, disregard the effect or together indulge in the wrong kind of silence,
namely indifference.
Hence, this maxim may serve its purpose or backfire. Fear for the unknown, peer-pressure,
irrational certainty, dogmatism and skepticism work to make it a dangerous tool in
research. If these emotions can be bridled, the expectation of regularity will assist science
in its discovery of patterns and laws.
59. Act as if objects of knowledge "exist" but leave room for a discussion about
the experimental results (methodological realism) and act as if subjects of
knowledge "think" but leave room for new experiments (methodological
idealism). This is a game in which the final term (existence = thinking) is
permanently suspended.
The two regulators (experiment and discourse) have to assist each other. If we consider,
for the sake of methodology, our test-results as real, we need to discuss whether there are
no alternative interpretations. If we consider our consensus as ideal, we need to test to
observe whether novel facts emerge. Lack of this, will eventually slow down the
manufacture of knowledge. The game is played without final terms, and so the ongoing
production of knowledge is in no way halted.
60. The rules of dialogue and argumentation are grounded in communicative
action. The latter is based on a common definition of context (negotiation) and
a problem-solving behavior (execution), coordinated by consensus. It is crucial
to avoid pseudo-communication (like in the case of the perlocution).
61. A valid dialogue-language has rules for :
(1) communicative quality (symmetry a priori & a posteriori) ;
(2) form : Fregean & non-Fregean ;
(3) meaning : different types of "discourses" ;
(4) argumentation : formal 3 rules (cf. Lorenzen & Barth).
16. Practical communication.

"Locution" refers to the literal meaning of a given speech act. Hence, "illocution" refers to
the effect the speaker intends to achieve in making the utterance, while "perlocution"
refers to the actual effect the utterance has upon the audience. The "perlocution" of a
speech act is thus the way it is received by an audience. It is affected by "extralocutionary"
factors, such as strategic intentions kept secret for the sake of some hidden
agenda, asymmetry between speakers and/or coercive acts, all intolerable in the context of
the practice of knowledge. For Habermas, perlocution always involves teleological acts
aimed at success. It is strategic in all cases. In communicative action, the latter have to be
put aside, for genuine communication has no other aim than to establish truth by way of
speech acts.
The difference between instrumental action and strategic action helps to define
communicative action.
Instrumental action Strategic action
object of experience subject of experience
actor - environment actor - actor
theory of decision game theory
things & events persons
objects & processes intersubjectivity
lack of information strategic uncertainty
technology strategy
behavioral modification social action
Communicative action turns strategic uncertaintly into symmetry, stategy into absence of
coercion and social action into an intersubjective quest for consensus.
In daily speech acts, strategic communications, although rejected in the practice of
knowledge, are very common. Constantly people communicate in order to get something
done or influence others. Hence, strategic speech acts are far more common than genuine
communicative action. Because of this, scientific communication is a rather rare and
restricted language-game, played by a subset of possible sign-interpreters. So in science,
intersubjectivity is defined as the community of all involved delineators of signals, icons &
symbols.
The discourse needed in applied epistemology has to abide by certain rules :

● the quality of such a communication is optimalized by making sure nobody is forced
to speak or hindered to do so. A priori, all parties anticipate and presuppose the ideal
speech-situation. A posteriori, in the actual discourse, they all work hard to realize
this symmetry and lack of coercion. None of them has strategic intentions, and all
done speech acts have intrinsic value and interest. Relative goals outside the
immediate speech acts are not present ;
● the form used to communicate has to be logically valid, implying all have to agree
which kind of logic will be used to establish the truth-value of statements and their
propositional reference to reality. In that respect, two broad categories of logic exist :
the formal, classical, Fregean structures, devoid of semantic or the non-Fregean, nonformal
logics, working with representations, analogies, metaphors and lateral
methods (cf. De Bono, NLP and the techniques of brainstorming) ;
● dialogal context is intimately related to form. The various branches of science are so
many subsets of intersubjective activities manufacturing object-knowledge, working
with a semantic in tune with their respective fields of experimentation. In
publications, results are shared, allowing others to duplicate the latter through
experimentation and communicative action within their own contexts ;
● finally, the concrete rules of argumentation have to be discussed. They are the metarules
of the meta-system of logic, or formal 3 rules.
The division between Fregean & non-Fregean logics is recent. Indeed, traditionally, classical
& non-classical logic are Fregean throughout. It was Aristotle who initiated Fregean
deductive reasoning by eliminating the contents of the propositions and judging their
validity exclusively on the basis of the truth-value of the logical operators "not", "and", "or"
and "if-then". The importance of this kind of approach is unmistaken and has eventually
developed into the imperative algorithms used by most of our computers. Every step of the
argument can be checked using formal rules, devoid of semantics. Given the initial
positions (the axioms), a series of hypothesis may be inferred which, when proven correct,
turn into theorems. This formal calculus does not allow or has difficulty with stochastic
variations (the element of probability & chance) or non-linear attractors (the element of
chaos). This could be seen as the logic of formal representation, the way of the linear
straight line (instead of the non-linear curve). Formal logic tries to develop closed,
complete & consistent representations, in which no "bugs" or randomness occur. Moreover,
although impossible (cf. Gödel), it also invokes completeness, i.e. the calculus foresees all
possible logical situations beforehand.
Non-Fregean logics are non-formal representations in mini-worlds by analogy. Problems are
isolated and transferred to such a representation or register. In this "small" world, the
problem is solved and then reintroduced into the main frame of the argument. In this
elliptic way, the argument do not follow an imperative course, but as the meandering river,
adapts to the ever changing circumstances. There is no attempt to represent the whole or
to seek complete solutions. Para-consistency (the fact paradoxes always remain present
within the system) is not fought (but efficiently handled) and there is no absolute, but
relative predictability.
The study of Artificial Intelligence has shown the importance of non-imperative algorithms,

able to process novelty & randomness, as well as multiple userware inputs. Non-Fregean
systems are therefore the way of the curve, not the line.
These two broad and general systems have three branches : syntax, semantics and
pragmatics. The first rules the rules, the second contents and the third application.
Fregean systems tend to reduce contents to syntax. They inflate structure, and attribute
truth exclusively to the form of the argument. Indeed, semantics is more than just the
identification of certain symbols with certain meanings. In non-Fregean approaches,
symbols "throw together" a wide array of meanings and fuse these together, so as to form
a dense semantic core around which a variety of meanings circumambulate, defining a
particular and unique semantic field.
In living systems, the use of natural symbols is common. Natural languages are able to
convey a complex network of meanings with a relatively small number of symbols, as do
art and non-verbal communication. In this synthetic, connotative area, formal logic is
unable to penetrate and its analytics is completely off the mark. This shows both systems
have to work complementary, but in "real life" formal logic proves to be the exception (the
architecture or backbone), whereas elliptic systems are the rule (the evolution, the
symmetry-breaks).
Regarding the adopted theory of argumentation, let us follow the distinctions introduced by
Barth & Krabbe (1978) :
1. formal rules : the classical formal logic of the language used, the logical constants ;
2. formal 2 rules : the rules of use of the logical constants ;
3. formal 3 rules : the rules of argumentation.
Whenever dissensus occurs, a new discourse is organized, preluded by a mutual agreement
regarding the rules of the game of logic. These are the two meta rules, covering the
measurement of truth and the validity of a given argumentation. Systems A can be called
objectively better than system B, if there is at least 1 logical problem solved by A which is
not by B while there is no logical problem solved by B which is not solved by A. The rules of
argumentation cover the process by which validity is established.
62. Accept specific, empirical criteria of judgment a posteriori. They are the
result of the particular way in which practical processes of learning are
institutionally concretized in the given research-cell.
63. These criteria a posteriori are the tangible background of each real
conversation. So the meaning of the notion "ideal speech-situation" may vary.
17 Judgments a posteriori.
Scientists organize themselves and in doing so institutionalize. They form groups,
departments, schools, universities & research institutions. Besides the development and

unity of knowledge, other social and psychological issues ensue. Judgments are not only
based on strict experimental and dialogal evidence, but also on situational, local, contextual
parameters.
A certain way of doing things raised to the height of a maxim, begs for the loss of free
study. Nevertheless, in every research-cell, in every unity of knowledge-production, a
series of rules of thumb emerge, a certain style is applied, and both directly influence
decisions and the way the future of science is handled by that cell, department or
institution. This is disturbing and brings in the psychology & sociology of science. This is not
only a tale of randomness, of "anything goes", of outrageous discriminations, Bellarmineeffects,
and strategies detrimental to the possibility of knowledge itself. Scientists, like
everybody else, do more than try to pay their bills and keep up the esteem of their peers.
Of course, they do need money and may be tempted by applause.
If institutions abuse of these maxims to mock the normative necessity to experiment &
discuss issues, and let a posteriori whims negate a priori norms, then such institutions are
no longer the places where knowledge is produced. The academia and the universities are
called to turn all knowledge towards unity, as reason demands. They should be safe havens
for free study and be open to all possibilities. They should not dependent on the markets
and their strategic commerce. The normative ideals of truth, beauty and goodness must be
their aim and work. If they fail, the true, operational value of academic degrees "in the
field" will diminish and a whole generation will have been fooled.
64. The criteria a posteriori must be questionable. This should be made
exclusively dependent of the communicative will of those concerned and aims
to oppose the colonization of the discourse by money & power.
The present philosophical investigations are the fruit of a free study, unhindered by the
media money, propaganda and power. The latter bring a posteriori rules into play, which
disable the scientist to ascertain the facts in an open, multidisciplinary and honest way.
Regrettably, many of our universities are no longer turned towards unity. Instead, they
have become polyversities accommodating neoliberal market forces and the worship of the
modernist monolith. In such a perspective, the periphery of science is kept abay, as are
paradigmatic shifts.
65. Be aware function-optimalisation in intelligent systems happens among
other things by representing problems in a non-Fregean way, for example in a
mini-world, solving them there and then transferring the solution back to the
original scale.
66. To optimalize the quality of the knowledge-practice of subjects, creative
training-programmes must be executed, so elements which were not joined
are put together and through analogy & metaphor new insights may ensue.
18 Optimalisations.
Besides the constant presence of an independent critical function, thinking the limitations
of thought & knowledge, applying the norms of knowledge, identifying & restoring

transgressions, etc. each research-cell, department or institution may optimalize the output
of the production-unity by installing a creative function, allowing brainstorming, inventivity
& non-linear (chaotic) movements & actions to happen. On a regular basis, both functions
should be used to facilitate the production of knowledge and the subsequent valour of the
research. Both functions are optimalisations countering the uncertainty & possible excess
caused by judging a posteriori.
67. To produce knowledge, the maxims "test" & "talk" must, as soon as
disagreement occurs, be divided from each other and be joined again as soon
as consensus is reached. The knowledge concerned may be taken as true.
19 Producing facts.
The production of knowledge is a construction. So the products of science are not the result
of researching that-what-is, but a selection carved out from whatever "is". Facticity is
fabrication. Facts are, as the Latin root "facere" indicates, that which has been made. Not
the vocabulary of Nature is at hand, but the constant conjunctions fabricated in the
research-cell, fulfulling the "sense" of truth in terms of instrumental production &
communicative action. Succes in making things and persons work is the bottom line of the
application of the norms of knowledge.
The critical function of the research-cell, embodied by a single individual or a team,
organizes the constant tension between the two formal parts of the undivided
intersubjective research-community : the subject of experience or "theory" and the object
of experience or "facts". The former is an intersubjective language-game regulated by
consensus, a dialogue between the members of the research-cell, aiming to produce a
concise and valid theory about some thing by means of communicative action. The latter is
a monologous experimental procedure or set of instrumental actions regulated by
correspondence, an immediate confrontation with facts as if with reality-as-such.
While routine investigations are happening, regular discourses are needed to test the
solidity of the consensus. As soon as dissensus occurs, communicative action is suspended
to focus on testing. Test-results are then discussed, leading to a better articulation of the
theory at hand. When a new consensus dawns, regular discourse & experimentation
recommence.
68. A flexible pulse between experimentation & language characterises the
ideal practice of knowledge. Dialogandi & experimenters are conscious of the
frontiers of their respective fields of action.
The critical function allows each members of the team to become aware of the alternative
regulator. A redefinition of the proper field is possible, and this well beyond the limitations
imposed by either experimentation or communicative action. The two sides of the equation
of thought need to be connected but also kept apart. Their inner tension is possible,
necessary and productive. Without the activity of the critical function, ontological illusion
comes into play, pushing research into the perverting polarity between either
"physical" (testing) sciences (like physics, chemistry, biology) or "human" (talking)
sciences (like anthropology, linguistics, psychology, sociology, economy). Although

emphasis on either side is possible, all sciences thrive on experimentation and language,
and the critical know-how to differentiate between them.
69. Be aware testing & conversing are possible because of partly metaphysical
& unalienable background-information.
The creative function, embodied by a single individual or a team, is heuristic. As such, its
aim is to bring in new vistas and suggest novel connections, either between the
components of the theory, between the experimenter and the experimental apparatus, or
between both regulations. Creative sessions are organized in which the metaphysical
assumptions of the team are made explicit and then discussed. The background against
which all research takes place is noted and also discussed. The influence of this on current
research is described. Theories are challenged by alternatives and the potential of the Ars
inveniendi is to be constantly raised. The creative function may foster lateral, non-Fregean
thinking. It may suggest new circumstantial conditions of conducting research, going from
the psychology of the team-members, their proper diet, to the wall-paper of the research
facility, etc. It works at the periphery of the research-paradigm, and stands under the
authority of the critical function.
70. Be aware the production of knowledge is only possible because of an
opportunistic logic which states that the actors of a research-cell develop a
local "know-how" determining what works & what does not (methodological
relativism).
71. Be aware this logic of local habits also influences quantitative factors and
control-mechanisms.
20 The opportunistic logic of knowledge-production.
Besides a series of rules of thumb and judgments a posteriori, a local body of "know-how"
determines the overall operations of the research-cell, understood as a local accumulation
of facts from previous operations. This logic is opportunistic and strategic. It bears the
mark of local contingency and subjective interest structures. It aims at the optimalization
of effective results, and defines in practical terms which experiments and/or discourses
produce facts and which do not. Clearly, this logic cannot be rooted in theoretical
epistemology and represents a synthesis of a local tradition. This not only involves broad
theoretical and/or experimental choices, but also the way in which small changes (in
experimental setup or output) and/or personal attitudes (during discussions) are
interpreted & assessed. Science optimalizes the production of facts by cherishing these
variations between research-cells and by confronting the protocols of various local
production-units, connected the publication of results in the various scientific journals
available.
Clearly, in such an opportunistic logic, irrationality and personal preferences, based on
idiosyncratic and emotional motives, are not silenced, quite on the contrary. Each cell takes
on the image of its research-leaders. While the way results are gathered may contain
blatant irrationality, the publication of research-results puts the cell in the line of fire of
other researchers all over the world. Errors in procedure, irregular articulation of theoretical

connections and drawing conclusions beyond the scope of the evidence will be noticed by
others and reduce the scientific worth of the research, as well as depress investors and so
possibly eliminate funding.
That this opportunistic logic directly influences quantitative factors and control-mechanisms
should be repeated. Whether a threshold is considered as critical or not, does not always
depend on theoretical assumptions, but also on "the feeling" or "intelligent guess" of those
conducting the experiments. Whether a certain path will lead to success cannot be
determined solely by testing and talking, for the decision can be made by following a hunch
or because it seems proper to do so at the time ...
72. Local interpretation & strategic opportunism lead to criteria-variability &
oscillation, so random factors also influence the production of knowledge. The
effect of this indeterminism is necessary for a progressive & organised
adaptation of the research-cell to internal & external factors. The productionprocess
of knowledge implies decision-chains & selections which are contextual
& random. Products of knowledge may, notwithstanding this randomness,
nevertheless come about.
Especially when scientists inform policy makers, they should stress the relativity of their
facts. Science has not replaced dogmatic religion and is not called to define how things are
for ever and ever. Instead, the terministic or probabilistic nature of scientific theories
should bar the way of any attempt to eternalize the truth of this-or-that proposition.
The research-cell is determined by two factors : (a) the production of knowledge as defined
by the norms of theoretical epistemology and the maxims of applied epistemology and (b)
the (psycho)sociology of knowledge, or the description of the actual behavior of scientists
in their various fields. Internally, the production of knowledge comes about by
communicative & instrumental action, externally, by publications. Insofar as the researchcell
itself is concerned, the question Quid facti ? calls for strategic & instrumental action.
Considered in relationship with other cells, the homo economicus is at hand.
How, given randomness in the chain of crucial operational decisions, knowledge can be
produced, is clarified by the effect of indeterminacy on the ability to adapt and thus
survive change demanding auto-regulation and autopoiesis. Like certain physical and
biological systems, knowledge is a complex, dissipative and chaotic phenomenon,
continuously developing more complex cognitive textures.
In terms of the practice of knowledge, the latter is a process of complexification, a
progressive (re)construction resulting from the integration & elimination of earlier scientific
activities.
Maxim 72 allows new maxims to be added.
Epilogue
Scientists have no anchor and navigate their vessel on the vast ocean (Oger). Aware of the
greater relative infinity of the cosmos, as well as the lesser relative infinity of the

molecular, atomic & subatomic strata, considering life and consciousness, they must keep
proportion. Despite the finitude of the observable universe, our physical insignificance
compared to it, defines its relative infinity and thus prospect. However, throwing out our
nets, we only catch those big fish unable to slip through the mazes, while at any given
moment, the number of nets aboard is limited. Too often our mazes, boxes, frames or
mentalities are too rigid and self-cherishing. The fish adapt.
Scientists erect buildings on the edge of or in the swamp (Popper). Such flooded
bottomland, saturated with water, is constantly shifting. Yet, despite this instability and all
the rest of it, science tries to build a platform above it, holding out for a while. How long
precisely, nobody knows. But not forever, this much we know ...
Next, we produce new nets to bind Nature or another set of poles to drive into the marsh,
etc. In view of the vastness of the observable universe, this procedure or process of
acquiring valid empirico-formal knowledge is practically unending. Likewise for the
expansion of knowledge. As long as critical people argue and experiment, the vessel of
science is relatively secure.
Nevertheless, scientists are like sailors on a leaking ship, a worn vessel set adrift on an
extremely vast ocean, seeing nowhere a safe harbor to accost.
To them to repair their vessel while aboard and navigating ...
Suggested Reading :
Adorno, Th.W. : Kritische Modellen, Van Gennep - Amsterdam, 1977.
Albert, H. : Theorie en Kritiek, Boom - Meppel, 1976.
Aristotle : Posterior Analytics, Loeb - Londen, 1966.
Aristotle : Topica, Loeb - Londen, 1966.
Aristote : De l'Âme, Les Belles Lettres - Paris, 1995.
Bertalanfy, von, L. : General Systems Theory, Braziller - New York, 1968.
Blondel, M. : L'Action, Félix Alcan - Paris, 1936, 3 tomes.
Bohm, D. : Thought as a System, Routledge - London, 1994.
Bohm, D. : On Dialogue, Routledge - London, 1996.
Buber, M. : Ik en Gij, Bijleveld - Utrecht, 1959.
Buber, M. : Pointing the Way, Harper & Row - New York, 1963.
Buber, M. : Between Man and Man, Macmillan - New York, 1967.
Carnap, R. : Logical Foundations of Probability, University Chicago Press - Chicago, 1962.
Carnap, R. : Schijnproblemen in de filosofie, Boom - Meppel, 1971.
Cassirer, E. : The Philosophy of Symbolic Forms, Yale University Press - New Haven, 1953, volume
1 Language, volume 2 : Mythic Thought, volume 3 : The Phenomenology of Language.
Chomsky, N. : The Logical Structure of Linguistic Theory, University of Chicago Press - Chicago,
1975.
Comte, A. : Catéchisme Positiviste, Flammarion - Paris, 1966.
Derrida, J. : De la grammatologie, Seuil - Paris, 1967.
Derrida, J. : L'écriture de la différence, Seuil - Paris, 1967.
Derrida, J. : La Dissémination, Seuil - Paris, 1972.
Derrida, J. : Positions, Minuit - Paris, 1972.

Derrida, J. : Writing and Difference, University of Chicago Press - Chicago, 1978.
Derrida, J. : Margins of Philosophy, University of Chicago Press - Chicago, 1982.
Descartes, R. : Discourse on Method and the Meditations, Penguin - New York, 1979.
Descartes, R. : Méditations Métaphysiques, Flammarion - Paris, 1979.
Dewey, J. : Reconstruction in Philosophy, Mentor - New York, 1953.
Dewey, J. : Philosophy and Civilization, Capricorn - New York, 1963.
Dilthey, W. : Descriptive Psychology and Historical Understanding, Martinus Nijhoff - The Hague,
1977.
Dijksterhuis, E.J. : The Mechanization of the World Picture : Pythagoras to Newton, Princeton
University Press - Princeton, 1986.
Diderot, D. : Le Rêve de d'Alembert, Gallimard - Paris, 1935.
Feyerabend, P. : Science in a Free Society, Verso - New York, 1978.
Feyerabend, P. : Problems of Empiricism, Cambridge University Press - Cambridge, 1985, 2
volumes.
Feyerabend, P. : Against Method, Verso - New York, 1993.
Frege, G. : De grondslagen van de aritmetica, Het Wereldvenster - Bussum, 1981.
Gadamer, G.F. : Wahrheit und Methode, Mohr - Tübingen, 1960.
Gorgias : Het woord is een machtig heerser, Historische Uitgeverij - Groningen, 1996.
Habermas, J. : Zur Logik der Sozialwissenschaften, Suhrkamp -Frankfurt, 1970.
Habermas, J. & Luhnman, N. : Theorie der Gesellschaft oder Sozialtechnologie Was leistet die
Systemforschung ?, Suhrkamp - Frankfurt, 1971.
Habermas, J. : Erkenntnis und Interesse, Suhrkamp - Frankfurt, 1973.
Habermas, J. : Technik und Wissenschaft aus 'Ideologie', Surhkamp - Frankfurt, 1968, p.161.
Hegel, G.W.F. : Le Savoir Absolu, Aubier - Paris, 1977.
Hegel, G.W.F. : Het Wetenschappelijke Denken, Boom Meppel - Amsterdam, 1978.
Hegel, G.W.F. : De Zelfverantwoording van de Geest, Futile - Amsterdam, 1980.
Heidegger, M. : Sein und Zeit, Niemeyer - Tübingen, 1927.
Heidegger, M. : An Introduction to Metaphysics, Yale University Press - London, 1959.
Heidegger, M. : What is called Thinking ?, Harper & Row - New York, 1968.
Heidegger, M. : Pathmarks, Cambridge University Press - Cambridge, 1998.
Hume, D. : Enquiries Concerning Human Understanding and Concerning the Principles of Morals,
Clarendon Press - Oxford, 1975.
Hume, D. : A Treatise of Human Nature, Clarendon Press - Oxford, 1978.
Husserl, E. : Idées directrices pour une phénoménologie, Gallimard - Paris, 1950.
Husserl, E. : Ideas, Collier - New York, 1962.
Husserl, E. : Philosophie Première, PUF - Paris, 1972, 2 tomes.
Husserl, E. : Introduction to the Logical Investigations, Martinus Nijhoff - The Hague, 1975.
Husserl, E. : La crise des sciences européennes et la phénoménologie transcendantale, Gallimard -
Paris, 1976.
Husserl, E. : Over de Oorsprong van de Meetkunde, Het Wereldvenster - Baarn, 1977.
Husserl, E. : Méditations Cartésiennes, Vrin - Paris, 1980.
Husserl, E. : Recherches phénoménologiques pour la constitution, PUF - Paris, 1982.
Kant, I. : Critique de la raison pratique, PUF - Paris, 1943.
Kant, I. : Prolegomena to Any Future Metaphysics, Macmillan - New York, 1949.
Kant, I. : Critique of Judgement, Hafner - New York, 1951.
Kant, I. : Critique of Pure Reason, Anchor - New York, 1966.
Kant, I. : Critique de la raison pure, Flammarion - Paris, 1976.
Kant, I. : Grondslagen van de Ethiek, Boom Meppel - Amsterdam, 1978.
Kant, I. : Kritik der reinen Vernunft, Reclam - Stuttgart, 1982.
Kant, I. : Opus postumum, PUF - Paris, 1986.
Kant, I. : Wat is Verlichting ?, Kok - Kampen, 1988.
Knorr-Cetina, K. : The Manifacture of Knowledge. An Essay on the Constructivist and Contextual
Nature of Science, Pergamon Press - Oxford, 1981.
Kohlberg, L. : The Philosophy of Moral Development, Harper & Row - San Francisco, 1981.

Kolakowski, L. : The Presence of Myth, University of Chicago Press - Chicago, 1989.
Kolakowski, L. : Modernity on Endless Trial, The University of Chicago Press - Chicago, 1990.
Kolakowski, L. : Husserl and the Search for Certitude, St. Augustine’s Press - South Bend, Indiana,
2001.
Kolakowski, L. : Metaphysical Horror, The University of Chicago Press - Chicago, 2001.
Kuhn, T.S. : The Structure of Scientific Revolutions, University of Chicago Press - Chicago, 1970.
Kuhn, T.S. : The Essential Tension, Chicago University Press - Chicago, 1977.
Kuhn, T.S. : The Copernican Revolution, Harvard University Press - Cambridge, 1985.
Lakatos, I. : Criticism and the Growth of Knowledge, Cambridge University Press - Cambridge,
1970.
Levinas, E. : Totality and Infinity, Duquesne University Press - Pittsburg, 1961.
Locke, J. : An Essay Concerning Human Understanding, Clarendon Press - Oxford, 1975.
Merleau-Ponty, M. : Phénoménologie de la perception, Gallimard - Paris, 1945.
Ockham, of, W. : Philosophical Writings, Hackett - Cambridge, 1990.
Oger, E. : Kennis en Waarheid : Een poging tot confrontatie van de Epistemologieën van K. Popper
en J. Habermas, KUL - Leuven, 1976.
Oger, E. : Logica, UFSIA - Antwerpen, 1982.
Oger, E. : Metafysiekkritiek en Kennistheorie, UFSIA - Antwerpen, 1983.
Oger, E. : Derrida, Kok - Kampen, 1995.
Oger, E. : Nachtoog, Klement / Pelckmans - Kampen, 2007.
Parret, H. : Filosofie en Taalwetenschap, Van Gorcum - Assen, 1979.
Peirce, Ch.S. : Collected Papers, Belknap Press - Cambridge, 1965.
Perelman, Ch. : An Historical Introduction to Philosophical Thinking, Random House - New York,
1965.
Piaget, J., Beth, W.E. & Mays, W. : Epistémologie génétique et recherches psychologiques, Etudes
d'Epistémologie Génétique, PUF - Paris, 1957, vol I.
Piaget, J. & Gréco, P. : Apprentissage et connaissance, Etudes d'Epistémologie Génétique', PUF -
Paris, 1959, vol VII.
Piaget, J., Apostel, L., Grize, J.B. & Papert, S. : La filiation des structures, Etudes d'Epistémologie
Génétique, PUF - Paris, 1963, vol XV.
Piaget, J., Cellerier, G., Papert, S. & Voyat, G. : Cybernétique et épistémologie, Etudes
d'Epistémologie Génétique, PUF - Paris, 1967, vol XXII.
Piaget, J., Sinclair, H., & Vinh-Bang : Epistémologie et psychologie de l'identité, Etudes
d'Epistémologie Génétique, PUF - Paris, 1968, vol XXIV.
Piaget, J. : Biologie et Connaissance. Essai sur les régulations entre les régulations organiques et
les processus cognitifs, Collection Idées - Paris, 1967.
Piaget, J. : Le Structuralisme, Presses Universitaires de France - Paris, 1970.
Piaget, J. : Genetische Epistemologie, Boom Meppel - Amsterdamn, 1976.
Piaget, J. : The development of thought. Equilibration of cognitive structures, Oxford University
Press - Oxford, 1978.
Plato : Verzameld Werk, Ambo - Baarn, 1980.
Plotinus : Complete Works, Platonist Press - Alphine, New Jersey, 1918, five volumes.
Poincaré, J.H. : Les Méthodes Nouvelles de la Mécanique Céleste, Gauthier - Paris, 1892.
Poincaré, J.H. : Science et Méthode, Flammarion - Paris, 1908.
Poincaré, H. : La Science et l'Hypothèse, Flammarion - Paris, 1968.
Poincaré, H. : Wetenschap en Hypothese, Boom - Meppel, 1979.
Polyani, M. : Personal Knowledge, Routledge and Kegan - London, 1973.
Popper, K. : Quantum Theory and the Schism in Physics, Rowan & Littlefield - Totowa, 1984.
Popper, K.R. : The Poverty of Historicism, Routledge & Kegan - London, 1961.
Popper, K. : The Logic of Scientific Discovery, Harper Torchbooks - New York, 1965.
Popper, K.R. : Objective Knowledge, Oxford University Press -Oxford, 1972.
Popper, K.R. : Conjectures and Refutations, Routledge & Kegan -London, 1981.
Popper, K.R. : The Open Universe, Hutchinson -London, 1982.
Porette, M. : The Mirror of Simple Souls, University Notre Dame Press - Notre Dame, 1999.

Prigogine, I & Stengers, I. : Order out of Chaos, Bantam - Toronto, 1984.
Prigogine, I. & Stengers, I. : La Nouvelle Alliance, Gallimard - Paris, 1979.
Russell, B. & Whitehead, A.N. : Principia Mathematica, Cambridge University Press - Cambridge,
1910 - 1913, 3 volumes.
Russell, B. : Mysticism and Logic, Allen & Unwin - London, 1929.
Russel, B. : De menselijke kennis, Servire - Katwijk, 1950.
Russell, B. : Our Knowledge of the External World, Allan & Unwin - London, 1972.
Searle, J.R. : Speach Acts : An Essay in the Philosophy of Language, Cambridge University Press -
Cambridge, 1970.
Searle, J.R. : The Mystery of Consciousness, Granta - London, 1997.
Wittgenstein, L. : Tractatus Logico-Philosophicus, Harcourt, Brace & C° - New York, 1922.
Wittgenstein, L. : Philosophical Investigations, Blackwell - Oxford, 1953.
Wittgenstein, L : Tractatus logico-philosophicus, Gallimard - Paris, 1961.
Wittgenstein, L. : The Blue and Brown Books, Harper - New York 1965.
Wittgenstein, L. : On Certainty, Harper - London, 1972.
Wittgenstein, L. : Tractatus logico-philosophicus, Van Gennep - Amsterdam, 1976.
Wittgenstein, L. : Filosofische onderzoekingen, Boom - Meppel, 1976.
Wittgenstein, L. : Colleges, Boom - Meppel, 1979.
Wittgenstein, L. : Losse opmerkingen, Wereldvenster - Baarn, 1979.
Appel, K.O. : "Das Leib apriori der Erkenntnis. Eine Erkenntnisantropologische Betrachtung im
Anschuss an Leibnizens Monadenlehre", in Neue Antropologie, Thieme Verlag - Stuttgart, 1975.
Barth, E.M. & Krabbe, E.C.W. : "De formele 3 dialektiek : instrumenten ter beslechting van
conflicten over geuite meningen", in Spektator, jaargang 7, 1978.
Barth, E.M. : "Prolegomena tot de studie van conceptuele structuren", in Algemeen Nederlands
Tijdschrijft voor Wijsbegeerte, 72, 1980.
Boehm, R. : "Omlijning van een nieuw begrip van transcendentaal-filosofie. Een kritiek op Husserls
reductie van fenomenologie tot een transcendentale.", in Tijdschrift voor Filosofie, 3, 1972.
Bunge, M. : "Physik und Wirklichkeit", in Erkenntnisprobleme der Naturwissenschaften,
Kiepenheuer & Witsch - Köln, 1970.
Davidson, D. : "True to the Facts", in Journal of Philosophy, 21, 1969.
Deregowki, J. : "Pictoral Perception and Culture", in Scientific American, 227, 1972.
Derrida, J. : "Comment ne pas Parler ?" in Psyche. Inventions de l'autre, Galilée - Paris, 1987.
Feyerabend, P. : "Realism and Instrumentalism. Comments on the Logik of Factual Support", in
The Critical Approach to Science and Philosophy, The Free Press - New York, 1964.
Habermas, J. : "Gegen einem positivistisch halbieren Rationalismus", in Adorno, Th.W. : Der
Positivismus-streit in der deutschen Soziologie, Luchtenhaud - Darmstadt, 1969.
Habermas, J. : "Wahrheitstheorien", in Wirklichkeit und Reflexion, Neske - Pfullingen, 1973.
Hessee, M. : "Theory & Observation", in Revolutions & Re-constructions in the Philosophv of
Science, Harvester, 1980.
Lakatos, I. : "Falsification and the Methodology of Scientific Research Programmes", in Criticism
and the Growth of Knowledge, Cambridge University Press - Cambridge, 1970.
Lorenz, K. : "Kants Lehre vom apriorischen im Lichte gegen wartiger Biologie", in Blätter für
Deutsche Philosophie, 15, 1941.
Maxwell, G. : "The Ontological Status of Theoretical Entities" in Minnesota Studies in the Philosophy
of Science, 3, l962.
Oger, E. : "Kritische Studie : van manuscript naar postscript ; een evolutie in het denken van Karl
Popper", in Tijdschrift voor Filosofie, 48, nr.2, juni 1986.
Pierce, Ch. S. & Schafer, L. : "Zur 'regulatieven Funktion' der Kantischen Antinomien", in
Synthesen, 1, 1971.
Roelants, H. : "Pluralisme en Gematigd Scepticisme", in Filosofie en Maatschappij, Standaard -
Antwerpen, 1974.
Sellars, W. : "Theoretical Explanation", in Philosophy of Science,The Delaware Seminare, vol. II,
1962.

Stegmuller, W. : "Gedanken über eine mögliche rationale Rekonstruktion von Kants Metaphysik der
Erfahrung", in Ratio, 9/1, 1967 en Ratio, 10/1, 1968.
Stegmuller, W. : "Das Problem der Induktion. Humes Herausforderung und moderne Antworte", in
Neue Aspekte der Wissenschaftstheorie, Viegweg -Braunschweig, 1971.
Strawson, P.F. : "Truth ", in Analysis, 9, 1949.
Strawson, P.F. : "Persons", in Minnesota Studies in the Philosophy of Science, vol. II, 1958.
Tarski, A. : "The Semantic conception of Truth and the Foundations of Semantics", in Philosophy
and Phenomenological Research, 3, l944.
Taylor, Ch. : "Rationality", in Rationality and Relativism, Basil Blackwell - Oxford, l982.
Von Fritz, K. . "Die APXAI in der griechischen Mathematik", in Archif für Begriffsgeschichte, 1955.
Chapter 3
Behaviours
formal sketch of a critical ethics
"Where can we go where our sins will not touch us ? No place on Earth - no place at all. Not
in the sky, not in the midst of the sea, not in the rocky clefts of mountains."
Buddha Shakyamuni - Dharmapada, Evil, 12 (8:127) - spoken to the three groups of monks.
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Definitions
I : Transcendental Ethics.
II : Theoretical Ethics :
01. Ethics as a normative system.
02. The subject of action or the freedom of initiation.
03. The object of action and physical determination.
04. Moral science, moral philosophy & critical ethics.
05. Teleological and deontological transgressions.
06. Moral science : the genesis of a sense of justice.
07. Moral philosophy : ego & intent as sources of ethics.
08. The alter-ego and Operation Duty.
09. The formation of conscience.
10. Returning the call of vocation.
11. Goodness & Project Fairness.

12. Planetary Participationism.
13. Ethics and metaphysics.
14. Ethics and the Divine.
III : Sketches for a Practical Morality :
15. The practice of ethics.
16. Persons.
17. Health.
18. Family.
19. Property.
20. On the secular state.
21. On death.
Suggested Reading
Definitions
system : the totality of parts organized in an orderly fashion ;
movement : a change in the physical position and/or momentum of a system in the
exclusive presence of external causes (cf. "SR" or Stimulus-Response with no internal
causes) ;
coordinations of movement : combinations of movement of a system in the presence of
external and internal causes (cf. "SIR" or Stimulus-Internal-Reponse, characterized by the
presence of a conscious agent and/or a meaningful choice) ;
internal causes : forces belonging to the interiority of a system, engendering changes
initiated by the intent of the conscious agent of the system ;
action : a change brought about or prevented by a conscious, intentional, intelligent,
affective and volitional (behavioural) system with minimal impact on the world ; the
absence of action (inaction), being the zero-action ;
free will : the creator & director of intentional action in the absence of all possible coercion
to undertake or to do nothing ;
deeds : complex of actions serving a single purpose with medial impact on the world ;
behaviours : habitual complex of deeds with maximal impact on the world ;
ethics : the justification of action, the propagation of Project Fairness and the nurturing of
care & compassion ;
morality : the application of the rules of ethics to the various issues of practical life,
fostering fairness and rightness.

Book Naught
Transcendental Ethics
0. No action without, on the one hand, a transcendental object, i.e. a
coordinated movement & its consequence (or the prevention of such
movement & its consequence), and, on the other hand, a transcendental
subject, i.e. a possessor of conscious intent, who is the source of behaviour,
accommodating desire, free will and reason.
00. The minimum necessity for a possible ethics ? Coordinated movement and
free will.
000. If free will is the initiator, then coordinated movement is the
sedimentation of intent in terms of action, deed or behaviour.
1. No transcendental object without goals (to be realized through coordinated
actions, deeds or behaviours, i.e. culturalizing states of matter) and/or values
(exercising an attraction, prompting action from both passions and cognition).
1.1 Eliminate the transcendental object, and ethics is no longer about certain coordinated
movements and their impact on the actor and his/her environment.
1.2 The transcendental object of ethics guarantees movement, and allows the coordination
of movement to actually happen.
1.3 The object is necessary, for without it, there is nothing to justify, nothing ethical ever
happens, and values & goals are non-existent.
2. No transcendental subject without free will (slipping through the uncertaintymargins
of nature) and its power of choice.
2.1 Eliminate the transcendental subject, and ethics is no longer about actual coordinations
based on conscious meaning. Without coordinated changes in position and/or momentum,
ethics is (a) that part of physics which describes certain classes of movements deemed
important to organize social formations in terms of goals, values and norms and (b)
inherently devoid of its principal actor, namely : the human.
2.2 The transcendental subject of ethics is another formulation of the irreducibility of the
First Person Perspective (FPP), the sole guarantee of coordination, or the meaningful,
conscious manipulation of objects and signs (signals, icons & symbols), thus allowing for a
definition of action, deeds and behaviours.
2.3 The subject is necessary, for without it, there is nobody to do justice to and ethical
intent is non-existent.
3. No justification of action without, on the one hand, objective goals and/or
values and, on the other hand, the subjective power of indeterminism, i.e. the
exclusive privilege of the First Person Perspective (FPP).

3.1 Ethics functions in accord with the transcendental principles of thought as defined by
transcendental logic (cf. Chapter 2). To answer the question : "What must I do ?", develop,
by means of duality, the dual structure of thought into a fourfold of norms exhausting the
possibilities of theoretical ethics.
3.2 The object of ethics is a sedimentation of action, deeds & behaviours, while its subject
is the intent driving the coordinations of movement implied by values and goals.
3.3 Free will & coordinations are put together to avoid impairing ethics by confusing its
principles and hence clouding its decrees.
Book 1
Theoretical Ethics
01. Ethics as a normative system.
4. The moral norms uncovered by critical ethics answer : (a) how good actions
and their propagation are possible and (b) how ethical judgments must be
performed. They take form as a necessary division, a quaternio or fourfold of
critical ethical factors, developing the dual structure of the logic of ethics : "I"
versus "not-I". In-between subject and object, actions are at hand.
4.1 The subject of ethics is either confirmed ("this is I") or denied ("this is not I"), yielding
the difference between subject (affirm) and object (deny). To define, from without, this
inner distinction further, it is made to balance (a) subjectively and (b) objectively.
4.2 Identify the subject of ethics with conscious intent and its object (the other beings)
with duty. Then the first (subjective) harmonization involves conscience and its second
(objective) harmonization is calling. Intent, duty, conscience and calling form a quaternio
of necessary ethical factors.
4.2.1 The first harmonization involves a stable but transient trinity of factors : intent, duty
& conscience. It represents the Order of Fairness.
4.2.2 The second harmonization, stable and enduring, integrates intent, duty & calling.
This is rightness.
4.2.3 Goodness is fairness with rightness.
4.3 All beings belonging to the kingdoms of nature are possible objects of ethics. Water,
Air and other crucial chemical compounds are objects due to their life-sustaining capacities.
Minerals by virtue of the geometrical architecture between their molecules. Plants in terms
of photosynthesis and the ecosystem. Animals because of their capacity of motility and
affectivity. Humans in view of their conscious thought and, as minimum minimorum, the
ability to create new and better circumstances for all sentient beings on planet Earth.
4.3.1 All objects of ethics are sentient, i.e. derived and/or based on natural light,
luminosity and the photon.
4.3.2 For all sentient beings, the path of action is coercive, and so ethics necessary.
5. The architecture of normative ethics must be in tune with the
transcendental conditions of thought and with the dualism of the selfsame

conditions of action, deed & behaviour, encompassing both the objective,
teleological (consequential), as well as the deontological, subjective
(universalizing) perspective on ethics as defined by these traditional systems.
5.1 The transcendental conditions of thought state that both object and subject of thought
are necessary and irreducible (cf. Chapter 2).
5.2 An exclusive focus on the transcendental object of ethics generates consequential
systems (exclusively judging the consequences of action in terms of goals & values),
whereas positing the ideal subject implies a universalizing ethics (exclusively judging the
intent and the rules of duty in terms of a generalization of the outcome of action).
5.2.1 Consequential systems of ethics define objective conditions and classes of
coordinated movement. They measure the final goals of action. They eclipse the
importance of free intent as well as the influence of conscience on action. Focusing on the
immediate and the direct, they lack an overall perspective. Statute-law is avoided.
5.2.2 Deontological systems work out (inter)subjective rules of valid generalization and
focus on the intent of action. They avoid the circumstantial and deny context, locality and
probability (chaos) to enter into the equation. Casus-law is ousted.
5.3 Critical ethics tries to harmonize both intent (consequence) and duty (rules). It does so
by bringing the extremes back to the "middle path" and linking fairness with rightness.
5.3.1 Fairness is applied justice. Here, the formal side of goodness is realized. This is the
justice of equality, the application of the "letter" of the law. It is only fair to expect justice.
Rules, consequence and conscience lead to fairness. This is what must be done.
5.3.2 Rightness is applied goodness. It has broken out of the limitations of the letter and is
able, through wisdom, to witness both sides of the balance, take into account all relevant
elements and pronounce "the spirit" of the law. This is what care does.
6. Objectifying, teleological ethics posits the empirico-formal rule of
gratification & usefulness. In subjectifying, deontological ethics calls free will to
obey the rule of reason.
6.1 Consequential ethics elaborates upon the spatiotemporal relativity of statistically
significant needs & goals, and this without integrating personal happiness (private selfregard)
and the specificity of ethical issues. However, in an insentient universe, good and
evil have no status. No physical fact is better than another.
6.1.1 Gratification is satisfaction nourishing personal happiness. Limited by time, place and
person, it forms unending longings. Objective ethics have no idea about internal, intimate
& private matters.
6.1.2 Usefulness extends from one person to the planet as a whole (and may -
theoretically- encompass the whole universe). In practical terms, it reflects the common
good cherished by the ruling class. Thus, to control the access to this good is the principal
cause of conflicts, disputes and wars.
6.1.3 The utilitarian law dictates that under any given circumstance, the action which
produces the greatest amount of happiness on the whole (taking into account all whose
happiness is touched by this), is objectively right. Extend this consequential law by judging
any favorable consequence of an action, moving beyond happiness or pleasure.
6.2 Deontological ethics cannot escape the laws devised to regulate intersubjective
contact. Being statute-laws, they address the existential nature of intersubjective contacts
in terms of duty. This is the respect for the "pure" moral law, dictating that we must treat
others as the persons we ourselves are, even if this thwarts our inclinations to gratify

ourselves and make other humans useful to ourselves. Duty humbles self-love.
6.2.1 Agreeableness, the active ingredient of satisfaction -even the promotion of the
happiness of others- does not, in this scheme, consist in the conception of the moral law in
itself, for it would not require the will of a rational being conceiving the moral law.
6.2.2 Moral value cannot depend on the reality of the object of the action at hand (values
or goals), but merely on the principle of volition in the assumed total absence of any
activity of desire.
6.2.3 The moral law demands that "I" must never act in such a way that "I" could not will
that my ethical norm should not be a universal law, and this for the sake of the law
(morality) and not by mere compliance to it (legality).
6.2.4 The moral law thus defined is never in touch with the desires, but only with thought.
Unable to understand the full implications of goodness, namely fairness and rightness
based on desire, free will and reason, exclusivist deontology, by lack of care, does not
exclude cruelty nor mild psychopathy.
6.3 Teleological ethics, based on either a higher good or on the principle of utility,
accommodate desire and its principle of pleasure or happiness. The happiness principle
holds that actions are good, right or just when they promote pleasure. Classical utilitarism
concludes : as some kinds of pleasures are more desirable and valuable than others, a
scale of goodness is possible, with the greatest good to the greatest number on top.
Preference utilitarism tries to bring about the fulfillment of preferences and is called
consequentialism.
7. In critical ethics, happiness, fairness & rightness are possible by allowing, as
much as possible, both subject (intent, duty) and object (conscience, calling)
of action to participate in our ethical deliberations and in the moral or practical
organization of our lives. In this way, one decides what to do and what not to
do, and this, as much as possible, in every instance of coordination.
7.1 Happiness is the fruit of gratification or the repetition of agreeable experiences. All
sentient beings seek happiness.
7.1.1 As long as the pursuit of happiness, fairness and rightness is made to root in wrong
desires, wrong volition and wrong thinking, human beings are immensely dissatisfied and
so suffer.
7.1.2 Wrong desires feed the impulse to attach or dislike. Wrong volition drives action
exclusively towards personal gain. Wrong thinking considers subjects & objects as
inherently existing substances.
7.2 Fairness is the outcome of conscientious justice, transcending legality into morality out
of sheer respect for the moral law.
7.3 Rightness is the outcome of the "turning of the wheel" of ethics. It is the response of
care to a calling acting as a transcendent observant disabling any attempt to by-pass the
fundamental horizon of all possible human action : to do the good for all sentient beings,
meaning to be fair and care.
7.4 Goodness, encompassing happiness, fairness & rightness, is impossible without the
total transformation of the actor. To not complete one's own-Self-realization (or the
actuality of right mind, right action & right desire) is to strand the project of ethics on the
shores of egology.
7.4.1 Self-realization is not to acquire something which is not already present, but to be
fully aware of who one truly is in thought, desires and volitions.
7.4.2 To remove the mental clouds shielding the Sun from casting its rays of awareness is

the crucial metaphor.
8. If there is no actor to exert free will, it is impossible to say what someone
ought to do or not to do. He who says "ought", should at least accept the other
in his or her strangeness. Only dictators do not.
8.1 Ethical models based on symmetry & homogeneity between moral actors lack true
equanimity resulting from difference & asymmetry. They reflect the solitary ego and extend
its existence to all other human beings.
8.1.1 Nobody has "my" spatio-temporal coordinates and overlaps the sentient being "I" am.
8.1.2 Because of the lack of symmetry between "myself" and the "others", there is the
possibility of genuine goodness and not just the common good necessary to organize the
traffic.
8.2 The fundamental fact of ethics is the irreducible difference between all moral actors
hand in hand with their interrelatedness.
8.2.1 Difference does not exclude comparison, but all comparisons fail to satisfy the
conditions of right thinking, positing the uniqueness of every sentient being.
8.2.2 Interrelatedness is (a) physical and (b) psychological. Non-locality determines that
all things emerge from the underlying universal quantum field which connects every
particle of the observable universe at speeds exceeding that of light. A subject of
experience is always part of an intersubjective environment and hence in constant
communication or exchange with others.
8.2.3 A solipsist subject would be a closed monad with no windows to exchange anything.
It would be a super-object posing as a subject and hence not a subject at all. With selfregard
maximalized, communication is impossible.
8.3 To leave an open place at the table (space), to never close one's door for a stranger
(time) and to accept the otherness of sentient beings (person) are the three fundamentals
of any ethical process between human beings.
9. The living core of ethics is the reciprocal acknowledgment of the
fundamental asymmetry between ethical actors.
9.1 The moment "I" am not identified with "You", there is an ethical continuum in which
exchange is possible and novel coordinations of movements may emerge.
9.2 Theoretical, discursive, cerebral, centrifugal thought destroys otherness and its secret.
It cannot conceive the intimate, and therefore annihilates its possibility. Science seeks to
dominate through universals, not to serve this other in particular.
9.3 Practical, symbolical (hieroglyphic), centripetal intelligence "of the heart", invites the
stranger as he or she is, and negates any attempt to reduce otherness. Hence, otherness is
the revelation of unicity and brings into existence new coordinations of movement.
9.3.1 Only if my own-Self is deemed a stranger to me can there be moral development
beyond fairness or excellence.
9.3.2 When the actor knows, feels and expresses his or her own sentient core, fairness
couples with rightness or sublimity.
9.4 In the case of a Cartesian ego or a Leibnizean monad, the "I" is a permanent,
substantial, essential, unchanging entity that exists in itself, independent and disconnected
from the "not-I". Such substantialist egology is left when "I" and "not-I" mutually imply
each other and cannot be alienated from one another (either by reduction or by exclusion).

10. Satisfying either desire (hedonism), volition (utilitarism) or reason
(deontology), traditional ethics is unable to cause both happiness, fairness and
rightness for all sentient beings in concert. These ethics may, at their best,
bring satisfaction, fairness & justice, which is not the same as goodness,
adding concern, care & rightness.
10.1 To view ethics as a normative discipline, implies unweaving the crucial ethical factors
of what is a good action and has always been the necessary architecture of an example of
goodness. This is like finding a treasure of which one was not aware that it has always
been there.
10.2 Normative disciplines such as epistemology, ethics and esthetics, do not describe the
true, the good and the beautiful, but lay bear the principles, norms and maxims which have
always been used to think true thoughts, do good actions and produce beautiful sensations.
Not the question "Quid factis ?", but "Quid Iuris ?" engages them.
10.2.1 The sociology of goodness counts, compares and formulates empirico-formal laws.
It describes the actuality or absence of goodness. But the principles, norms and maxims of
goodness decree and engage. They prescribe what must be done in order for goodness to
be actual.
10.2.2 It is a fallacy to move from a mere description of goodness to what is necessary for
goodness. Descriptions are the casus-law of ethics (morality), whereas obligations are its
statute-laws.
10.2.3 Statute-laws are uncovered within. They were, are and will always be there to
assist critical ethics. Casus-law are identified without and are altered hand in hand with the
actor and his or her history. They help the development of applied ethics or morality.
02. The subject of action or the freedom of initiation.
11. In order to act on intent, the actor must exercise his or her free will, i.e.
be able to move in the absence of external impediments.
11.1 Suppose, ad absurdum, predestination, fate or destiny to be true. Then, all
movements, actions, deeds & behaviours are determined by the complex of anterior
determining factors like causality, the Fates, Providence or the Will of God or Gods. If so,
there is no uncertainty in nature allowing the subject to freely choose between two
possibilities, except fictionally. Ergo, there is only movement and no coordinations of
movement, and thus no action and no actor. With the moral actor reduced to a mere
mover, ethics becomes the object of a closed Newtonian physics.
11.2 Besides being in contradiction with the probabilism of contemporary physics,
determinism (the modern version of predestination) faces a major logical problem : if all
things are determined, then how can this determination be described without in some way,
in the very act of description, transcending it ? How to avoid the contradictio in actu
exercito ?
11.3 Epistemologically, one may wonder how the subject of knowledge can be eclipsed
hand in hand with a description of this "fact" ? Behold the contradiction : although refusing
the subject of knowledge any independence from the object of knowledge, the former is
necessarily implied in the refusal.
11.4 All movement is external and the outer world knows of many impediments. Linear
and non-linear movements constitute the process between the four physical forces & the
numerous, photon-based particles constituting the architecture of the observable universe.

12. Besides (a) the negative side of liberty (i.e. to be free from internal
dependences of external determinations) and (b) its positive side (i.e. the
active possibility to be autonomous, independent and self-conditioning), free
will is a nondetermined choice, or the actual physical possibility to escape the
probabilistic determinism of matter.
12.1 The approach of both momentum and architecture is probabilistic, for Newtonian
determinism has been superseded by relativity, quantum, chaos and string,
revolutionalizing cosmology, nuclear physics and mathematics. The margin of error allowed
by these equations is the principle of indeterminacy of Heisenberg.
12.2 Exerting free will is a highly complex operation, involving the seeking & finding of the
small interval or isthmus of uncertainty within probable processes surrounding its
manifestation.
12.3 Without free will, there is no difference between the coming of goodness and the
manifestation of the physical universe. In this case, ethics would be one of these
manifestations. Instead, critical ethics lays bear the necessity and possibility of making
excellent and sublime use of certain physical margins of error.
13. In order for "me" to exercise "my" free will, the individual "I" am cannot
be reduced to anything else. Egoism, or the humanism of the ego, dictates that
nothing is more to "me" than "myself". Hence, "I" must be able to act as "I"
like to act or not to act. The freedom of initiation is wholly rooted in the "I".
13.1 Ad absurdum, maximalize egology, and make the ego absolute. By taking the owner
serious, the ego is the ultimate ideality. It accepts the presence of other ego's, but must
treat them as if they were objects. Hence, all value put on those objects are creatures of
the ego, who acts as their sole Lord.
13.2 The egoist, pursuing no other goal, considers only the actors’ own welfare.
13.2.1 As the egoist has degenerated reason, the actor's own welfare is the satisfaction of
desire in terms of one's own emotions and physical kicks.
13.2.2 In mythological terms, the animal nature of the egoist has been sullied by a
degenerated reason and has turned the human into a Beast.
13.2.3 Beasts in the wilderness, the "war of all against all", and the hierarchy of might are
the outcome of egology. Insofar as the Beast must love suffering, it always creates its own
downfall.
14. In order for "my" actions to escape the "war of all against all", "I" must
consider every possible "other" as "I" consider "myself". Altruism, or the
humanism of "the other", as given by reason, dictates that nothing will
humanize "me" more than to participate in the humanization of "the other" and
live in accord with this reciprocity.
14.1 There is an "I" because there is a "not-I" and vice versa. Thought cannot escape its
own necessities.
14.2 The "war of all against all" is replaced by the "contract of all with all". Neither in duty
will ethical tensions resolve.

15. The reciprocity of altruism is the recognition of "You" as "myself".
15.1 To observe the "I" is to realize its momentum. Although taken as a piece of
architecture, the "I" is more like a stream. This movement is seldom perceived, but has
diurnal, nocturnal, monthly and seasonal fluctuations.
15.2 The impermanence of identity brings the various interrelationships between subjects
to the fore. Instead of scattered pieces, subjects & objects are modules which are part of
communicational networks and their energy. As in dissipative systems, they are defined by
their connectivity, redundancy and complexity.
15.3 Although the "I" is not a substance existing inherently, it does functionally exist as
the seat of free will. Although its existence is more like a fluctuating but coherent pattern
of coordinated movements though space-time, it is the more or less fixed continuum of this
pattern called "I" which initiates action, gives meaning to movements and manipulates the
margins of nature.
16. Formal, universalizing ethics, of which the three forms of deontological
ethics, imperative, contractual and righteous, are transgressive sublimations,
makes reason dictate the free will.
16.1 Insofar desire is the sole lawgiver, reason has to be degenerated. Insofar reason is
the sole lawgiver, free will has to be willingly handicapped.
16.2 Deontological ethics are transgressive because they run against the principles of
transcendental logic. By eliminating the object of ethics, an indifferent and imperative
system of rules is deduced. These are sublimations resulting from the unconditional within
reason, in this case eclipsing the object of thought.
03. The object of action and physical determination.
17. Actions are either done to realize a goal or to implement a value.
17.1 A goal is an objective state of affairs to be realized now or in the future.
17.2 A value is a subjective merit considered worthwhile or desirable.
18. Goals limit action by resisting intent with their own-form.
18.1 Physical limitations (inertia) slow down the realization of intent and are overcome by
enduring repetition.
18.2 By eroding inertia, a new set of coordinations is introduced, co-sustaining the mental
operators of process and emancipation.
19. Values co-determine action by imposing their own-form on intent.
19.1 Merit requires free intent.
19.2 Values presuppose a relative intersubjective stability of desires and reasoning or
traditions related to creativity and growth. Hence, negative values presuppose destruction
and decay.
20. Insofar as goals and values are of desire, they are objects of teleological
ethics and generate the "war of all against all". Insofar as they are objects of

eason, they appear in deontological ethics as imposed by Operation Duty,
feeding the shadow of guilt.
20.1 Operation Duty, the contrary of egology, is forced humanism. The egoism of the
individual is compromised by and relinquished for that of the collective, in whatever form.
20.1.1 The moment, by giving "my" violent response away to the state, "I" loose the
possibility to kill whenever "I" like and whoever "I" like, egology can no longer be lethal in
an acute sense.
20.1.2 "My" violent response is replaced by the monopoly of violence held by the state.
This causes conflicts between states, as well as within the fabric of Operation Duty itself
(killing is wrong but necessary in war).
20.1.3 Because of the inherent imbalance between desire and reason, the corruption of
Operation Duty is inevitable.
20.1.4 Better a corrupted, guilt-striken sense of duty than no duty at all.
20.1.5 Conscious (ethical) egoism is preferable to covert (bourgeois) egoism pretending
altruism (i.e. hypocrizy).
20.2 In the equation of the Order of Fairness, desires are bound to overturn reason,
degenerate it and feast in the wilderness. Hence, the "contract of all with all" is also the "lie
of all against all".
20.2.1 The human body is rooted in primate desires, urges and volitions. The thinking
capacity is limited and untrained. What more is needed to conclude most humans feast like
Beasts ?
20.2.2 Although contracts help to regulate the tragedy of egology and fairness, they can
be broken. Feeding a cold sense of justice, contractualism fosters the blind workings of
dossier-logic.
21. The realization of a goal engenders a new goal. The recognition of value
entails another value. Is there an end to the sliding scale of goals & values ?
21.1 Human undertakings based on egoistical & intersubjective goals and values produce
more suffering than pleasure, happiness, fairness or rightness.
21.2 Suppose our actions succeed, which is not necessarily the case. Then we either :
(a) realize our success after again losing it ;
(b) seek a new object as soon as fulfillment is actual ;
(c) witness the atrophy of the mere pleasurable after repetition and
(d) are driven into the despair of boredom which eliminates all goals and values. Thus the
human Beast suffers more than the animal.
21.2.1 The necessity with which a second object arises after the elimination of the first in
the fire of desire and excellence, is given by the conditioned origination of all sentient
activity.
21.2.2 The satisfaction of pleasure causes the quest for a new object to annihilate,
prompting yet another search, etc.
21.3 Goals and values form a circle of dependent causes. Success and fulfillment generate
new goals and values, allowing for the repetition of the pleasurable, the desirable and the
excellent.
21.3.1 The pleasurable, the desirable and the excellent are prone to swift decay and
demand, to maintain impulse, an exponential rise of input, which is untenable. Saturation
of wants (diminishing returns) and decreasing marginal value rule.
21.3.2 Excellence can be consolidated into traditions by thought and its signs (signals,
icons & symbols). These last longer but their trace runs deeper. Over time, any original

mistake is enlarged. The result being a cacophony of conflicting traditions.
22. Affective, consequential, teleological ethics, in its two forms of eudemonic
(producing happiness and well-being) & utilitarian (serving immediate utility),
is a goal & value-oriented transgressive sublimation making desire becharm
reason and free will.
22.1 Because it appeals to desire, affective ethics overpowers the rationale of deontology.
22.2 In the trinity of factors covering the Order of Fairness, namely intent, duty &
conscience, desire unleashed by free will exceeds the rationality of duty, except in
mediocrity and the dulling of intent.
22.3 The transgression of affective ethics lies in its neglect of reason and the universal
principles, norms and maxims of thought, action and sensation.
22.3.1 A priori. Without a subject of ethics (a someone striving), objects have no meaning.
22.3.2 A posteriori. If all goodness depended on pleasure and utility alone, the "war of all
against all" would not be the bestial fact of human history. Bestial behaviour would lead to
peace, not to the rule of shared pain.
04. Moral science, moral philosophy & critical ethics.
23. Moral science observes, analyzes, systematizes and explains what is
present in society in terms of moral phenomena. Moral science also "tests" the
latter by way of logic, observation and pragmatism. Here justice is an option,
never a must.
23.1 When carefully applied, moral science is multi-disciplinary and integrates crucial data
of biology, anthropology, psychology, sociology, economy & philosophy.
23.1.1 In mammals with long memories, primate ethics, based on kinship & reciprocity,
exist.
23.1.2 Humans are special animals able to manipulate natural selection and develop
culture.
23.1.3 Sensation, desire, volition, reason and consciousness drive the psyche of the
human.
23.1.4 Not consanguinity nor race, but shared norms, goals & values, consolidating a
fertile process of communication, produce lasting social bonds.
23.4.5 A planetary economy commands respect for all living creatures on planet Earth and
brings into effect the social, just & caring ideals of planetary participationism, allowing for
the satisfaction of most desires within the framework of detachment, transformation and
the sanation of reason by a new humanism.
23.4.6 Spiritual hedonism does not exist.
23.2 Insofar as moral science is also multi-cultural, the wisdom of common sense may
come into focus. This is not the wisdom of goodness.
24. Moral philosophy, acknowledging the crucial data offered by moral science,
tries to approach moral phenomena in a reflective way.
24.1 Insofar as moral philosophy is constituted by trans-empirical concepts, it is but a
precritical attempt to formulate a mere metaphysical justification of actions, deeds &

ehaviours in terms of an explicit or presupposed, realist or idealist ontological scheme.
24.2 Religious ethics have abused precritical logic by clinging to revealed dogma, brewing
various onto-theologies of the Abrahamic Deity, afflicting free will with predestination and
direct mystical experience with the stake. Facing self-refuting statements deemed
irrefutable (axiomatic), nothing else is left than to posit another option.
24.3 When atheism backs statements with realist or idealist presuppositions, like the
existence of a solid world "out there" or the presence of a substantial Self "in here", it is
precritical. Critical atheism needs to refute the arguments backing the existence of the
Divine (cf. Chapter 7).
24.3.1 Atheism denies the existence of the Divine in all possible denominations. Has this
denial had any influence on the religious attitudes of most Westerners educated by the
atheist elite ?
24.3.2 On the crucial issue of Divinity, agnosticism remains indecisive. Only superficiality &
mediocrity are able to treat something important as trivial.
25. Critical ethics is a moral philosophy constituted by the transcendental
conditions of coordinated movements and free will, implying conscious intent,
design, meaning and a nondeterminated choice. Thinking intent, duty,
conscience & calling, it makes moral valuations in terms of the goodness of
actions, deeds & behaviours. Here, fairness & rightness are a necessity, an
ought called to be a good choice, i.e. free, happy, fair and caring.
25.1 Free because the subject of ethics is endowed with free will.
25.2 Happy because desires can be transformed & satisfied.
25.3 Fair because the conditions of reason are fulfilled.
25.4 Caring because it enacts the unconditional core of charity.
26. Critical ethics opts to combine the truth-core of both earlier deontological
and teleological approaches. On the one hand, justification of action depends
on the rationality of intersubjective duty (implying generalization) and, on the
other hand, on the quality of the goals or values intended and by which desire
is objectively gratified (implying consequentialism). A priori, critical ethics is a
two-tiered system of statute-law and case-law.
27. Conflicts of interest between duty and intended gratification demand an
ethical evaluation by conscience, seeking a balance between both.
28. With the addition of conscience, the conflict between afflictive egoism and
legalistic altruism achieves an unstable closure. Project Fairness is able to
increase material wealth, but not for all and not without the iron cage of
alienation, mass-manipulation, hypocrisy & mediocrity.
29. Critical ethics draws the line between personal & transpersonal ethics.
29.1 Personal ethics involves intent (goals and values of desire), duty (a rational free
choice) and conscience (or the inner organ of ethical evaluation between, on the one hand,
the affective ethics of intent, and, on the other hand, the formal ethics of duty). It
culminates as fairness in all matters.

29.2 Transpersonal ethics involves a calling or vocation, the outer organ attracting a
renewed conscious intent, causing (a) Self-realization, (b) Self-annihilation and (c) Selfrecollection
in Radical Otherness.
29.2.1 Self-realization is the constant awareness of the true own-form of consciousness,
which is of the nature of transparency, light, brightness, clarity and luminescence.
29.2.2 The own-Self is burned in the fires of unconditional charity.
29.3.3 The own-Self is reborn in every fair act of rightness, positing just compassion for all
sentient beings, teaching by example the antidote to afflictive affects and uncontrolled
desire.
30. The horizontal plane connecting intent with duty defines the divergent
interconnectedness between ethical subjects. The vertical plane connecting
conscience with calling defines the convergent evolution of a person's ethical
sensibilities. The horizontal calls for fairness, the vertical calls for rightness.
30.1 Theoretical ethics is regulated by the idea of an ideal community of intelligent &
sensitive communicators, a body of sign-interpreters constituting the horizontal plane. In
practice, the vertical plane is put into place by "filling in" calling with super-ego and its
constant sublimations. When thus manipulated, calling is wishful thinking.
30.1.1 To be called does not belong to the nominal process of ethical evolution. The
unstable closure at this level is caused by the pull of desire and the feebleness of reason.
The tragic truth is hidden by display and the repetitive re-confirmation of pointless
excellence.
30.1.2 Placing the transpersonal factor of our ethical equation between brackets leads to
unwholesome fossilizations.
30.1.3 Taking calling aboard is witnessing the gap leading to absolute thought, a brief
opening for man to forsake his Beast.
30.2 The first closure, the Order of Fairness, ends with unfairness. The gravitational pull of
a free will deeply entrenched by afflictive affects fed by a degenerated reason, is too great
to allow for anything else but sublimation & unscrupulousness.
30.3 Only if the human hears his or her call, can the fluctuations caused by desires be
reduced and put to rest. The sand cannot sink to the bottom as long as the glass is being
stirred.
30.4 To perceive the Order of Fairness may give rise to great pessimism. This awareness
of possible suffering is a great teacher and leads to a concerted effort to carefully listen to
the call and realize one's true nature.
30.5 The only purpose of suffering is to trigger the quest for the own-Self and beyond.
05. Teleological and deontological transgressions.
31. Consequential ethics make the goodness of an action exclusively depend
on the object (goals and/or value) desired by the free will and/or rationalized
by the mind. When thinking goodness, they eliminate "pure" reason a priori.
Universalizing ethics understand, in accord with the transcendental subject of
ethics, good behaviours in terms of the rational imperative of duty. They
eliminate goals and values as sources of goodness.

31.1 The transgressions mimic the perversa ratio or ontological illusion as given by critical
epistemology (cf. Chapter 2).
31.1.1 The conceptual mind (defined by anterational, rational and critical thought, affects
& actions) is dualistic and works with the difference between object & subject.
31.1.2 Foundational epistemologies aim, by reduction of the dyad to the monad, to
eliminate the necessary concordia discors or armed truce of the mind. Either objectivism, in
the guise of subject-less realism, or subjectivism, as object-less idealism, thus serve the
aim of grounding knowledge outside knowledge.
31.1.3 The duality of the conceptual mind must not be eliminated. To use this tool well is
the object of normative philosophy. Abuse its architecture and the empirical-formal
propositions of science cannot be fully argued, tested and reargued, slowing down the
development of knowledge.
31.2 When the theoretical connotations of observation are not accepted, the object of
knowledge is as it appears and a one-to-one relationship can be established. The error of
realism is to consider knowledge without the knower.
31.2.1 Realism is apparent in ethical systems reducing the ego's own-ness to values and
goals. The ego's privatim is not a generatim.
31.2.2 The objects & states aimed at in consequential ethics never represent the "common
good" (which is not a reality but a regulative limit-idea), for not the good of all private
values & goals is realized, but merely a pleasing idea invented by the ruling classes (the
wealthy, the intellectuals, the politicians, etc, usually representing only ca.10% of the
population).
31.3 When the symbolical creativity of the human is made to constitute reality, the subject
of knowledge thinks reality and the laws of mind reflect those of being. The error of
idealism is to consider the knower without the known.
31.3.1 Ethical idealism dictates us to act as if the Kingdom of Ends is with us now,
although, in fact, this is not the case.
31.3.2 Deontological systems lack the capacity to consider what is needed to bring the
Kingdom actually about. These elements are considered "impure" and circumstantial,
although universal thought is only appropriate if it can be applied as local compassion &
care.
32. Critical ethics, being in accord with its own conditions of operation, cannot
eliminate the object of ethics (goals & values), nor the subject of ethics
(categorial imperative) without a contradictio in actu exercito. This it wants to
avoid.
32.1 One extreme. Suppose there are no moral values & goals (the object of ethics). These
are the sedimentations of generalized intent. How to define ethics without someone acting ?
32.2 Another extreme. Suppose ethics has no subject. Without free will, all choices are
defined by the laws of physics. How to define ethics without freedom (and thus
responsibility) ?
32.3 The middle ground accepts the dual conditions of conceptual thought and the
limitations both entail, thrusting the moving, conceptual mind out of the worn pantheon of
Platonic or Peripatetic eternalization.
06. Moral science :
the genesis of a sense of justice.

33. Moral science does not derive "ought" from nature or imperatives from
indicatives (naturalistic fallacy), but describes the moral phenomenon without
the necessity of goodness, the latter being an option, not an imperative.
34. Moral science focuses on facts, trying to produce an empirico-formal,
scientific theory dictating scientific moral laws. Moral laws, being relative and
historical, are not moral imperatives.
35. Because of its limitations, moral science is unable to articulate ethical
goals and values, nor give way to the irreducible necessity of freedom in a
possible critical moral philosophy. A series of facts is not a goal. Merit is not a
description of virtue. So can moral science be a reliable foundation to erect a
just political system ? No.
36. In accord with natural selection & sociobiology, moral science discovered
primate ethics involving kinship, sexuality & reciprocity. It also made clear the
crucial difference between the animal and the human kingdom : human can
rise above the exigencies of natural selection, other species of animals cannot.
37. Relative genetical epistemology, moral science describes the sense of
justice found in each and every Homo Sapiens sapiens as a cognitive
phenomenon evolving in six universal stages of growth, involving three major
reference-groups are crucial, namely family, school and peers.
38. According to moral science, the highest moral stage is reached when moral
choices are determined by personal conscience, encompassing both intent &
duty.
38.1 Insofar as the Order of Fairness is concerned, the conclusions of moral science and
critical ethics overlap. The deficit of this order is the lack of enthusiasm and engaging
intent. After a lot of work, the meaning of life still remains unclear. The bravest persevere
in fairness and do the right thing.
38.2 The Order of Fairness is an unstable closure, leading to turbulence and calamity. The
latter invite the creative impulse to secure planetary survival and the rise of a new
humanism.
07. Moral philosophy :
ego & intent as sources of ethics.
39. Traditional moral philosophy gave transempirical and/or ontological
grounds to what ought to be done to be good, i.e. happy, fair and caring.
Critical moral philosophy operates a quaternio of ethical factors based on the
transcendental conditions of coordinated movement and free will, of which the
first one implies ego.

39.1 Traditional morality never tried to find the middle way between the extremes of
freedom and necessity. In more than one way, if preferred necessity to freedom. To think
freedom is to curtail the gods, God or nature.
39.2 The necessity of the fourfold of theoretical ethics is given by following the ethical
process and recording the logic of its foundational & pivotal moments : initiation (subject,
intent), confrontation (object, duty), first unstable closure (subject, conscience), second
stable closure (object, calling).
40. Action is exclusively initiated by the actor. There must be a someone doing
the something which ethics must evaluate. To relinquish this evidence is to
cripple ethics and turn it into a face, as happens in some religious ethics and in
totalitarian systems.
40.1 In religious ethics, the role of the individual is to serve his or her Deity at the expense
of personal freedom. The problem of desire is abrogated by trying to eliminate desire by
repressing its passions. In this way, the shadow is fed and projected on the adherents of
other religions (following "false" Gods) or on the unbelievers. This procedure is disastrous.
40.1.1 History holds the dramatic record of the tragi-comic failures of religious ethics.
Insofar religions are moral systems rooted in the so-called transcendent, irrefutable,
permanent substance, entity or ground, morality has been elitist, unjust and against the
human. How difficult is it to remain backward ?
40.1.2 The failure of religious ethics is the failure to truly connect the human with the
Divine. Revelations (of the so-called "holy" word of God), canonizations (of texts, people
and institutions) and religious traditions fail to deliver their promise and do not liberate
their adherents, on the contrary. The latter are chained to manmade institutions and the
slavery continues on a more abstract register.
40.1.3 Religious fundamentalism makes the point of these deductions : turn religion into a
simplistic death-loving (neo) fascism and witness how indoctrinated adherents are willing to
take their own lives in addition of those of innocent children or fellow believers.
40.1.4 Humanism, disguised as egoism or altruism, cannot renew the human spirit. A new,
pan-humanism is called for.
40.2 In totalitarian systems, the collectivity (ruled by an elite) is deemed more important
than the individuals defining society. Left extremism and (neo) fascism both relinquish the
rights & duties of the individual for the sake of their irrationalisms. Their leaders are
dictators in disguise, posing with an ideal they themselves cannot actualize.
40.2.1 Both religious fundamentalism and totalitarian systems express the rule of the
Beast.
40.2.2 If one leaves the Beast to do his or her thing, life on planet Earth soon dies, the
Beast included.
40.2.3 Persons are entitled to choose not to interact with Beasts, for as long as every
social contact with these people pollutes body, energy & mind, their presence must be part
of renunciation.
41. Determinism, predestination & fatalism contradict critical ethics. One
cannot judge an action, deed or behavior if the actor is not free to act as he or
she wills. This freedom may be called a free movement of the subject (i.e.
psychological or anthropological), but also a co-relative, ongoing slipping
through the margins of the principle of indeterminacy of physics.

41.1 The system of Nature operates matter, information and consciousness. Matter knows
uncertainty, information redundancy and consciousness ignorance (of the nature of mind).
41.2 Consciousness, constantly interacting with (and supported by) matter and
information, is (a) able to make beneficial use of the conditions imposed upon forces &
particles (hardware) and (b) to redefine terms and/or select other axioms (userware) for its
expert-systems (software).
41.3 Neurophilosophy and neurotheology (cf. A Spiritual Mindbrain, 2003) differentiate
between 3 interlinked neurological computers (original hardware uploaded with specific
software).
41.3.1 Differentiate between (a) the reptilian brain : brain stem, midbrain, hypothalamus ;
(b) the mammalian brain : thalamus, hippocampus, amygdala and (c) the human brain :
neocortex of cerebral hemispheres of cerebrum & angular gyrus.
41.3.2 Various functions have been attributed to each of these three parts of the brain,
characterized by a different structure and chemistry, yet extensively interconnected.
41.3.3 The human brain computes all higher functions. Its prefrontal lobe processes
identity, whereas (in the right-handed) the left hemisphere involves analytical higher order
approaches (language & speech), usually dominating the right hemisphere (or
lateralization). The latter computes synthetical approaches and is a gateway to the
emotional brain.
41.3.4 The mammalian brain computes emotional states. This involves an elaborate
emotional circuit, fairly isolated from the human brain and its conceptualizations. Its task is
to flavor incoming & outgoing data-streams with affective coloration.
41.3.5 The reptilian brain computes all basic survival needs. It acts as filter and master
modulator of all cerebral activity and defines basal neurophysical activity.
41.4 Interactionism upholds the irreducible operational distinction between consciousness,
information and matter, and posits a constant interaction between the brain (as a
hardware/software-unit) and consciousness.
41.4.1 Consciousness is not caused, produced, secreted or created by the brain. It acts
through and with the latter. Its natural station is beyond time and space but reflects in its
conditioned states.
41.4.2 The logical set characterizing consciousness is not identical with that of information
and/or matter. The numerics of consciousness are complex, those of information natural
and those of matter unreal.
41.4.3 Each operator interacts with the other as a function of its logical possibilities.
Consciousness slips through the margins of quantum physics. Information standardizes
states of matter into glyphs ("0" or "1"). Matter solidifies both meaning and expertise by
computation, processing and the ongoing play of architecture and momentum.
42. The intent of an ego possessing desire, super-ego, shadow, free will and
cognition is the source of all action & so the initiator of whatever human beings
do to themselves, their direct environment, society, the world and the Divine
(insofar as this is possible).
42.1 Depth-psychology pictures the waking ego as a small candle wandering in the vast,
dark storehouse of the psyche. Driven by desires dictating passions (lust & unlust) &
feelings, the ego needs to adapt to the realities of its milieu. It introjects the goals & values
of its parents, teachers & peers (super-ego) and rejects conflicting impulses (shadow). Its
free will is constantly torn between afflictive affects (feeling) and unreal projections &
conceptualizations (thinking).

42.2 The confused, ignorant pool of rationalizations (feelings into thought) and emotional
thinking (thought into affects) is the swamp to be cleared. Humanism leads to
psychoanalysis.
42.3 A clear and strong intent sustained for as long as needed initiates.
42.3.1 Clarity is achieved by balancing the five components of the human : sensation,
feeling, volition, reasoning & consciousness. Strength is achieved by the disciplined,
diligent practice of the actual harmony or natural health of the human.
42.3.2 Identification with or rejection of objects of desire cause the degeneration of reason.
42.3.3 Desire causes change in feelings and triggers volition.
42.3.4 In the Homo normalis, desire usually outlaws reason.
42.3.5 Only with great effort can the incomplete closure offered by Project Fairness bring
about an unstable good.
43. The humanization of the ego is the ego taking care for what pleases the
ego and avoiding what displeases it. To act for one's own sake alone, inevitably
leads to the "war of all against all", to authoritarianism & the culture of slavery.
43.1 The hierarchy of the Beast is one of fear, domination and pain. The Beast is conscious
of what it does and causes. Its catechism is one of might and control.
43.2 Although aware of the other, the egoist tries to objectify the someone into a
something.
43.3 Although aware of the ego, fake altruism rarefies it to the point of hypocrisy and
personal despair.
44. The ego is its own. Imprisoned as an abject slave owned by a master, the
ego is present to itself. This own-ness or egoism is the creator of new freedom.
44.1 It is pointless to try to eliminate the ego. In doing so, only super-ego is affirmed and
these "higher values" of the Beast are worse than its circumscribed activities.
44.2 Hellish cultural forms degenerate our youth, damaging their ability to communicate
and interact. This nullifies any attempt at spiritual emancipation. As so many satans stuck
in ice, the moral development of the low life is halted.
44.3 Egoism is a necessary factor in the equation of ethics. It is the starting-point which
needs to be superseded by duty, conscience and calling. Ego cannot be a slave, even not
when caged as one. Only in physical death is the ego broken.
45. Insofar as freedom is conquered by the ego, it creates new boundaries to
be conquered, etc. Freedom can be taken away, own-ness not. own-ness is not
an idea but is everything owned, or a description of the owner. To the ego,
own-ness is more important than freedom.
45.1 As far as the egoist is concerned, the others are objects to be owned. To seduce
properly, to find the adequate chain and a way to bind, constitutes the art and science of
personal gain.
45.2 Own-ness points to the exclusivity of "my" space-time and the FPF. This does
necessarily invoke a substantial ego (as in the present ethics), but generally it does.
Egoism turns ego into an absolute. In that case, ego = God prevails ...
46. Historically, humanism, working in liberalism as well as traditional

socialism, separated the "idea of man" from "my" own-ness. Creating a fiction,
man became an idol worshipped in terms of the religion of the Free State.
Privatim was turned into generatim, and "my" own-ness or fundamental
egoism was lost.
46.1 Liberalism has advanced the ego under the flag of individuality, but without
introducing libertinism, its natural ally. Thus it does not lead to the true freedom of the
ego, but to the minimal version of altruism, conflictual contractualism.
46.2 In repressive communism, the fiction is "the People". In socialism, the "working
classes". In both cases, the egoism of the human (on all sides) is not taken seriously.
46.3 Fed by the myth of the golden age, both systems have no eye for their long-term
impact on the eco-system. Ravishing Earth, they ultimately destroy the conditions of life
itself. At this point, the nations are called to intervene.
47. The humanism of the ego is the cult of egoism, mindless selfish
gratifications, sensualism, passion and the use of freedom to express ownness,
eventually through slavery, i.e. the power to control and destroy what is
owned. To humanize the ego is to teach the Beast how to excel in the evil it
does best.
48. Selfish freedom is (a) completed in the almighty ego, recognizing the
Beast it really is, and (b) secured by making the world its own, i.e. gained it
and taken possession of it for ego alone, by all means : might, persuasion,
petition, demand, hypocrisy, cheating, lying, tricking, etc. The ego is the father
of all lies.
49. The love of the almighty ego, is the lashing whip carving the stigmata of
dominion upon the torn flesh of slaves worshipping the Ego-is-God of their evil
master-owners. Might is right.
49.1 The almighty ego is a fascist sadist, while the masochistic slave perverts this sadism,
turning it against the humiliated ego.
49.1.1 These hyperbolic expressions aim to convey the volatile and bombastic drama of
the displays of the ego, in particular related to power, money and sex.
49.1.2 Power gives control and because it is confused with might and dominion leads to
lack of control and unbalance. Money gives gross satisfactions numbing the senses without
their subtle counterparts, which cannot be bought. Sex wears out.
49.2 Although mostly carried out to satisfy perverted pleasure (not emancipation), sadomasochism
is usually moral and involves inflicting psychological and moral pain to others.
49.3 To become conscious of the shadow is being able to accept, name and integrate the
demons of the ego.
49.3.1 Once integrated, mental unbalances are no longer projected upon the others.
49.3.2 The "black box" procedure involving the retrieval of the shadow is a
psychosynthetic move to integrate the personality and establishing a foundation for more
subtle preoccupations.
49.3.3 Shadow-work is giving to the animal (mammalian & reptilian) side of the human
what belongs to the animal without creating the Beast, the "golem" or "Frankenstein" of
degenerated reason.

50. The religion of the ego is the worship of ownership, i.e. the free will choice
to bow before the Beast, either as a victim or as a victimizer. Ego's religion is
diabolism, the reversal of conventional goodness and the worship of evil.
50.1 Diabolus est Deus inversus. Egoism is ruled by the principle of reversal for the sake of
the ego's ownership.
50.2 Egoism demands constant objectification, also of other ego's. To bind them, the
egoist knows how to fake altruism.
50.3 The tragedy of the life of the ego is the reluctance to deal with this issue without
being sedated by super-ego solutions.
50.4 Most ego's are too infatuated by the gross, bourgeois morality of their super-ego's to
vent their bestial side overtly, giving rise of neurosis and hypocrisy. Instead, it is projected
outwards, creating enemies, and/or kept inside the boundaries of their domestic lives
(causing adultery, domestic violence, moral sado-masochism, child abuse, incest, etc.).
50.5 Social control and longing for the satisfaction of worldly needs (money, fame, sex,
family, etc.) offer so many general values and goals enabling overt or repressed egoists to
become truly unhappy in their mediocrity.
51. Because intent and free will are owned by ego, critical ethics cannot
propose to altogether eliminate this source of moral evil. To acknowledge the
privatim implies to make way for the Beast, not to idolize a fanciful, a priori
idea about the Homo Sapiens sapiens.
51.1 Critical ethics acknowledges the ownership of the moral initiator, namely the free will
of the ego, and so intent opens the possibility of a conscious or unconscious choice for evil
and destruction, as dictated by desire and a perverted reason.
51.2 Only when the personal psychosynthesis of the ego is completed, can the Beast be
said to be transformed from wrathful to protective.
52. The ego is a solipsist and considers the existence of other ego's only
insofar as they are or will be owned, i.e. controlled and, if so willed, sold or
destroyed. Egoist ethics & politics are Plutocratic, i.e. true power lies in the
hands of a small, invisible, "infernal" elite deifying their egos.
52.1 In the course of human history, a small part of any population never had to work to
make a living. Deriving their power from ancestors, brutal force or supposedly Divine
beings, the traditional upper class mostly subdued those willing to worship them. Slavery,
in so many forms and guises, is the extreme version of this situation. As a result of the
worldwide changes triggered during the Age of Enlightenment and thereafter, this
exploitation was abolished in most countries (although not completely).
52.2 With the advent of the democratic nations and the industrial revolution, the upper
classes turned Plutocratic and invested their money & power in international corporate
business, escaping the controls of individual nations. Their outdated models are responsible
for the massive destruction of our natural resources. They institutionalize greed and a
questionabe, limited & ultimately dangerous view on economy and well-being.
52.3 With the coming of the New Renaissance of a pan-humanism acting on a planetary
scale, these invisible destructive forces will come into the light and perish. Eventually, a
planetary solution to world problems will be implemented before ecological disasters

eliminate our race.
53. Because the ego, at times, and this solely to instrumentalize and for
strategic reasons, thinks and communicates using signs (in the form of signals,
icons & symbols), other "master" ego's may be distinguished. The subsequent
"war of all against all", as well as the armed truce of legalism (contractualism),
hedonism, sociologism, authoritarianism and utilitarism replacing it, both imply
the recognition of own-ness next to "my" own, as well as the incapacity of
egoism to finds its way out of this deadlock, eventuating natural and
humanitarian disasters.
54. Is this not the tragedy of humanity ? The crucial initiators of all possible
ethics, intent & free will, are owned by an ego prone to revert to the way of
the Beast at any moment ...
55. Passionate lust feeds the amoral Beast. Cognition is unable to make the
majority of ego's capitulate, accept & acknowledge the other human being in
his or her own right. The constant clash of concept and desire disables either
approaches.
55.1 Consequential ethics are confounded about which goals and values to share and how
to prioritize them.
55.2 Inventing perpetual growth to satisfy narcistic expansion, ego eventually destroys the
very ground of its own existence.
55.3 Because of its limitations, ego battles other humans and abuses the mineral, vegetal
& animal kingdoms of nature. This all ends in total futility.
55.4 The police and the military represent the ego-based and/or duty-based responses of
the ruling social formations to the wilderness of Beasts.
08. The alter-ego and Operation Duty.
56. The patterns of communication at work in early family-life and at school,
educate the ego to open up for the experience of the other. They transpose
primate reciprocity to the level of the ante-rational conceptualization and
rational understanding of the mutual acknowledgment of the asymmetry
between the "I" and the "other". Where egoism cherishes this, altruism aims to
harmonize it.
56.1 Egoists reveal an disinterest in others. They may listen, but continue to express ownness.
Their core privation is empathy.
56.2 Harmonization is not the same as the undoing of a difference, but more like the
tuning and retuning (after play) of a string over two extremes.
56.2.1 Communication implies difference.
56.2.2 Increased difference is increased energy or the actuality of both architecture
(material particles) and movement (forces).
56.3 Altruism is able to bridge the divide between people without eliminating the
irreducible differences. Multiple transferences between cultures enable each culture to

edefine its own, keeping it alive. More communication leads to better communication,
more efficient cooperation and expanded understanding.
57. Acknowledging the frailty of the ego, being introduced to the other-asmyself,
is leaving egoism behind. With this moral birth, "my name" becomes a
name among other names, loses its might as solipsist singularity, and is
thrown into the competition of socialization and collective merit.
57.1 To be named by the other (in his or her own right and not as owner or owned) is the
beginning of the humanization of the other.
57.2 The ego, at the center of the field of consciousness, is not a substance, but the everchanging
product of the vectors (or aggregates) sensation, feeling, volition and cognition.
It owns fleeting clouds.
58. The free will is a formal, moral will when, due to reason alone, (a) it is in
accord with the moral law and (b) respect for this moral law is its only
determining ground. The moral will does not only act in accord with the moral
law, but for the sake of the moral law.
58.1 Insofar as the will acts in terms of the formal (universal) correctness of an action and
with disregard for its moral contents, the letter and not the spirit of participationism has
been fulfilled.
58.2 Participationism is in line with critical ethics, positing open, highly interactive,
complex and constantly changing systems and subsystems. Each part having its own
architecture and/or movement within the world-system(s).
59. The letter of the moral law is not a hypothetical, but a categorial
imperative : act in such a way that your moral will is a universal lawgiver, i.e.
do to every other as unto yourself.
59.1 The categorial imperative is derived from the autonomy of the moral law of reason.
Autonomy is not arbitrary, but satisfies the conditions of moral reason reaching towards the
unconditional.
59.2 The unconditional completes the edifice of reason and cannot be eliminated.
60. Righteousness is the spirit of the moral law. Then the other manifests him
or herself to "me" as a totality with an aura, i.e. with the power of luminous
presence. This self-revelation of the other to "me", is like being penetrated by
the poverty of "our" mutual relationship. It triggers "my" need to communicate
with "You" and vice versa. Only then may "we" stop being strangers to one
another.
60.1 The aura of the other is a subtle emanation surrounding the living body. Unlike the
face, which is a pars pro toto, the aura is an integral, bodily representation of the sentient
presence of the other. It refers to his or her nakedness, and steps beyond own-ness &
cultural signs. The aura is not owned by the ego. It mirrors the energy of the whole, also of
what cannot be repressed, put aside or rejected. It shows the integral human as he or she
is, repressions included.

60.1.1 We all read the aura's of others. They trigger either rejection, attraction or
auspicious neutrality.
60.1.2 The more a human is complete, the more the aura of any other is perceived as a
totality.
60.2 The aura points to the original, unique and specific qualities of the human. It invites
"me" to accept the other as he or she is and not as he or she fits in "my" perceptions
regarding him or her.
60.3 Not to witness the aura is not to accept the human as basically naked, fragile and
without inherent existence. This is the attitude of the egoist, who wants to exists in the
cage of sorrow, negativism & cynicism.
60.4 When witnessing the aura, the other reveals himself or herself to the ego as a
stranger invited by "my" perceptions.
61. In the humanism of the other, the latter evokes responsibility and the
desire to communicate and to sponsor individual becoming in and with a
network of other individuals promoting the ideal of planetary participationism.
61.1 To humanize another human is to step outside the solitary framework invented by the
ego to satisfy its desires and to realize for itself the mind of isolation & inherent, substantial
existence.
61.1.1 To relinquish the egoist, the worst enemy must be forgiven and integrated. Only by
giving attention to the interconnectedness between objects, events & persons, can the
hardened position of the egoist be rooted out.
61.1.2 To step outside solipsism is the first step of compassion. Cherishing otherness with
kindness while assisting reflourishing.
61.1.3 Restoration comes with each return of the mind to its natural, luminous state.
Eventually, each state of mind is integrated with this arché or base of the mind.
61.2 As every element constituting the world is in constant communication with every
other element, except for the closed & artificial systems invented by industry, the
continuity of interaction guarantees the non-arising of extremism, fanatism and other onesided
approaches.
61.3 Planetary participationism underlines the interdependence of all elements of planet
Earth. Aware of this interlocking, responsibility is triggered, for each and every other
human is as myself, and Earth is (for the moment) all we have.
62. The moral imperative is done for the sake and out of respect of the law.
Both cognition and desire participate. Operation Duty is the systematic
humanization of the other. Duty is the application of the free will of the ego to
accommodate, by participation, the becoming of the other, i.e. to
wholeheartedly co-produce the emancipation, socialization and integration of
fellow humans.
62.1 After the strong emphasis on the degeneration of reason and the will-to-power of the
Beast, the integration of desire may seem difficult to maintain. Desire is indeed, more
impermanent than other phenomena, but nevertheless maintains a solid fata morgana of
its own projections and mystifications of reality (in all its modes).
62.1.1 Desire can and must be trained and restricted by reason. Operation Duty implies
discipline, work and a joyful diligence in constant practice. In some cases, punishment is
the tool of education.

62.1.2 At its rare best, Operation Duty is a cage of alienation able to sublimate frustrations
by blinding itself with the excellence of its finite conditionality, forming a platform upon
which the sublime may rest (as on a truncated pyramid) and correct duty.
62.1.3 Projections and mystifications maintained over time cause sedimentations like
cultural forms, traditions, habits etc. These may represent excellent answers to past
circumstances.
62.1.4 Only flexible architectures withstand their surrounding momenta. All extremes
rapidly fall.
62.2 Operation Duty must be the extreme limitation of private own-ness for the sake of
every possible other human being (in ceteris paribus), causing its downfall. The logical form
of the view it posits is too rigid and unable to integrate process, flow, change and
interrelationality. Without the inner correction of conscience, duty cannot be maintained.
63. Operation Duty, the acceptance of moral standards, obligations and the
voice of moral reason, is giving up freedom to satisfy the conditions of the
categoral imperative, bridling individual choice for the sake of and by the
institutions of the group.
64. Moral value, according to Operation Duty, merely depends on the moral
law never to regard another as a means, but always as an end. Chosen by the
free will, it does not depend on the pleasurable objects of desire. This law "I"
ought to follow even if "my" own inclinations are thereby thwarted. If an action
does not occur for the sake of the moral law (by itself), but out of the
necessity of duty, it has legality but not morality.
65. Despair is the outcome of the humanism of the ego. Although the altruist
is posturing to move beyond it, the humanism of the other and its
universalizing ethics, encounters the lack of moral sufficiency and is plunged
into guilt. A mere "doctrine of duties", a moral rationality or justice dominating
the will, does not suffice. Ethics needs a "doctrine of virtues" and this reason
cannot offer. A new subjective input is called for : conscience.
66. Because duty is rooted in the rational, formal and empty conception of the
moral law in itself, it represses the will of all impulses to gratify "my"
inclinations and give "me" happiness.
67. The horizon defined by intentions and duty is (inter)subjective and
divergent. Alone with reason and its categorical imperative, the Beast, used to
live irrationally, prevails in numbers. Intent and duty offer disharmony and
fragility between happiness and goodness. Horizontality is tragi-comic and
invites mild pessimism.
67.1 Operation Duty has given humanity excellent forms of sedimented thought. Grand
cultural forms and civilizations have persisted and persist the centuries. Teachings and
prayers and sciences are at work, etc.
67.1.1 Although cultural forms assimilate and transform chaos, their rigidity (at the end of

one of their cycles) causes their eventual downfall. One must mind the gap. Watch and
step. Constant adaptation & open communication are essential to persist over time.
Enemies must be embraced. Energy saved even if it is plentiful. But to learn these simple
things still takes a lot of time.
67.2.2 Ecology, poverty, the situation of children, the elderly, handicapped & excluded are
good a posteriori indicators of the correct application of Operation Duty by the nations.
Today, these parameters indicate that Operation Duty is ready to become a planetary
exercise.
67.2 Despite the comical enthusiasm of hoping the best for the human, the equation does
tend downward, although a planetary participationism (or the odd invention) could
reharmonize it for centuries. Qui vivra vera !
67.2.1 Critical ethics embraces pessimism while inviting the possibility (propensity) of the
positive fact.
67.2.2 Critical ethics embraces optimism without rejecting the historical failures of
humanity.
09. The formation of conscience.
68. Conscience is the objective, inner organ of ethical evaluation between the
affective ethics of intent & the formal ethics of duty, between the needs of the
ego and the responsibility (or the application of the moral imperative) towards
all possible others.
68.1 As duty, conscience is objective, and rooted in a certain application of reason,
shielded from the degenerative flux of desire.
68.2 Conscience is an inner organ sitting at the cross-roads between fairness and the
Beast. It is an integral, functional part of the ego-system, the organic totality of ego,
desire, will, reason, super-ego, shadow & conscience.
69. The formation of conscience is a cognitive process, in which two
complementary elements play a decisive role : autoregulation and social
interaction.
69.1 Autoregulation means that the cause of change is not external but exclusively
internal, i.e. rooted in the architecture & the momentum of its constituent parts. Crisis is
the main cause of autoregulation, for in order to survive a system must reequilibrate after
disequilibration.
69.1.2 Classical, linear systems will postpone autoregulation and reinforce their imperative
architectures. Although slowing down degradation, this does not incorporate the benefits of
well-chosen turbulence, nor does it shape flexibility.
69.1.3 Intelligent, non-linear systems choose the chaos which accommodates their most
optimal complexification by way of multiple exchanges of well-formed energy. They survive
any change and can withstand space & time much longer without external controls.
69.2 Social interaction constitutes the reference-groups used by the moral process, or the
interaction between more than two actors, namely their parents, the school and their peers.
70. The species Homo Sapiens sapiens bonds by producing signs (signals,
icons, symbols). Conscience must be trained to enter the symbolical moral

order in the same way as the mind must be trained to operate a language.
Education teaches actors to understand the moral messages of the other.
70.1 Symbolical interaction allows "me" to understand "myself" through the eyes of the
other and become aware of the higher, intellectual levels of reason and their regulative
activity.
70.2 Critical epistemology acknowledges ante-rational, rational and intuitional strata of
thought, i.e. it is multi-dimensional.
71. According to moral science, stages of moral development, corresponding
with cognitive and affective growth, prevail. Together they form genetic
anthropology.
72. The highest stage of moral development optimalizes differentiation
(between goals, values and their priorities) and integration (ability to process a
diversity of moral problems and produce complex and coherent behaviour).
With this, the formation of conscience ends.
73. Conscience is part of the intimacy of the ego. Formed in the course of
socialization (so depth-psychology claims), it dominates the ego through the
unconscious ideal-ego. Insofar as its rulings are fixed in values and goals
acceptable by society, it dictates the ego under the guise of a super-ego,
reinforcing, through sublimation, the standards of the introjected world or, if
repression is at hand, feeding the shadow.
74. Conscience postpones the breakdown of ethics by working its "golden
proportion" between egoism and altruism. This brings in the moral illusions of
the super-ego, and transposes the armed truce to encompass "all others".
75. Just like moral reason, replacing the "war of all against all" with the
"contract of all with all", conscience cannot harmonize happiness with
goodness and complete ethics. Left with intent, duty and conscience, hypocrisy
& unscrupulousness almost seem inevitable, although it is not.
75.1 Ultimately, conscience, as an inner organ and a function of the ego-system, relies on
the intentions of the ego and gravitates around it. Because the role of conscience is wholly
internal, it cannot directly posit anything objective and so must rely on desire, volition and
reason.
75.2 Humanity manifests a strong attachment to desires. In a solitary, circular psyche they
dominate the stream of consciousness and sedate reason.
75.3 History and memory bring into evidence the minority able to practice calling daily and
in doing so balance and refine their elements.
75.4 To pursue fairness, finitude is enough but not satisfying.
75.5 Either hypocrisy creates a social alter-ego to bring out desire, or reason is consciously
perverted.
75.6 With great effort, the closure offered by intent, duty & conscience can bring about
Project Fairness.

76. Like the subjectivists, but for different reasons, critical ethics affirms the
role of feelings in the general inquiry into what is good, making ethical
judgments also a posteriori, i.e. relative, historical, contextual, situational,
singular, case-defined, etc.
76.1 Feelings are meta-actions and thoughts are meta-feelings.
76.2 Conscience is affected by both thought & affect.
77. Despite the given limitations on our capacity to know, reason discovers the
transcendental conditions of Selfhood.
77.1 Transcendental inquiries focus on the conditions of knowledge and make a sharp
distinction between immanent (staying within the limitations of formal thought) and
transcendence (moving beyond these borders). Transcendental apperception discovers a
formal Self of all times accompanying each and every cogitation of the empirical ego.
77.2 The formal Self is the empty apex of the cognitive apparatus, and guarantees that
"my" thoughts can be attributed to "me".
10. Returning the call of vocation.
78. Affects urge for repeated gratification. In esthetics, sensations are
ravished by the excellent sublime. In epistemology, the unconditional regulates
thought seeking truth. In ethics, fair volition is being called to answer vocation.
78.1 Calling is the intuition of the own-Self, manifesting as the full actualization of
individual potential.
78.1.1 The need to acknowledge the own-Self is not spontaneous and must be triggered
by a conscious choice adn dgenerated by creative thougt.
78.1.2 The ego seeks the own-Self because it suffers. Without the direct experience of the
own-Self, the gratification of desire only ends with physical death.
78.1.3 The realization of an elliptical consciousness does not end suffering, but is the first
step, like leaving the cage of alienation.
78.2 The own-Self, as a deeper mind, is the unique, individual reflection of nondual
awareness (or the natural light of the mind), rooted in the universal light-ground.
78.2.1 Three levels of consciousness : (1) conceptualizing ego, (2) own-Self and (3)
nondual awareness. The first two levels are relative & dual (involving ante-rationality,
formal, critical & creative cognition), the last is absolute & nondual (calling for metarational,
nondual cognition).
78.2.2 Because of its characteristics, each own-Self has an individual trajectory in space &
time.
78.2.3 The own-Self is not a permanent, substantial entity, but a higher (deeper) stratum
of the consciousness-operator of the moral agent, involved in migrating through time &
space a unique spiritual code, consisting of individualized and meaningful conscious habits,
patterns & traces.
78.2.4 In the spiritual systems of both East and West, the own-Self persists through time
& space. In the West, it is conceptualized as an eternal, permanent soul (anima) in which
one of the Divine Sparks of God or Imago resides. In the East (with the exception of
Buddhism), it is called "atman" and deemed identical with "Brahman", the Creator-God.

Ergo, in these substantialist philosophies, the soul is sempiternal (enduring forever).
78.2.5 Each own-Self has its own particular reflection (refraction) of the spacious
luminosity of nondual awareness, is enduring beyond physical death (for consciousnessbased),
but is not absolute, substantial or inherently existing.
78.3 Because calling is highly personal, it is subjective. Because it does not manifest from
within the moral agent, it is outer (objectifying).
78.3.1 Calling actualizes an awakening urging to accomplish the welfare of the own-Self.
This urgency makes calling unavoidable. Vocation is finding this true, egoless love of own-
Self, leading to enlightenment.
78.3.2 Meaningful coincidence (synchronicity) and serendipity characterize the advent of
calling.
79. Vocation is the call of the own-Self. Ego realizes this "own-Self" (moves
from a circular to an elliptic consciousness) insofar as it answers the call of
vocation and makes use of its free will to walk its own, unique path of
individuation. Ego does so, if it desires to be happy and good.
80. Like animals, Beasts have no calling. A world of Beasts is a wilderness, not
a civilization. At best, there are islands of fairness, unhappy about the moral
situation of the rest of the world. Fairness has no calling, remains passive like
a remote ideal or consolidates. Calling immediately triggers action. It engages.
81. Calling is the objective, outer manifestation of the quest for completion,
totalization & perfection driving the own-Self. It is the identity arrived at when
all possible conditional series applicable to the ego (and the super-ego) are
negated.
81.1 In Homo Sapiens sapiens, the own-Self calls each human to fully realize his or her
potential (liberation through realization).
81.1.1 The own-Self is a reflection of a nondual, luminous, Clear Light awareness united
with the light-ground.
81.1.2 More than often, the call of the own-Self is lost in the busy noise of the ego.
81.1.3 When nondual Clear Light abides, the light-ground is recognized and the own-Self
annihilated.
81.2 In the West, the own-Self is ontologised as an eternal soul with its "imago Dei" or an
eternal spirit, presupposing the existence of a Creator-God.
81.3 In the East, the own-Self is psychologized as a "soul" (âtman) united with Creator-
God (Brahman), or, as in unorthodox systems, as a migrating spiritual (karmic) code.
82. Calling is expressed in what is done and not done. It brings the despair of
conscience to silence. The latter is no longer furnished by "me" and "You",
neither by our wars and contracts.
82.1 Calling reveals the interconnectedness of all events in the worldsystem(s). This
undermines the fundamental isolation of the ego, aware of the vast space of possibilities in
which it operates.
82.2 Calling intensifies enthusiasm, affecting thought, feeling and volition. This is an
antidote against the neurotic tendencies caused by Project Fairness.

82.3 Calling brings in the spirit of the universal rule of moral reason, coupling fairness with
rightness, justice with care.
83. The one called is bound to answer by realizing, annihilating & recollecting
the own-Self. Realization decenters consciousness by introducing the
awareness of its creative core : Be-Who-You-Are. Annihilation comes with
nondual light-awareness. Recollection allows for fusion with the light-ground of
all that exists.
83.1 The conceptual ego veils the own-Self. The own-Self veils nondual awareness. By
individual awareness of Self-identity, the first step is taken.
83.2 Annihilation of the own-Self is abiding in nondual awareness, discovering its root, the
light-ground of the world-system(s). This brings into focus the universal spirit of
compassion for all sentient beings.
83.3 Recollection is wisdom mind, direct, nondual experience, or the fusion of
interconnectedness (space), clarity and energy (movement through difference).
83.3.1 In Western philosophy, wisdom is rationally explained, giving rise to ontology and
onto-theology.
83.3.2 In the East, wisdom is a nondual state beyond lust & unlust, grasping & aversion,
acceptance & rejection, affirmation & denial, action and inaction, explained in terms of
psychology and soteriology. If in denial or in acceptance, never pursue what is denied or
affirmed.
84. When the circularity of egoism is broken, Self-knowledge is gained through
the direct experience of the own-Self. The final recollection or ultimate return
of the call of vocation is -at least- the experience of nondual awareness
merging with its ground.
84.1 The unity between light-ground, nondual light-awareness and light-energy is found in
Ancient Egypt (Nun, Atum-Kheprer & the Ennead), in Dzogchen (Great Perfection)
Buddhism (kunzhi, rigpa & tsal) and in quantum mechanics (zero-point field, photon,
particle & momentum).
84.2 Calling, once found, has no other merit than to allow the wheel of goodness to
continue to turn and goodness to benefit all sentient beings.
84.3 The notion of the own-Self is implicit in Buddhism, but has not been put to the fore
because of possible recuperations by a substance-ontology reintroducing an immortal &
eternal "âtman".
84.3.1 The no-Self axiom of Buddhism does not deny the possibility of a migrating deepmind
with its individual specifics, albeit subtle and purified. It denies a substantial ego and
Self.
84.3.2 Because an ontological interpretation of the Self is rejected, the whole idea has
been eclipsed (except by the Pudgalavadins).
84.3.3 The core of no-Self is this : the own-Self is not a permanent, substantial, inherently
existing entity, but a construction able to withstand physical death and migrate into
another physical system until annihilated by the awakening of the wisdom realizing
emptiness.
84.3.4 Without the own-Self, Buddhism cannot consistently explain the long-term effect of
causes, the accumulation of merit, nor reincarnation.
84.3.5 If reincarnation is not, then suffering does not stop with the end of desire, but with

the termination of the physical vehicle.
11. Goodness & Project Fairness.
85. Good behaviour or fair and right action is (a) initiated by the free will of
the individual ego, (b) expanded as duty commands, (c) rooted and adjusted
by each individual conscience -seeking the "golden proportion" between
circumstantial desire (utility) and moral reason (duty)- and (d) finalized by
returning the call of vocation.
85.1 At the point of returning to reflection, the horizontal plane is exhausted. Every moral
agent must act and the inevitable tensions between intention and duty will be mirrored in a
subjectivity recollecting, pondering and making sense of it all before acting again.
85.2 Conscience is the arena of fairness, the balance between personal interests and the
good of all other sentient beings.
85.3 Project Fairness represents the first, intermediary closure of the dynamics triggered
by an intent posited in a world. The failure of the "contract of all with all" leads to a
disequilibrium preluding a reequilibration of the moral subject into maturity.
85.4 Moral maturity is not enough to maintain the first equilibrium (of intent, duty &
conscience). Conscience reinforces the ego and allows a subreptive re-entry of own-ness
frustrated by duty.
85.4.1 Because of the closure offered by the first three ethical factors, Project Fairness can
-at great costs- trigger an unstable balance.
85.4.2 Without vocation, the first equilibruim is disrupted, causing fairness to be followed
by periods of unrest and turbulence.
86. Moral science and moral reason cannot take away the frustrations of the
ego. Thrusting oneself into a work of desire accommodating goodness is not of
Project Fairness. Although the latter is secular, it does not include the spirit of
humanity.
86.1 Moral science, touching ethics from without, cannot capture the true sense of right
and wrong. Unable to execute moral judgment, any possible morality goes.
86.2 Moral reason, enforced by duty, leads to an untenable contractualism, slowing down
and limiting the moral impulse to encompass all sentient beings.
86.3 Without the ego finding its own-Self, ethics remains a table with three legs.
86.4 The spirit of humanity allows every human being to excell and step over its own ego.
Legalism and bourgeois mentality do not give this and hence limit the humanisation of the
other as a function of its needs and shared contracts.
86.5 The religious project is a hypertrophy of bourgeois ethics wherein God is transformed
into a master-bully, cruel & brutal.
87. Without vocation, happiness & goodness are not simultaneous.
Participationism is not the synthesis of a personal ego, but the higher synthesis
coming from being an individual, a someone rather than a something, and this
together, interrelated and interacting with other Selves. No longer a Beast, the
"I" of justice and fairness is not yet wholeheartedly human, for lacking care,
direct empathy & rightness.

88. Theoretical ethics posits a quaternio : intent, duty, conscience and
vocation (calling). Project Fairness is the constant circulation between the first
three factors. Intent is of ego, resulting in the wilderness of Beasts. Duty is the
moral imperative regulating the fair social contract. Conscience is the burden
of proof used by judgment to pronounce its inner, ever-present verdict.
89. Project Fairness, if successful, is a moral sedative failing to provide
enthusiasm, vehemence, urgency, diligence & devotion for the Magnum Opus
each human being is called to perform. It is necessary but not sufficient.
89.1 Closure implies intent, duty & conscience form a whole and balance each other.
Because of this, Project Fairness is not necessarily doomed to fail.
89.2 The difficulty with imperfect closure is the tendency of intent, duty & conscience to
step outside their own limitations and replace their interdependency with the stability of
egoism, i.e. trigger the return to the amorality of the Beast.
89.3 Project Fairness is necessary because it enables legalism to mature and be truly
responsible (in a conscientious way). It is incomplete because without vocation, it is
unstable.
90. Taken as a trinity of factors working together, intent, duty and conscience
are interconnected and represent the "letter of the law" or justice. To have
fairness at work, the application of strong vocation and positive enthusiasm to
ongoing just action -making it right- is not necessary. But not so to the "spirit
of the law", compassion or rightness.
91. Project Fairness is the set of maxims leading to the threefold process of
ethics in individuals, societies and the world. Intent covers personal maxims,
duty covers social maxims and conscience covers emancipatoric maxims.
91.1 The machinery of Project Fairness facilitates the emergence of a global community,
but not of its continuity.
91.1.1 The closure offered by the first three factors of the ethical fourfold lacks, as does
intent, the objectivity of subjectivity offered by vocation (and duty) and is therefore
discontinuous and unstable.
91.1.2 Although the excellence of reason builds an international community, only care &
rightness (beyond fairness) sustain and extend such an effort of excellent rationality as far
as the continuity of a profound planetary peace (transforming the excellence of planetary
participationism into its sublime utopia of the golden age).
91.1.3 For it to continuously gain efficient momentum, i.e. constantly maximalize
harmonization, the greatest number of caring intellectuals must define Project Fairness.
91.2 If, driven by desire alone, egological conscience turns into unscrupulousness, fairness
turns into injustice.
91.2.1 Caring intellectuals accept affects and their analogical representations hand in hand
with the free rule of excellent rationality.
91.2.2 This reign of enlightened reason is not restricted to the formal mode, but,
integrating the latter, it is multi-dimensional in all possible ways, i.e. also embracing myth,
pre-rationality, proto-rationality, critical reason, creative cognition and the enlightened,

nondual intellect.
91.3 The downfall of Project Fairness can be postponed as long as the energy-sources of
its economy are varied, sufficient and cheap.
91.4 At their best, emancipatoric maxims cover the preparations and practices preluding
the opening and entry of the own-Self. For its introduction is nothing less than the
implementation of a mental perpetuum mobile, an imaginal everlasting energy-harvesting
device.
91.4.1 The ego is a closed circle. The own-Self moves along an ellipse defined by two
conscious foci of which the Self is one. A constant (re)balancing occurs (between
understanding and wisdom, between negation and affirmation, between relative and
absolute, etc.).
91.4.2 The perspective of the dualistic ego is Lunar, gravitating around the Earth of our
physical body and its five senses. As the Sun, the own-Self is galactic, and in effect spatial
& luminous. Working with the ego alone is observing with the eye of delusion, experiencing
only the half of all things. Realizing the own-Self is the clarity of endless possibilities (cf.
the numerous worlds suggested by the stellar view).
92. Compassion is beyond the exemplaric performance of duty in accord with
intent & conscience, for its activities transcend desire. Because of the latter,
egoism does not find its ultimate end in conscience. Project Fairness has
closure but remains incomplete.
92.1 Discovering its own-Self, ego walks the Middle Path.
92.2 The Via Regia of the "Golden Middle" leads to the extinction of clinging & aversion and
the experience of impermanence of all desire. The unwholesome effect of the latter is
extinguished and its contents integrated as part of the spiritual path of light.
93. The ethics of compassion is not legalistic, but "moral" in the spiritual
sense, i.e. as rightness, based on care, trust, empathy, the context of
particular others, sensitivity to each other's emotions & feelings, etc. This is
the spirit of refinement instead of geometry, of interrelatedness instead of
isolated, permanent and failing atomism.
12. Planetary Participationism.
94. The more we seek out and answer the call of vocation, the sooner
planetary awareness will become stable in each member of humanity.
Communication and justice are just not enough. Participation and compassion
form the cap-stone of ethics.
95. Without transpersonal ethics, and the positive empowerment allowing one
to seek out higher satisfactions, an individual cannot integrate happiness,
fairness and care.
96. Convergence alone satisfies desire and pacifies the mind. The first is
knowing and realizing the own-Self as a "higher", panoramic inner perspective

(looking out and down). To know the own-Self is realizing it. To be introduced
to that Self is being it.
97. Transpersonal ethics is not a religion, but the affirmation of mental and
spiritual states of consciousness beyond the nominal and so beyond the conflict
between egoism and altruism.
98. Political leaders lacking Self-realization will not be able to solve the
problems facing humanity on a planetary scale. Very lucky and at their best,
they implement Project Fairness, but fail to satisfy all sentient beings. They
lack care.
99. Planetary participationism can be defined as a secular pan-humanism. It
promotes planetary democracy, sustains the global rule of law, satisfies all
basic human needs worldwide, maximalizes bio-diversity and implements the
new industrial 0-pollution standard. It accommodates both controlled and free
markets.
100. Planetary participationism is initiated by a Global Help Project, intended
to guarantee a peaceful transition to this planetary solidarity. In panhumanism,
the global social contact, as well as a Pareto-optimum in the
caretakership of nature, ought to be moral facts. Both are based on the idea of
the overall interconnectedness between all things as suggested by solid state
physics.
13. Ethics and metaphysics.
101. Insofar as theoretical ethics posits the transcendental conditions (free will
and coordinated movement) and so moves beyond the relative precepts of
moral science, it cannot do so without metaphysics, i.e. arguable but
untestable statements about the universe (metaphysical cosmology), life
(metaphysical biology) and humanity (metaphysical anthropology).
101.1 To define the experimental setup or to describe the speech-acts & language-games
played, implicit metaphysical background information is always needed.
101.1.1 To lay bare implicit concepts adds to their heuristic value.
10.1.1.2 Metaphysical notions kept implicit continue to be effective in one's stream of
thought.
101.2 The first limit-concepts try to work out the fundamental, all-comprehensive state,
ground or origin (if beginning be). These metaphysical notions regulate the activities of
cosmologists. The second deals with the root-state of life, the third of the human being.
102. Critical ethics works with an immanent metaphysical background.
Transpersonal ethics integrating transcendent metaphysics, is a religious ethics.
102.1 Immanent metaphysics develops its concepts within the limitations of the world-

system(s). Ultimately, this leads to all-encompassing limit-concepts, a definite asymptotic
behavior near the point at infinity. As a heuristic tool, it never trespasses finitude.
102.2 Ethics rooted outside the world-system(s), must depreciate man and/or mystify the
world as a universal illusion ("mâyâ") or a mere fata morgana.
102.2.1 Ontologically, the argument of illusion implies that everything which is not the
world is more important (purest, truest, etc.). Hence, movement is rest, process is inert,
and an ongoing development is an unmoved idea. This Platonism is superseded.
102.2.2 Psychologically, in this view, man is created by the static, i.e. by the projected
"eidos" of man, product of ever-changing conceptualizations.
103. Metaphysical concepts do not constitute moral philosophy, but inspire the
elaboration of the transcendental pair. Intent, duty and conscience are also
objects of moral science, elaborated against a metaphysical background.
104. By objectifying the unconditional, calling offers a final and stabilizing
regulation, or "turn of the wheel". It represents the threshold between
individual isolation and the dawn of the awareness of the interconnectedness of
everything and everyone, resulting from the decentration of the ego, the direct
experience of the own-Self, its annihilation and recollection.
105. At the outer edge of immanence, rational cognition, backed by the empty
concept of a formal, transcendental unity of apperception, is transcended at
the point (at infinity) where the higher Self is realized.
105.1 Creative reason offers vistas of new creative awareness. Creative thought
circumambulates the higher Self and the ego.
105.2 Critical ethics points to the necessity of vocation, but is not equipped to posit
empirico-formal propositions about the own-Self.
105.3 The study of the higher Self is itself part of metaphysical anthropology.
14. Ethics and the Divine.
106. Due to calling, the higher modes of cognition (the creative and the
intuitive) are unveiled as intellect to reason and directly experienced as part of
a pure potential or "own-Self" (amongst and infinite number of other potentials)
106.1 Annihilated, the own-Self no longer limits consciousness by its own-ness and so the
luminous root of consciousness is witnessed.
106.2 The root of consciousness is the root of matter and the root of information. From
beginningless times the natural state of consciousness is a clear presence united with
everything else.
107. In most mystical traditions, the Divine exceeds and does not exceed the
world-system(s). In the West, Divine essence, core or substance is
transcendent, and exceeds every thing. Its expression, energy or accident is
immanent. Every actualization of the Divine is of the same one essence.

107.1 Critical ethics posits the difference between immanence and transcendence and does
not overstep its own limitations.
107.1.1 In epistemology, the crucial distinction is between science (argued & tested
empirico-formal propositions of fact) and metaphysics (arguable, totalizing statements
about being, life and the human condition).
107.1.2 In ethics, the crucial distinction separates (and unites) Project Fairness (the
optimum given by an unstable momentum between intent, duty & conscience) and
rightness, care and compassion (resulting from integrating vocation).
107.1.3 Goodness is the unison of happiness, justice & rightness.
107.2 The formal Self is the best critical rationality can do, but the best formal reason can
do is not enough to objectify conscience.
107.3 Own Self, nondual light-awareness & light-ground are data of direct spiritual
experience, the training of the intellect and the manifestation of intuition and wisdom. The
more these maxims of emancipation invoke practice, the better they are.
107.4 The immanence of the Divine is arguable (cf. Does the Divine exist ?, 2005).
108. Religious ethics is based on revealed dogma. The call of vocation is
solidified into a monolith, for ever and ever.
108.1 Most, if not all religious ethics justify & institutionalize (a) the inequality between
man and woman, (b) the conflict of man with nature (both in terms of our physical bodies,
as well as regarding the three kingdoms of nature, the minerals, the plants and the
animals) and (c) the tensions between believers of different religions (due to an exclusivist
theology).
108.2 The criticism of the religions is not the issue here. But historically, they dominated
ethics to the point of being identified with it. As if without religions Project Fairness would
be impossible.
108.2.1 Project Fairness is based on moral science positing various levels and stages of
moral growth, based on biological, anthropological, psychological, social & economical facts.
108.2.2 The limit of fairness is esteem, which is a sign of excellence (not sublimity).
108.2.3 To understand sublime moral action of highly charitable & compassionate
individuals, a level beyond fairness is necessary. Although religious, its minimal logical
requirements are non-theist (i.e. devoid of a Creator-God) but never atheist.
108.3 It is possible to define calling as a Divine Call, but insofar intent, duty & conscience
are then infested by transcendent significators, the limitations of critical ethics are
superseded.
108.3.1 The trinity own-Self, nondual light-awareness and light-ground does not
necessarily imply a Creator or a God. In the West, all transcendence is ontologically
recuperated by monotheist onto-theology. In the East, henotheism prevails, except in
Buddhism.
108.3.2 The luminous ground of human consciousness, matter and information can be
made to blend with the statements of solid state physics and cosmology, stressing the
photonic nature of that part of the observable universe in which life sprang.
108.3.3 Fundamental onto-theology should be devoid of anthropomorphisms (giving the
essence of the absolute a human face or name), revelations (positing an infinite distance
between man and the absolute) and intermediaries (replacing the own-Self -my Lord- with
brokers -our Lord-).
109. Because of its irrational tenacity and the Bellarmine-effect (or the

unwillingness to discuss the possibility of contradicting facts), religious
fundamentalism is an erratic ingredient in any moral equation.
109.1 In essence, Project Fairness is secular and laic. To control the world-system(s), it
has no factor "X" transcending it. Insofar as vocation is thwarted, this project constantly
verges to fall in its negation, the rule of fake justice.
109.2 The rules of the game of democracy do not exclude religious ethics to become law.
110. The absolute (transcendence) and the relative (immanence) are two
sides of the same, one reality. By positing the difference, we disable ourselves
to open the door and unite with what never changed to be one.
111. Devoid of religious superstructures, the crucial experiences of the inner
worlds (like own-Self, nondual light-awareness and light-ground), trigger the
ethics of concern & care. Then, happiness & fairness are good, justice &
compassion are balanced, as are fairness & rightness, charity & righteousness.
Book 2
Towards an Applied Ethics
15. The practice of ethics.
With the practice of ethics, our investigations receive a new dimension. Instead of focusing
on the question Quid juris ?, and asking for the necessary principles, conditions & norms of
ethics and its judgments, Quid factis ? aims at maxims enabling us to apply the wheel of
ethics (the dynamics of intent, duty, conscience and calling) particularly to local contexts
and circumstances, taking into account the relative conditions of space, time & person.
Theoretical ethics is rooted in the a priori and represents a system of statute-law,
implementing a series of principles and norms "top-down". In such an approach (as in
deontological ethics), there is no room left for circumstantial elements. The concrete
situation at hand, namely its psychological, social and economical facets, are not taken into
consideration, but replaced by formality and legality. Even if ethics takes, as does critical
ethics, the consequential (intent) and subjective (conscience/calling) into consideration, its
norms exclude the actual set of elements gathered a posteriori.
These considerations bring in the distinction between ethics and morality, between a
normative, conceptual understanding of the quaternio of ethical factors and the actual,
practical application of the formal tool in a concrete, specific and circumscribed field of
events, triggering the mother of all ethical question : What must I do ? Let good actions,
deeds & behaviours be the answer.
Clearly memory plays a crucial role in the transition from norms to maxims, from statutelaw
to case-law. In a general sense, memory is then history, and the forms retained by the

latter offer nearly endless examples of good & evil actions, sedimenting in wrong behaviour
and bad habits. If nothing is learned from this past, then morality can never be deep and
vast.
Morality is the application of ethical norms. The formation of successful series of actions as
well as good habits, forming living traditions, bring in rules of stable good behaviour or
maxims. The latter are more fluid and less formal than a set of norms. Insofar morality
yields good fruits (i.e. a happy & good life), it roots, ex hypothesi, in the dynamics of the
normative process of ethics.
The various maxims may be organized in concentric circles, starting around the person and
expanding to encompass the zenith and the horizon.
The physical body, the first object of any person, is the vehicle, instrument, sheet,
interphase or material actuality through which understanding (information) and
consciousness manifest in the physical, observable world. As the health of this body is
crucial for the possibility of long-term behaviour, it occupies the first circle around the
person.
As the first five years of any Homo Sapiens sapiens play a decisive and irreversible role in
the development of all his or her possible actional, affectional and conceptual faculties,
family life surrounds the baby's healthy body. Given that families are defined by other
families insofar differences occur, property is the circle shielding any family-life, and
providing the transition from social cell (clan, tribe) to society. Property as a circle is not
limited to the material plane, but (at least) includes actional (style), cognitive (education)
and affective (refinement) parameters of nobility. These have taken time to slowly
sediment, have always been and continue to be transmitted to one's off-spring, and this
through specific educational patterns & ways of relating to oneself, the others & the world
(nurturing a selective & exclusive set of maxims).
With the emergence of the concept of the secular state (rooted in the historical examples of
the finishing of the Constitution of the United States in 1787 & the French Revolution of
1789), the notion of ruling families is encircled by a set of independent nations, constituted
by three independent powers and this in a secular & democratic fashion, operating in
accord with the rights of all human beings, and safeguarding the future.
The need to be protected and safe, triggering a military acting against enemy-states,
although legitimate, leads to a severe moral impasse, accommodating armed conflicts and
war. Indeed, if Earth were as big as Jupiter, our problems would not yet confront the
nations with planetary turbulence, disaster and impending catastrophe, as they do at the
beginning of the XXIth century. As Earth is finite and our families a "global village", another
circle is called in by the physical limitations of our planet. Here, a planetary participationism
is actively sought by the nations for the nations, and this to maximalize their happiness
and goodness. A minimum ? The absence of poverty, the absence of human rights
violations, new industrial standards and an increased bio-diversity on Earth.
As all things rise, exist and fade away, the physical body of each and every person
eventually dies. The way we make death part of our lives, illustrates our ability to develop
a positive, creative & constructive approach of illness, old age & the process of death in
general, and of our own fears of perishing and transformation in particular. Meanwhile, it
brings understanding of all things that come to an end and allows us to grow into wisdom

facing adversity & felicity alike.
16. Persons.
If personhood is a hypostasis, then an underlying reality is presupposed, like a "soul",
eternal or not. This final ground is then the axiom supporting philosophical anthropology.
Consistent with critical epistemology, critical ethics does not embrace a substantialist,
foundationalist approach, acknowledging the impermanence of all things within the
relativity of the world-system(s).
Given this, personhood points to an original compound, complex or system of material,
informational & conscious operators. Although impermanent in absolute terms, the person
is a relative continuity within the limited span of a lifetime. This normal, "nominal" waking,
dreaming & sleeping continuity is foremost rooted in consciousness, depending on &
interphasing with a body loaded with physical, chemical & biological information ready to
be transmitted and a brain conditioned by numerous cultural forms.
If personhood would start at birth, tabula rasa might be an option. But as the brain is
prewired and goes through crucial experiences while living in the womb, personhood is
more likely the glorious surplus of the fusion of one seed (out of millions) with one ovum.
With personhood starting at conception (and not a little later), the maximal moral
protection of persons is guaranteed.
Personhood and egohood first meet when the name N is attributed to "my" coordinations of
movement, causing a series of identifications between the physiological impact of the
auditive, visual and/or tactile glyph of N and coordinations of movement not yet attributed
to N (not yet identified as "my" coordinations). Eventually, the mental habit of identifying
consciousness with the first person ("I"), thinking "I am N" ensues. Here, a new field, only
present in potential, is triggered by coordinations of movement aiming at allowing the
movements of the body to be associated with a phonetical and later visual founding glyph :
the first name. However, the semantics of this name "I" cannot choose. Hence, the infant is
a pre-moral person introduced into the moral sphere by means of an appellation chosen by
his or her genitors.
With the family name, the broader context of giving birth is put to the fore. Not only is the
ego named so-and-so outside its own free will, but neither can it choose its own family, and
the behavioral patterns which are theirs. Propelled by anterior causes outside its actual
field, a person's name reflects nurture and the differences introduced by the family's
application of certain maxims or the absence thereof. Hence, the delicate process of
education demands responsible parents.
In approaching children, love and care are essential. Although moral, they lack maturity
and need to be guided properly to acquire a healthy ego and grow into their own-Self. This
crucial period (from conception to adolescence) has to be protected by maxims which
guarantee the adequate development of actional, affectional and cognitive possibilities and
this in terms of goodness, beauty and truth.
In adulthood, privacy, intimacy and the possibility to keep secrets are important. Here,
personhood develops in terms of a reality-for-me, the direct circle of interaction and
communication. Privacy implies sacred time & space. It must be possible to withdraw from

others (seclusion) and to be alone for prolonged periods of time undisturbed. Education
must also offer this, for the social ego is only the outer persona or mask of the ego. If too
much emphasis is placed on it, and freedom of attention of others is absent, interior life
pales and inner depth will be lacking. To be able to retreat (and to be taught how to do so)
are crucial for the ego to realize its own motives, drives, desires, feelings & thoughts. This
realization has a direct impact on action and cannot be replaced.
Intimacy is the privacy of a close relationship, either in friendship or in partnership (work,
love, marriage). Here, detailed knowledge resulting from a long association is acquired.
Familiarity and friendship are very pronounced, and so glances beyond the persona are
possible. The danger of this is clear. If the so-called "friend" is a crook, as may happen in
life, vital information will be thrown on the street and much suffering may be intentionally
caused to persons.
A secret, or a piece of information not generally known which should not be told to
others, belongs to the privilege of the person and groups of persons. If secrets are
impossible, the weaknesses of personal life are unprotected.
Maxims organizing personhood are meant to protect own-ness and satisfy the
humanization of the ego. To be able to develop a reality-for-me, an exclusive, original
perspective or view is the only way for the ego to discover its propensities, motivations,
drives, desires and dualistic conceptualizations. As in the course of the process of
socialization much of the private own-ness of the ego is sublimated in abstract terms (cf.
supra), this view often represents the opinions of parents & peers. Because of the power of
the desire to exist, the ego recaptures own-ness and affirms its hold on consciousness (in
volitions, affects & cogitations). Most of adult life is seeking a path to return to the lost
affectivity of early youth. That is why adulthood does not presuppose maturity, although
the opposite is recommended. Fairness is not yet care.
17. Health.
To be able to mature, the human needs a long life. If this life is cut short, negative
sedimentations have been allowed to interchange with gross material circumstances,
although the latter can and should be avoided as much as possible.
Health is more than a good and strong physical body. It is a state of mind allowing one to
dramatically decrease the process of aging and prolong one's natural life-span.
To acquire this healthy state of mind, the human needs to discipline his desires (lust and
unlust) & their mental sediments (acceptance and rejection). This work is emancipatoric
and the practice aims at health and longevity.
Undercutting desire will take out the root, liberating the mind from the cage of fear & hope.
This is a long-term project, involving the intuitional layers of cognition. These work with
creativity, i.e. the intelligence "of the heart" instead of cerebral conceptualizations. These
are supported by the direct experience of Divine union (cf. "unio mystica" or "samadhi").
To be able to create new mental operators, making it possible to alleviate the effects of
identification (affirmation, acceptance) & denial (negation, rejection, repression, etc.), is
the immediate, short- & intermediate term aim.

Personal hygiene, diet, environments, sexuality and a good private life are wholesome
foundations. To seek the best in each of these areas will protect & prolong life. If excellence
lacks, restoration may not be full, but nevertheless effective.
The maxims covering health also bring out the good of the whole range of frail and
weakened human beings. They aim at a state of wholeness encompassing the Earth and its
kingdoms of life. Clearly humanity is still lacking the power to implement this perspective
worldwide, although a lot of good is done. For limited materialists, health is the continuity
of the ego-system, although far better is possible. Identifying with a caricature of the own-
Self, circular consciousness is limited by and to the physical body. As a result, because of
the unwholesome attitudes, the body suffers more and the natural span of life cannot be
extended, on the contrary. This hampers maturity.
The health of the other kingdoms of life on this planet is also part of the responsibility of
the human, acting as a care-taker. The purity of the natural elements, the diversity of
plants & animals are a wealth to be cherished and protected worldwide. Loosing it would
trigger the end of civilization as we know it and plunge humanity into tragedy. Hence, the
diet of the human has to be adapted to the ecological balance of the Earth.
In terms of health-care, medical science should not instrumentalize life and treat human
persons (even unborn ones) as objects to be manipulated. The medical profession needs
philosophy, psychology and sociology to deal with birth, illness & death, for the root-cause
of most afflictions are mental, as is the greater part of healing (cf. placebo). To work with
the materialist model at the exclusion of other approaches, limits the healing-potential of
the medical profession.
In principle, abortion and active euthanasia are moral evils. In each case, the inviolability
of life is harmed and the deontological principle is replaced by a teleological pursuit. Stem
cell research can never be systematic, as its object should never be acquired in such a way.
18. Family.
Family is the extension of private life and of the self-love of ego's. Insofar a person has
family, much of what characterizes this close communal life of the clan is unwilled by the
ego, although eventually it may contribute and make changes. Orphans may be adopted
or, in adolescence, choose a surrogate family.
It happens, as a reaction against past regulations imposed by some kind of families, that
during adolescence, a "soul" family is identified. This seems to offer a break from the
"usual" and this may well be so. But often, when adulthood arrives and the irreversible
"return to childhood" happens, these "soul" families are uncovered as fantasies, and there
is that what remains.
What happens during early family-life defines the ego-complex. This conditioning cannot be
taken out or reversed. Whatever it is, early life has to be accepted as it was. Mother &
father, as depth-psychology evidenced, and later school & peers, constitute the referencegroups
from birth to early adulthood. Adulthood is precisely this remembrance of the best
of childhood. The own-ness of ego must be experienced before it can be relinquished. The
sooner this happens, the faster happiness is actual.

Of all human institutions working within Project Fairness, balancing intent and duty in
conscience, family-life is the most excellent. Their core value being unconditional love,
families offer a secure and potent way to sediment goodness and transmit its benefits.
Although biologically defined, human families may supersede the natural law (of male,
female & child), but only insofar happiness, fairness and rightness are not thereby
endangered.
19. Property.
Property, or the right to use, change and sell goods & services, defines the social status of
any family. Differences between families has determined the stratification of social
formations since the beginning of the Neolithic (ca. 10.000 BCE) and sedentariness, when
the piling of material goods became possible.
Language, goods and services were the tools fashioning societies, small kingdoms,
kingdoms and empires. In this process, families have been the nucleus of all economies.
For to transfer property, trust and secrecy are necessary. The larger the fortune, the bigger
the mystery, as international corporate business amply proves. Given most humans have
families, property is intrinsically linked with this selfish expression of ego's own-ness and
humanization.
There are two problems with property. The first occurs when there is poverty anywhere on
Earth. The second is the outcome of a careless and unenlightened (ignorant) abuse of
natural resources and bio-diversities. Both lead to more poverty for everybody.
People need to differentiate from other people. Property is the tool. That all humans,
animals & plants are well-off, while some humans are rich and/or extremely rich, is
acceptable.
Discovering the lunacy of its own-ness, the ego may mature by stepping outside the
circularity of its excellent but sordid ways and so invite another, more sublime perspective,
namely that of the own-Self, the unique, individual imprint, form or idea (cf. "eidos") within
consciousness of its own luminous root, nondual light-awareness. The "eidetic" reduction
needed is to directly discover this bright remainder within consciousness. The ego-system
must be disequilibrated by moving beyond the lusts & unlusts of affects, feelings, etc.,
beyond the affirmations & denials of discursive thought, conceptualizations, rational mind,
etc., and beyond the action & inaction of volition.
Discovering the own-Self is connecting to the interconnected network of human aspirations,
hopes and heavens. Care for all sentient beings is the sign of calling. At this point, material
wealth is coupled with generosity and the active assistance of good work.
20. On the secular state.
Thanks to the secular state, property is no longer the sole asset of families, companies and
religious institutions. The state is a crucial instrument to redistribute wealth. Indeed, huge
differences in income and accumulated wealth increase poverty. To make peace, the
nations must work as a global network of care-takers.
It is vain to underestimate the power of the Beast and its fantasies. Human nature being

what it is (if not bestial, then guilt-striken or amoral), the state (even the democratic one)
and the academia may be transformed into market instruments and the Plutocracy which
eventually destroys itself. The fragility of our situation has not yet dawned, and geosentimentality
blocks global awareness and this to our great peril.
To curtail traditions makes them stronger. Churches are rebuilt. But slowly can politicians
change the mentalities of their peoples. At times U-turns are necessary, although even
titans are unable to uproot deep entrenched beliefs. These forces try to dismantle the
state. Only a strong state will be able to uphold the Plutocratic principles of the human
animal.
Brutal communism and wild capitalism are examples of the extremes. In democracies,
despite the free market of chosen goods & services, there are things which are not for sale
and principles which cannot be changed by way of vote (like the integrity & sanctity of
vegetal, animal and human life).
All things come to an end.
A phrase adults often repeat ...
21. On death.
Instead of hiding and condemning death, we might accept and study the phenomenon.
Some say we experience death only once. Other claim we forgot how many times we
already did. Who remembers his own birth ? While sleeping we come near to oblivion for
many hours. Even awake, attention slips away and these tiny moments of confusion & blur
seem so many lost spots in the stream of consciousness.
On the one hand, for the conceptual materialist, death is the end of the physical support of
consciousness, blackening out and disintegrating with it. Nothing is left and nothing is
known, as in the so-called "darkness" of deep sleep. As if we died every night.
On the other hand, if, ex hypothesi, consciousness operates independently from matter and
information, then the deep-mind of the own-Self, with its own, characteristic subtle
luminosity & refraction, supported by its own, inner light-root, is not affected by this
disintegration of a gross, temporary physical vehicle (allowing for a partial rebirth, namely
of this own-Self).
Consciousness aware of the own-Self is then beyond the tragedy of material separation. If
this is so, consciousness may prepare for death and consider the merit it needs to
guarantee the further clarification (annihilation, recollection) of its own-Self to the point of
the light-awareness of enlightenment (during this life or just after physical death).
May all sentient beings achieve this liberation and the final enlightenement to which it leads.
Suggested Reading

Aristoteles : Ethica Nicomachea, De Nederlandsche Boekhandel - Antwerpen, 1954.
Aristotle : Oeconomica, Loeb - Londen, 1977.
Aristotle : Magna Moralia, Loeb - Londen, 1977.
Aristotle : Oeconomica, Loeb - Londen, 1977.
Aristotle : Magna Moralia, Loeb - Londen, 1977.
Aristotle : Ethics, Penguin - New York, 1979.
Aristote : De l'Âme, Les Belles Lettres - Paris, 1995.
Ayer, A.J. : Language, Truth and Logic, Gollancz - London, 1936.
Bakunin, M. : Marxism, Freedom & the State, Freedom Press - London, 1990.
Bataille, G. : L'Expérience Intérieure, Gallimard - Paris, 1973.
Baudrillard, J. : L'échange symbolique et la mort, Gallimard - Paris, 1976.
Bentham, J. : Introduction to the Theory of Morals and Legislation, Athlone Press - London, 1970.
Bergson, H. : Les deux sources de la morale et de la religion, PUF - Paris, 1932.
Bertalanfy, von, L. : General Systems Theory, Braziller - New York, 1968.
Blondel, M. : L'Action, Félix Alcan - Paris, 1936, 3 tomes.
Buber, M. : Ik en Gij, Bijleveld - Utrecht, 1959.
Buber, M. : Pointing the Way, Harper & Row - New York, 1963.
Buber, M. : Between Man and Man, Macmillan - New York, 1967.
Chardin, de T. : Het verschijnsel mens, Aula - Utrecht, 1958.
Darwin, Ch. : The Descent of Man, Murray - London, 1875.
Dawkins, R. : The Selfish Gene, Oxford University Press - Oxford, 1975.
Deleuze, G. : Coldness and Cruelty, Zone Books - New York, 1989.
Deleuze, G. : Difference and Repetition, Columbia University Press - New York, 1994.
Derrida, J. : Writing and Difference, University of Chicago Press - Chicago, 1978.
De Waal, F. : Chimpanzee Politics, Cape - London, 1982.
De Waal, F. : Peacemaking among Primates, Harvard University Press - Cambridge, 1989.
Dilthey, W. : Descriptive Psychology and Historical Understanding, Martinus Nijhoff - The Hague,
1977.
Durkheim, E. : Over Moraliteit, Boom Meppel - Amsterdam, 1977.
Eccles, J.C. : The Neurophysiological Basis of Mind, Oxford University Press - Oxford, 1953.
Eccles, J.C. : The Wonder of Being Human, Free Press - New York, 1984.
Eliade, M. : Birth and Rebirth, Harper and Brothers - New York, 1958.
Eliade, M. : The Sacred and the Profane, Harcourt, Brace & C° - New York, 1959.
Eliade, M. : Shamanism : Archaic Techniques of Ecstasy, Bollingen series/Princeton University
Press - Princeton, New Jersey, 1964.
Eliade, M. : The Myth of the Eternal Return, Bollingen series/Princeton University Press - Princeton,
1965.
Elias, N. : Het civilisatieproces, Aula - Antwerpen, 1982, 2 volumes.
Epictetus : The Discourses, Harvard University Press - Harvard, 1925-1928.
Elster, J. : The Multiple Self, Cambridge University Press - Cambridge, 1989.
Erikson, E.H. : Identity : Youth and Crisis, Norton - New York, 1968.
Foucault, M. : Geschiedenis van de waanzin, Boom - Meppel, 1975.
Godwin, W : An Enquiry Concerning Political Justice, Penguin - New York, 1976.
Freud, S. : The Interpretation of Dreams, Knopf - New York, 1994.
Fried, Ch. : Right and Wrong, Harvard University Press - Cambridge, 1978.
Fromm, E. : The Anatomy of Human Destructiveness, Penguin - New York, 1973.
Fuller, R.B. : Ruimteschip Aarde, Bakker - Den Haag, 1975.
Gauthier, D. : Morals by Agreement, Oxford University Press - Oxford, 1986.
Gorgias : Het woord is een machtig heerser, Historische Uitgeverij - Groningen, 1996.
Habermas, J. : Zur Logik der Sozialwissenschaften, Suhrkamp -Frankfurt, 1970.
Habermas, J. & Luhnman, N. : Theorie der Gesellschaft oder Sozialtechnologie Was leistet die
Systemforschung ?, Suhrkamp - Frankfurt, 1971.
Habermas, J. : Erkenntnis und Interesse, Suhrkamp - Frankfurt, 1973.
Habermas, J. : Technik und Wissenschaft aus 'Ideologie', Surhkamp - Frankfurt, 1968, p.161.

Hare, R.M. : The Language of Morals, Oxford University Press - Oxford, 1963.
Hare, R.M. : Moral Thinking : Its Levels, Methods and Point, Oxford University Press - Oxford, 1981.
Hegel, G.W.F. : The Philosophy of Right, Clarendon - Oxford, 1952.
Hobbes, Th. : Leviathan, Dent - London, 1914.
Hume, D. : An Enquiry Concerning the Principles of Morals, Open Court - La Salle, 1966.
Hume, D. : A Treatise of Human Nature, Oxford University Press - Oxford, 1978.
James, W. : Varieties of Religious Experience, Longmans, Green & C° - New York, 1902.
James, W. : Pragmatism, Longmans, Green & C° - New York, 1907.
James, W. : Principles of Psychology, Dover - New York, 1950, 2 volumes.
Kant, I. : Critique de la raison pratique, PUF - Paris, 1943.
Kant, I. : Prolegomena to Any Future Metaphysics, Macmillan - New York, 1949.
Kant, I. : Grondslagen van de Ethiek, Boom Meppel - Amsterdam, 1978.
Kant, I. : Foundations of the Metaphysics of Morals, Merrill - Indianapolis, 1959.
Kohlberg, L. : The Philosophy of Moral Development, Harper & Row - San Francisco, 1981.
Laszlo, E. : Evolution : The Grand Synthesis, Shambhala - Boston, 1987.
Laszlo, E. : The Connectivity Hypothesis, SUNY Press - Albany, 2003.
Larrabee, M.J. : An Ethics of Care : Feminist and Interdisciplinary Perspective, Routledge - London,
1993.
Levinas, E. : Ethics and Infinity, Duquesne University Press - Pittsburg, 1985.
Lévi-Strauss, Cl. : The Savage Mind, University of Chicago Press - Chicago, 1997.
Lévi-Strauss, Cl. : Structural Anthropology, Basic Books - New York, 2000.
Morgenbesser, S. & Walsh, J. : Free Will, Prentice-Hall - New York, 1962.
Macintyre, A. : After Virtue, Duckworth - Lordon, 1981.
Marcuse, H. : Eros and Civilization, Beacon - Boston, 1955.
Marcuse, H. : L'homme unidimensionnel, Minuit - Paris, 1968.
Marcuse, H. : One Dimensional Man, Sphere - London, 1968.
Marx, K. : Het Kapitaal, De Haan - Bussum, 1974.
Merleau-Ponty, M. : Phénoménologie de la perception, Gallimard - Paris, 1945.
Merleau-Ponty, M. : Sens et non-sense, Nagel - Paris, 1948.
Merleau-Ponty, M. : Éloge de la Philosophie, Gallimard - Paris, 1960.
Pascal, B. : Pensées, Seuil - Paris, 1962.
Midgley, M. : Beast and Man, Harvester Press - Hassocks, 1979.
Mill, J.S. : Utilitarianism, Dent - London, 1972.
Moor, G.E. : Principia Ethica, Cambridge University Press - Cambridge, 1903.
Nagel, Th. : The Possibility of Altruism, Oxford University Press - Oxford, 1970.
Nietzsche, F. : The Will to Power, Vintage - New York, 1964.
Nietzsche, F. : Beyond Good and Evil, Vintage - New York, 1966.
Nietzsche, F. : Ecce Homo, Vintage - New York, 1967.
Parret, H. : Filosofie en taalwetenschap, Van Gorcum - Assen, 1979.
Perry, R.B. : General Theory of Value, Harvard University Press - Cambridge, 1954.
Nozick, R. : Anarchy, State and Utopia, Basic - New York, 1974.
Piaget, J. : The Moral Judgment of the Child, University of Chicago Press - Chicago, 1949.
Piaget, J. : Le Structuralisme, Presses Universitaires de France - Paris, 1970.
Piaget, J. : Genetische Epistemologie, Boom Meppel - Amsterdamn, 1976.
Piaget, J. : Genetische epistemologie, Boom Meppel - Boom, 1976.
Piaget, J. : The development of thought. Equilibration of cognitive structures, Oxford University
Press - Oxford, 1978.
Plato : The Republic, Oxford University Press - Oxford, 1993.
Rawls, J. : A Theory of Justice, Oxford University Press - Oxford, 1983.
Ross, W.D. : The Right and the Good, Oxford University Press - Oxford, 1930.
Rouseau, J-J. : Du Contrat Social, Flammarion - Paris, 1966.
Rousseau, J-J. : The Social Contact, Prometheus Books - Amherst, 1992.
Rousseau, J-J. : A Discourse on the Origins of Inequality, Oxford University Press - Oxford, 1994.
Rousseau, J-J. : The Confessions, Oxford University Press - Oxford, 2000.

Rousseau, J-J. : Emile : Or Treatise on Education, Prometheus Books - Amherst, New York, 2003.
Russell, B. : Individu en Autoriteit, Servire - Katwijk, 1974.
Sartre, J-P. : L'Existentialisme est un humanisme, Nagel - Paris, 1954.
Sartre, J-P. : Being and Nothingness, Washington Square Press - New York, 1966.
Scheffler, S. : Consequentialism and its Critics, Oxford University Press - Oxford, 1988.
Sidgwick, H. : The Methods of Ethics, Macmillan - London, 1907.
Singer, P. : Applied Ethics, Oxford University Press - Oxford, 1992.
Singer, P. : Ethics, Oxford University Press - Oxford, 1994.
Spinoza, B. : Ethica, Wereldbibliotheek - Amsterdam, 1979.
Spinoza, B. : The Ethics and Selected Letters, Hackett - Indianapolis, 1982.
Roosens, E. : Sociale en Kulturele Antropologie, Acco - Leuven, 1984.
Rorty, A.O. : Philosophies of Education, Routledge - New York, 1998.
Stirner, M. : The Ego and Its Own, Rebel Press - London, 1993.
Tart, Ch. : Altered States of Consciousness, Dutton - New York, 1975.
Tart, Ch. : Transpersonale Psychologie, Schibli - Doppler - Schweiz, 1978.
Tart, Ch. : Waking Up, New Science Library - Boston, Massachusetts, 1986.
Tillich, P. : The Courage to Be, Yale University Press - New Haven, 1952.
Toulmin, S. : Kosmopolis, Kok - Kampen, 1993.
Vloemans, A. : Politeia, Kruseman - Den Haag, 1980.
Vroon, P. : Bewustzijn, Hersenen en Gedrag, Ambo - Baarn, 1976.
Vroon, P. : Tranen van de Krokodil, Ambo - Baarn, 1989.
Vroon, P. : Wolfsklem, Ambo - Baarn, 1992.
Wertheim, W.F. : De Lange Mars der Emancipatie, Van Gennep - Amsterdam, 1977.
Wilber, K. : A Sociable God, Boulder - London, 1984.
Wilson, E.O. : Sociobiology : The New Synthesis, Harvard University Press - Cambridge, 1975.
Yates, E. : Self-Organizing Systems : the Emergence of Order, Plenum - New York, 1987.
Zeleny, M. Autopoiesis : A Theory of Living Organization, North Holland - New York, 1981.
Chapter 4
A Neurophilosophy of Sensation
"Experience is not what happens to You ; it's what You do with what happens to You."
Aldous Huxley
TABLE OF CONTENTS
I : The organs of perception.
01. Smell : the nose feels the air.
02. Taste : tongue and water.

03. Touch : bending & stretching from top to toe.
04. Audition : the pressures of air.
05. Sight : the eye as the space of photons.
06. Naked perception : stimuli & preliminary codation.
07. Natural perception : space, time, integration & projection.
II : The sensuous cortex :
08. The sensory areas : perception & its cortical processing.
09. The association areas : the final integration of perception.
10. The angular gyrus : symbol tools.
11. The prefrontal cortex & empirico-formal concepts.
12. Sensations in epistemology, ethics and esthetics.
13. The argument of illusion.
I : The organs of perception.
"Each of us believes himself to live directly within the world that surrounds him, to sense
its objects and events precisely, to live in real and current time. I assert that these are
perceptual illusions, for each of us confronts the world from a brain linked to what is 'out
there' by a few million fragile sensory nerve fibres. These are our only information
channels, our lifelines to reality. These sensory nerve fibres are not high-fidelity recorders,
for they accentuate certain stimulus features, neglect others. The central neuron is a storyteller
with regard to the afferent nerve fibres ; and he is never completely trustworthy,
allowing distortions of quality and measure, within a stained but isomorphic spatial relation
between 'outside' and 'inside'. Sensation is an abstraction, not a replication, of the real
world."
Mountcastle, 1975, cited in Popper & Eccles, 1981, p.253.
the preliminary codification
The neurophilosophy of the transport of information from the PNS (Peripheral Nervous
System) to the CNS (Central Nervous System), studies the afferent, sensoric, incoming
impulses from the five senses, crucial to distinguish perception from sensation.
The efficient neurological cause of perception is called "transduction" ("to lead across").
This is the logic by which a receptor cell, exposed to an environmental stimulus, causes an
electrical response. On a deeper level, the overall functioning of the brain is thus
underpinned by complex flows of electric charge (from the Greek "electron" or "amber),
which, together with magnetism, shapes the fundamental interaction known as
electromagnetism (next to universal gravity and the subatomic strong & weak forces).
Electromagnetism implies the simultaneity of electrical & magnetic forces. The magnetic
field is caused by the electric current or motion of electric charges. The electromagnetic
field is the space which exerts a force on particles possessing electric charge, in turn
affected by these particles and their motion.

Sensation is defined as the faculty through which the external world is perceived. Hence,
the sensory system is two-tiered : on the one hand perception, the raw, naked immediacy
of the receptor organs for smell, taste, touch, audition & sight, the "doors of perception" at
the periphery of the olfactory, gustative, soma-esthetic (or somato-sensory), visual &
auditory systems of the CNS. On the other hand sensation, the end result of an array of
central neural systems committed to process the coded form of the impulse perceived by
the receptors, like the secondary & tertiary sensory areas, the spatial association area
situated in the posterior parietal cortex (of both hemispheres), the angular gyrus in the
inferior parietal lobe, sitting at the juncture of the tactile, visual & auditory areas, the
limbic system (for emotional coloring) and the Ascending Reticular Activation System in the
brainstem for the general arousal-level of the CNS.
Peripheral Nervous
System (PNS)
receptor organs
afferent pathways
synaptic relays
perception
codification
Human Brain
Central Nervous
System (CNS)
primary to tertiary areas, gyri, the limbic
etc.
sensation
experience appearance
The transmission of afferent impulses is never direct but by synaptic relays, changing the
massage into a "code". In every neuronal relay station, this coded impulse is modified.
Although each sense has its primary receiving area laid out as a cortical "map" (cf. the
Brodmann areas), the neuronal relays from the PNS to the CNS cause the preliminary
"codification" of the raw impulse hitting the reception surface of nose, tongue, skin, ears
and/or eyes. So when the impulses in some sensory pathway reach the primary sensory
areas in the CNS, preliminary codification has already taken place (cf. Kant's distinction
between experience, "Empfindung" versus appearance, or "Erscheinung").
"In general it can be stated that the intensity of the stimulus is encoded as frequency of
discharge of impulses."
Popper & Eccles, 1981, p.252.
from perception to sensation
Mental states are either based on sensation or are non-sensational.
Sensations have a clear bodily location and possess "raw feels" or qualia, defined by the
five-tiered sensory input of the five physical organs of sense (smell, taste, touch, audition
and sight). More or less spatially defined, sensations are always the experience of a
conscious subject. Without this conscious experience, sensations are not.

The distinction between sensation and perception is important. Sensations occur to a
subject of experience, and manifest as nose-consciousness (smelling), tongueconsciousness
(tasting), skin-consciousness (touching), ear-consciousness (hearing), eyeconsciousness
(seeing) & the concert of these. They represent the final, "constructive"
result of a process starting with naked, "unconstructed" perception. Sensations happen to
an empirical ego (largely processed by the prefrontal lobes of the neocortex) with a unique
perspective on the ongoing, sensational & non-sensational stream of functional differences
or "energies" within consciousness.
Perception is three-fold. The root of perception is the impulse affecting the receptor. Next,
the afferent relay to the CNS is coded, finally projecting the coded impulse in the primary
sensory area. Because these perceptional data are introduced through sensory pathways to
which consciousness has no direct access, perception is, paradoxically, non-sensational. To
clarify this idea, the neurophilosophy of the primary, secondary & ternary sensory areas
will be helpful.
Non-sensational mental states have no distinct, outer events associated with them. These
mental states, also emerging without one being conscious of them, may be classified as :
● quasi-perceptional states : hallucinating, dreaming, imagining, trance-visioning ;
● emotions, feelings : the complete range from utter disgust to sublime bliss, from
violence to peace ;
● conative states : wishing, wanting, intending, trying, acting ;
● cognitions : thinking, reasoning, knowing, conceiving, understanding, intuiting.
01. Smell : the nose feels the air.
The earliest organism abided in chemical substances signaling food, poison or sex. In
humans, externally located neuronal cell bodies are concentrated within the nose. These
nasal-located neurons, like those of other, more ancient creatures, analyze the
pheromonal, olfactory and chemical nature of the environment for data concerning food,
sex, the weather and the like. Over the course of evolution, only two groups of primal
sensory cells formed like-minded cells : the olfactory lobe and the optic lobe. With the
expansion and axonal-dendritic interconnection of these lobes the modern brain emerged.

the olfactory bulbs & optic vesicles of the neural tube
from Bear, Connors & Paradiso, 2001, figure 7.10 p.182.
We do not smell with the nose, but with a small, thin sheet of cells high up in the nasal
cavity. This olfactory epithelium, about 10 cm², has three main cell types : (a) olfactory
receptor cells, or neurons with axons of their own penetrating into the CNS, (b) supporting
cells, similar to glia, helping to produce mucus and (c) basal cells which are the source of
new receptor cells. Indeed, the receptor cells continually grow, die and regenerate in a
cycle lasting ca. 4 to 8 weeks. The olfactory epithelium and the retina of the eye are both
literal extensions of the brain. The olfactory system gave rise to the evolution of the
primitive amygdala and rudimentary hippocampus ca. 500 million years ago. Because odors
are inherently slow stimuli, rapid timing of action potentials is unnecessary to encode the
timing of odors. Rather, temporal coding, based on the timing of spikes, is supposed to
encode the quality of odors, and transduce the chemical stimulus into an electric charge.
Temporal patterns of spiking would then be the logic behind the olfactory coding.
In lower mammals olfaction is the dominant sensory input, but in humans it became
subordinate to sight, hearing and somaesthesis. Humans are relatively weak smellers. A
smell is detected when about 10 trillion molecules of one of the ca. 30.000 or so available
odor molecules enter the nose and stimulate receptor cells. Humans are able to detect and

emember ca. 10.000 odors. Each of these cells express only one of the 1000 types of
odorant receptor genes. Dogs have more than 100 times more receptors in each square
centimeter of the olfactory epithelium, which may be over 170 cm².
Olfactory receptor neurons send axons into two olfactory bulbs, full of neural circuits with
complex dendritic arrangements, reciprocal synapses and high levels of various
neurotransmitters. Olfactory information is modified by inhibitory & excitatory interactions
within the structures of the bulbs and between them. Neurons in the bulbs are also subject
to modulation from systems of axons descending from higher areas in the brain. The
output axons of the olfactory bulbs run through the olfactory tracts and have a complex
distribution, the principal termination being in the piriform cortex (or olfactory cortex), the
primary sensory area of olfaction, thus making various direct connections to many
structures of the limbic system, the "nose brain". From there, the axons go to the thalamus
on to the neocortex, were conscious recognition of smell occurs in the orbito-frontal cortex
right behind the eyes.
This anatomical feature makes olfaction unique, for all other sensory systems first pass
through the thalamus before projecting into the neocortex. Only olfactory connects with a
primary sensory area directly related to temporal lobe structures & the limbic system.
The limbic system has been referred to as the "nose brain". The afferent axons stimulate
this system directly, without the thalamus or "universal gateway" of the CNS. Indeed, the
spinothalamic pathway is the major route by which afferents (registering for example pain
or temperature) ascent to the neocortex. The thalamus is thus the gate through which
information carried by sensoric axons enters the CNS. Here, these afferents are preprocessed
to branch out to the relevant cortical areas & the limbic system.
The unicity of olfaction is clear. Like all sensory systems, it makes use of a method of
preliminary codation to relay information to the CNS, but unlike any other system, it
branches out in the limbic system before being pre-processed in the thalamus and relayed
to the neocortex and its primary sensory area in the forebrain.
Olfaction directly connects with emotion and the latter evolved from feeding, fighting,
fleeing and sex.
02. Taste : tongue & water.
The olfactory system is related to eating and assists the gustatory system. Flavor can only
be detected if both nose & tongue are used together. Although completely independent of
the taste buds localized along the tongue, both system may have started out as one
chemoreceptive system becoming distinct over the course of evolution. In reptiles and
many other animals, an auxiliary olfactory organ is located within the roof of the mouth.
But, in this case too, the two systems are separate. Indeed, some food, although smelling
good, may taste terrible and have no nutritive value. The taste test allowed for additional
differentiation, although some stuff smell & taste great whole still being poisonous.

Both smell & taste are chemical senses using a variety of transduction mechanisms to
recognize the large amount of chemicals encountered. For an omnivore, a sensitive and
versatile system of taste was essential to survive. Some taste preferences, like sweetness,
is innate, but experience strongly modifies these instincts. The body has the capacity to
recognize a deficiency and adjust this by causing cravings for particular food. We recognize
four basic tastes : sweetness, saltiness, sourness & bitterness.
Although we mainly taste with our tongue, the palate, pharynx and epiglottis also
participate, as well as the olfactory system. Scattered about the surface of the tongue are
small projections called papillae (or bumps), shaped like ridges, pimples or mushrooms.
Each papilla has hundreds of taste buds, composed of ca. 50 - 150 taste receptor cells,
only about 1% of the tongue epithelium. Taste buds have also basal cells surrounding the
receptors and a set of gustatory afferent axons. A person has ca. 2000 - 5000 taste buds,
while exceptional people have as few as 500 or as many as 20.000.
As is the case for the other sensory receptors, papillae tend to be sensitive to only one
basic taste and only at some critical concentrations just above threshold is a stimulus
evoked. This does not mean sweetness is only tasted with the tip of the tongue. The
tongue map implies certain areas of the tongue are more sensitive to the basic tastes than
are other regions, while most of the tongue is sensitive to all basic tastes. Single receptors
show small differences in response, and subtle distinctions are made in the brain. When a
taste receptor cell is stimulated by an appropriate chemical, its membrane potential
changes, either depolarizing or hyperpolarizing. This voltage shift, or receptor potential,
causes the cell to fire action potentials.
The neuronal coding of taste is not based on specific receptor types, axons and neurons.
Taste buds are broadly tuned to stimuli and this is the case all the way into the CNS.
Receptor cell inputs converge onto afferent axons, and each receptor synapses into a
primary taste axon also receiving input from several other receptors. One axon may
combine taste data from several papillae. This is called population coding, used throughout
the sensory and motor systems of the brain. This seems to be an architecture already at
work at the level of the action potential of the neuron, making a combined decision based
on all stimulating (yes) and inhibiting (no) nerve impulses influencing it (cf. the
"democratic neuron").
The main flow of taste data is from the taste buds to the afferent gustatory axons, into the
brain stem (medulla), up to the thalamus and finally to the neocortex. In the brain stem,
the axons synapse with the gustatory nucleus and diverge from there. The thalamus sends
axons to the primary gustatory area, the cortical area in the anterior insula of the cortex
(in the parietal lobe).
03. Touch : bending & stretching from top to toe.
The experience of touch starts at the skin. Most sensory receptors in the somatic sensory
system, are mechanoreceptors, sensitive to physical distortions such as bending or
stretching, enabling the body to feel, to ache & to chill (in the context of this paper, the

term "somatic sensation" is avoided). Present throughout the body, they monitor all
contact with the skin as well as pressure in the heart & blood vessels, stretching of the
digestive system, urinary bladder and force against the teeth. The axons branches
characterizing each mechanoreceptor have mechano-sensitive ion channels, not well
understood.
As the largest organ of the body, the skin is richly innervated by axons part of the vast
network of peripheral nerves. In the visceral system, primary afferent axons bring
information from the somatic sensory receptors up the spinal cord, only synapsing in the
dorsal root ganglia (or cuneate nucleus at the base of the head). Information about touch
or vibration of the skin takes a route to the CNS entirely distinct from pain and
temperature stimuli. Indeed, some of the axons terminating in the root ganglia start at the
skin of the big toe. At this point, the information is still represented ipsilaterally (right side
body, right dorsal nuclei). But axons from these cells arch and decussate. From this point
onwards, the somatic system of one side is concerned with sensoric data deriving from the
other side of the body.
After only one synapse, the afferent impulse travels to the thalamus & the cerebral cortex.
At each of two relays (root ganglia & thalamus), the opportunity for an inhibitory action is
given, sharpening the neuronal signals by eliminating the weaker excitatory stimuli. By this
inhibition, a precise localization of touch stimuli becomes possible.
Somaesthetic or somatosensory processing occurs in the cerebral cortex, namely the
parietal lobe. The primary somatosensory cortex occupies an exposed cortical strip, the
postcentral gyrus. The somatotopy of this gyrus has been called a homunculus (or "little
man"), a mapping of the body's surface sensations.
04. Audition : the pressure of air.
Sounds are audible variation in air pressure caused by moving air molecules. When an
object moves away, air is made less dense (rarefied). Many sounds produce periodic
variations in air pressure. The frequency of sound is the number of compressed patches of
air passing by our ears each second. One cycle is the distance between two successive
patches. Sound frequency is expressed in hertz, or the number of cycles per second. The
auditory system responds to pressure waves over the range of 20 - 20.000 Hz, decreasing
with age & exposure to noise of the high-frequency end (a low organ tone is about 20 Hz,
while a high note on a piccolo is about 10.000 Hz). Intensity of sound is difference in
pressure between compressed patches of air, and determines the loudness we perceive.
The higher the intensity, the louder the sound. The intensity range is remarkable, for the
loudest sound leaving our ears undamaged is about a trillion times greater than the
intensity of the faintest sound heard.
The ear has three main divisions. The structures from the funnel (pinna) to the eardrum is
called the "outer ear". The tympanic membrane and the ossicles constitute the middle ear
and what lies behind the oval window is the inner ear. These structures of the auditory
pathway play the following roles :

● pinna (or funnel) : helps collecting and localizing sounds ;
● auditory canal : extending ca.2.5cm inside the skull ending at the tympanic
membrane ;
● tympanic membrane : the eardrum ;
● ossicles ("little bones") : a series of bones or transferring movements of the tympanic
membrane into movements of a second membrane covering a whole in the bone of
the skull called the oval window ;
● cochlea ("snail") : behind the oval window, this is a fluid-filled space containing the
apparatus transforming physical motion of the oval window membrane into neuronal
responses. This involves a frequency analysis of the patterns of sound waves and
their conversion into the discharges of neurons. The auditory receptors converge
mechanical energy into a change in membrane polarization (cf. the organ of Corti,
consisting of hair cells, the rods of Corti and various supporting cells).
Once the inner ear generates the neural response to sound, the signal is transferred to and
processed in nuclei in the brainstem, and sent to a relay in the thalamus, finally projecting
to the primary auditory cortex in the temporal lobe (Heschl's gyrus). Both audition & sight
start with sensory receptors connecting to early integration stages (retina for sight and
brain stem for audition), relay to the thalamus and then to the sensory cortex.
Nevertheless, given there are more synapses at nuclei intermediate between the sensory
organ and the cortex, the auditory pathway appears more complex than the visual
pathway. However, the cells and synapses of the auditory system in the brain stem are
analogous to the interactions in the layers of the retina. All ascending (afferent) auditory
pathways converge onto the inferior colliculus of the midbrain. The right cochlea projects
mostly to the left primary auditory area, and vice versa for the left cochlea.
Neurons processing sound information are timing machines. They are designed to preserve
& analyze very rapid neural signals encoding small but meaningful variation in sound
signals. A trained pianist can distinguish between two tones of 1000 Hz and 1001 Hz, or
the detection of a difference of only 1 •sec in the wavelengths ! A single action potential
lasts about 1000 times longer. The detection of a sound source in the horizontal plane with
a precision of 2° is possible, demanding the discrimination of 11 •sec difference between
the time it takes a sound to reach their two ears. Many auditory neurons in the brain stem
have an architecture & physiology optimized for speed and electrical conduction. This
precise localization is also necessary to report position and movement of the head (the
vestibular system). Indeed, both the auditory and vestibular systems use hair cells to
transduce movements.
05. Sight : the eye as the space of photons.

light
The majority of the light hitting the surface of the Earth comes from the Sun, and this is
only a fraction of what our star disperses into outer space in all directions. Light, electricity
& magnetism are all electromagnetic radiation. The electric and magnetic fields oscillate at
right angles to each other, while the combined wave moves in a direction perpendicular to
both of these two field oscillations.
Light, of constant speed in empty space, may be conceived as moving packages of energy
called photons. Paradoxically, a photon is a particle of electromagnetic radiation. Light is
both particle-like & wave-like. Whether light moves like a wave or as a particle depends on
how it is observed (cf. the importance of the experimental setup in the two-slit
experiment).
In a digital camera, both aspects of light are addressed. The lens of the camera refracts
(bends & focuses) incoming waves of light. These waves are made to hit a charge-coupled
device (CCD). This is a light-sensitive integrated circuit storing & displaying image-data.
Each picture element (pixel) is converted into an electrical charge related, by intensity, to a
color in the color spectrum. Subatomically, this intensity is measured by light photons
kicking electrons out of the silicon contained in the bombarded surface. These electrons are
finally detected by electronics interpreting the number of electrons released and their
position of release from the silicon to create an image.
The length of a light wave λ is the distance between successive peaks or troughs, its
frequency ν is the number of waves per second, and its amplitude is the difference between
peak and trough, related to the intensity or brightness of a wave relative to other light
waves of the same wavelength. Light features a simple relation between its speed (c),
wavelength (λ) and frequency (ν), namely (1) ν = c/λ. Since λ, the wavelength in
Ångstroms (1 Ångstrom = 10 -10 meter), bottoms the fraction, frequency is inversely
proportional to the wavelength. Light with a smaller wavelength has a higher (larger)
frequency and vice versa.
White light is made of different colors or wavelengths. When passed through a prism, it
spreads out in different colors (cf. the rainbow of the visible spectrum). This phenomenon
shows how all possible wavelengths become manifest. "Hot" colors such as red or orange
consist of light with a longer wavelength, and these have less energy than "cool" colors
such as blue or violet.
Color
λ
(Å)
ν
(*10 14 Hz)
E
(*10 -19 J)
violet 4000 - 4600 7.5 - 6.5 5.0 - 4.3
indigo 4600 - 4750 6.5 - 6.3 4.3 - 4.2
blue 4750 - 4900 6.3 - 6.1 4.2 - 4.1

green 4900 - 5650 6.1 - 5.3 4.1 - 3.5
yellow 5650 - 5750 5.3 - 5.2 3.5 - 3.45
orange 5750 - 6000 5.2 - 5.0 3.45 - 3.3
red 6000 - 8000 5.0 - 3.7 3.3 - 2.5
In physics, a quantum (plural : quanta) is an indivisible entity of energy. For instance, the
photon, being the unit of light, is a "light quantum". In empty space, a photon moves at a
constant speed, has no rest mass and no charge. Einstein (1879 - 1955) found the
relationship between the energy of light E and its frequency ν to be : (2) E = h × ν, h being
Planck's constant, or 6.626 × 10 -34 J·sec, used in the quantization of energy. The energy of
electromagnetic radiation is proportional to its frequency. Emitted at high frequency (or
short wavelengths) it has the highest energy. (1) & (2) give E = h.c/λ, with c = 299.800
km/s (the speed of light in empty space).
Light rays travel in straight lines until interacting with the atoms & molecules of the
atmosphere and objects. These interactions include reflection, absorption & refraction.
Reflection is the bouncing of light rays off a surface. Most light we see is reflected off
objects. Striking a mirror perpendicularly will reflect light 180° back upon itself, at 45° a
reflection of 90° occurs, etc.
Absorption is the transfer of light energy to a particle or a surface of molecules. Black
surfaces absorb the energy of all visible wavelengths, while some compounds absorb a
limited range of them and reflect the remaining. "Violet" absorbs long wavelengths but
reflect a range of short ones centered on 430 nm (4300 Å), perceived as "violet".
Refraction is the bending of light rays traveling from one transparant medium to another.
Striking a surface at an angle will bend the light toward a line perpendicular to it. This
bending occurs because the speed of light differs in the two media, passing through air
more rapidly than through water. The greater the difference between the speed of light in
the two media, the greater the angle of refraction.
the visual system
A large part of the cerebral cortex is involved with analyzing the visual world captured as
the electromagnetic radiation visible to our eyes. In the electromagnetic spectrum, ranging
from Gamma rays to AC circuits, the visible spectrum of rainbow colors lies between
wavelengths of 400 & 800 nm (1 nanometer = 10 -9 meter = 10 Ångstroms), in other
words, light visible to our eyes has wavelengths between 4000 - 8000 Ångstroms.
The structures involved in all steps of the visual pathways are complex. The eye is an organ
specialized for the detection, localization and analysis of light. The gross anatomy of the
eye is as follows :
● pupil : the opening allowing light to enter the eye and reach the retina ;

● iris : surrounds the pupil, and is pigmented to provide the color of the eyes. It
contains two muscles varying the size of the pupil (one makes it smaller when it
contracts, the other larger) ;
● cornea : pupil & iris are covered by a glassy transparant external surface, lacking
blood vessels and nourished by the fluid behind it, the aqueous humor. It is
continuous with the sclera, the "white of the eye", forming the tough wall of the
eyeballs ;
● extraocular muscles : inserted into the sclera, they move the eyeball in the bony
orbits of the skull ;
● conjunctiva : membrane folding back from the inside of the eyelids and attached to
the sclera ;
● retina : a sheet of closely packed visual receptors (ca. 10 7 cones and 10 8 rods) at the
back of the eyeball, on which an image is formed ;
● optic nerve : carries axons from the retina and exits the eye at the back, passes
through the orbit and reaches the brain at its base, near the pituitary gland.
The conversion of light energy into neuronal activity happens in the retina. The basic flow
of light in the retina is from the photoreceptors to bipolar cells to ganglion cells. The only
light-sensitive cells in the retina are the photoreceptors, while all other cells are influenced
by light via direct or indirect synaptic interactions with these. The ganglion cells are the
only source of output from the retina. They alone form action potentials. The actual
conversion of electromagnetic radiation into neural signals occurs in the 125 million
photoreceptors at the back of the retina. They convert light energy into changes in
membrane potential, using biochemical cascade.
influence of light/dark contrast with identical gray
Each cell has four regions : an outer segment, an inner segment, a cell body and a synaptic
terminal. Light-sensitive photopigments absorb light and trigger changes in the membrane
potential of the photoreceptor. Rod photoreceptors have a long, cylindrical outer segment,
while cone photoreceptors have a shorter segment. Rods are 1000 times more sensitive to

light, while there are three types of cones, each containing a different pigment, making
them sensitive to different wavelenghts of light. Only the cones are responsible for our
ability to see color.
The axons of the ca. million ganglion cells travel in the optic nerve. About 10% of this
retinofugal projection courses from each eye to the midbrain (the superior colliculus), while
most of them innervate the thalamus, and from there go to the primary visual cortex or
striate cortex in the occipital lobe (the nonthalamic targets of the optic tract involves about
150.000 neurons). The optic nerves exit the left and right eyes and travel through the fatty
tissues behind the eyes and pass through holes in the floor of the skull. These nerves from
both eyes form the optic chiasm, which lies at the base of the brain, anterior to where the
pituitary gland dangles down. In this chiasm, optic nerve fibers cross from one side to the
other (decussation). Hence, the left visual field is viewed by the right hemisphere and the
right visual field is viewed by the left hemisphere. The actual viewing happens in the
primary visual cortex.
From the striate cortex, a ventral stream of information projects into the inferior temporal
cortex, where the highest integration of visual function & analysis occurs. This is the end
station of a system of recognition of specific and particular shapes and objects of interest,
both cognitively as well as emotionally, for interconnected with the amygdala,
hippocampus, limbic system and the autonomous nervous system.
06. Naked perception : stimuli & preliminary codation.
"If the doors of perception were cleansed,
every thing will appear to man as it is, infinite.
For man has closed himself up,
till he sees all things thru' narrow chinks of his cavern."
Blake, 1790/2, The Marriage of Heaven and Hell.
The receptor organs of the sensory system are fed by impulses based on chemical
substances, collisions & frictions, air pressures and electromagnetic radiation. These
impulses are the first cause of perception, nothing else. Stimuli are the direct, external
changes caused by a narrow band of material objects on the surface of the receptor organs
of the sensory system.
Molecules alter the chemistry of nose & tongue. The mechanics of stretching & bending
triggers somatosensoric responses. Each second, compressed patches of air pass by our
ears. Variations in electromagnetic energy stimulates the retina. Take away these stimuli or
disable the receptor organs, and perception is either absent, partial or impossible. The
receptor organs are the "doors of perception" ...
Without perception, no interpretation of perception and no sensation. To be physically in
touch with our environment, evolution provided five doors. Although more may be available
(cf. imagination & mind), sense perception is the primary fact of physical experience shared
by all humans at birth. It is nominal and the cause of sensate objects.

"Literary or scientific, liberal or specialist, all our education is predominantly verbal and
therefore fails to accomplish what it is supposed to do. Instead of transforming children
into fully developed adults, it turns out students of the natural sciences who are completely
unaware of Nature as the primary fact of experience, it inflicts upon the world students of
the Humanities who know nothing of humanity, their own or anyone else's."
Huxley, 1957, p.59, my italics.
We first smell, taste, touch, hear and/or see (perceive) and then consciously experience
odor, taste, feels, sound & light (sense). Throughout the sensory system population coding
is used, implementing a threshold for combined action-potentials. This procedure enables
broad responses.
Between the moment the receptor organ changes (stimulus) and the actual conscious
sensation (response), two levels of interpretation exist : automatic & processed.
● automatic interpretation from receptor organ to thalamus : evolutionary, biological
software integrated in the hardware of the brain, involving transduction, coded relays
& reception by thalamus ;
● processed interpretation from thalamus, primary sensory cortex to prefrontal cortex
: evolutionary software plus userware (volitional & processed), able to change
software & influence hardware, calling for the secondary sensory cortex, the
association areas, the angular gyrus & the prefrontal cortex.
In each receptor organ, a particular transduction is operational from, on the one hand,
chemical (smell, taste, touch), mechanical (touch, audition) or electromagnetic energy
(sight) to, on the other hand, encoded sequences of electric voltages running through
neurons and their axons and dendrites.
● smell : transduction of chemical stimuli (odorants) by temporal coding (the timing of
spikes) ;
● taste : transduction of chemical stimuli by membrane potential changes, either
depolarizing or hyperpolarizing (voltage shift) ;
● touch : transduction of mechanical and chemical stimuli by membrane potential
changes & mechanoreceptors (with mechano-sensitive ion channels ?) ;
● audition : transduction of mechanical energy by a change in membrane polarization ;
● sight : transduction of electromagnetic radiation by a change in membrane
polarization.
The axons of the olfactory bulbs run through the olfactory tracts and project directly into
the olfactory cortex. This happens without passing through the thalamus first, as is the
case for taste (gustatory afferent axons), touch (somatosensoric axons), audition (auditory
nerve) & sight (optic nerves), projecting into the neocortex by thalamic relay.

Smell is an exceptional sense, able to swiftly trigger massive limbic responses. Indeed, its
primary sensory cortex belongs to the primitive cortex, which is part of the limbic brain,
the nose brain. Olfactory afferent input and its projection into the primitive regions of the
cortex (piriform cortex) is nonthalamic, making smell unique among the senses. This cortex
has three layers, the neocortex six. From this old piriform cortex, many connections to
many structures in the limbic brain are made. Many parallel pathways mediate the
olfactory functions, such as odor discrimination, emotions, motivation & behaviours from
reproduction, feeding to imprinting and memorizing.
The role between odorants and emotional memory (hippocampus) is pertinent. The
olfactory system is the outer organ of the play of emotional tensions between inhibiting and
exciting. It heralds danger, sexual activity & a feeling of well-being (cf. the role of
pheromonal communication between animals). Conscious smelling is mediated by pathways
between the medial dorsal nucleus of the thalamus and the prefrontal cortex.
Both transduction & the axonal relay (by way of synapses) as well as the thalamic relay are
important automatic interpretations, each altering the code, upgrading it from (1) receptor
(from receptor neurons to thalamus) to (2) integrator (thalamus).
It took millions of years for receptor neurons to be able to receive & transduce. This
"automatic" level of perception is called "naked" because it touches, so must we think, the
absolute (or "Ding-an-sich"). Reality-as-such & ideality-as-such, the Real-Ideal, is onefold
and crucial in logic, epistemology, ethics, esthetics & ontology. Naked perception is the
truth-core of realism. The latter is methodological ("as if"), not ontological. This means it
does not operate as ground, foundation or hypokeimenon of thought, knowledge, goodness
& beauty (cf. Chapter 2). By way of method, we accept certain physical stimuli out there
cause changes in the receptor organs, effectuating a chain of events relayed, in a coded
format, to the thalamus.
Insofar as stimuli cause material changes, transduction causes neuronal information to be
relayed to the thalamus.
07. Natural perception :
time, space, integration & projection.
To reach the neocortex and become conscious sensation, all afferent sensory inputs directly
(taste, touch, audition, sight) or indirectly (smell) enter the thalamus. The thalamus is the
gate, integrator and translator of various inputs processed into a form readable by the
neocortex. As a projector, the thalamus relays selectively to various parts of the neocortex,
and one thalamic point may reach more than one area of the cerebral cortex.
At the level of the thalamus, reptilian & mammalian software takes over. Before entry into
the neocortex, this "inner room" or "storeroom" (of a Greek or Roman house) receives the
neuronal messages of the five senses. This sensory information is spatio-temporalized,
integrated and finally projected into the primary sensory cortex, while the intensity of the
flow to and fro the neocortex is monitored and if necessary inhibited.

Through this inhibition, the thalamus rules the flow of sensory (and other neuronal)
information to the cerebral (neo)cortex and acts as a highly state-dependent "reducing
valve" or central sensory gate. This is done by the reticular nucleus, a sheet of
acetylcholine inhibiting neurons, covering the whole of the dorsal thalamus. This sheet
contains nerve cells gathering information from dendrites draping the outer surface of the
thalamus, sampling the activity between thalamus and neocortex. Cortical excitatory states
descend and excite the reticular nucleus, blocking perception. Brain stem excitatory states
ascend and inhibit the nucleus, allowing more sensate messages to flow to through the
thalamus into the neocortex.
Higher mammals have a larger pulvinar ("cushion"), the back of the thalamus. In humans,
it occupies one quarter of the thalamus and is the essential thalamic counterpart of the
sensate association cortex covering the back of the neocortex. Functionally, it seems to
make the initial contribution to the process of automatically grasping & holding items in our
visual & auditory space or salience. This allows them to become of meaningful interest. So
the thalamus also computes our initial level of attention. And there is more : the medial
dorsal nucleus assists frontal scenario's, the anterior nucleus brings in sensual gratification,
the intralaminar nuclei stimulate, the lateral genicular nucleus "sees", and the reticular
nucleus is a shield (Austin, 1998, pp.263 - 274).
This "automatic" level of perception is called "natural" because our brain shares it with all
higher mammals. In humans, the thalamus acts not only as a receptor and an integratorprojector,
but also as the initiator of a series of higher cortical functions.
The neocortex is never directly informed about the afferent data provided by both naked &
natural perception. Conscious sensation is a posthalamic process.
II : The sensuous cortex.
The cerebrum (measuring about 11 m²) is divided into four lobes, situated underneath the
corresponding bone of the skull :
● the frontal bone of the forehead covers the frontal lobe ;
● the temporal bone (temple) defines the temporal lobe ;
● the parietal bone (caudal of the central sulcus making the posterior border of the
frontal lobe) covers the parietal lobe ;
● caudal to the parietal lobe, under the occipital bone lies the occipital lobe.

the cerebral lobes
from Bear, Connors & Paradiso, 2001, p.207.
Gray cortical matter is found in the cerebral neocortex, a thin layered sheet of ca. 20 9
neurons lying just underneath the surface of the cerebrum.
Parameter Value
number of neurons ca.100 9
number of cortical neurons ca.20 9 (*)
surface of neocortex ca.11 m²
connections per neuron ca.1000
cortical synapses ca.240 trillion (*)

(*) Koch, C : Biophysics of Computation, Oxford University Press - New
York, 1999, p.87.
In the human, the neocortex is the set of neurons of the cerebrum where sensations,
voluntary movement, learning, speech & cognition converge. Here consciousness & the
sense of "I-ness" are mediated. It shares several common features with all vertebrate
animals :
● neurons are arranged in layers or sheet, mostly parallel to the surface (the human
neocortex has 6 layers) ;
● the layer closest to the surface is separated from the rest by a zone lacking neurons ;
● at least one cell layer contains pyramidal cells with large, apical dendrites extending
upwards & forming multiple branches ;
● the cerebral neocortex has a cytoarchitecture distinguishing it from the basal
telencephalon. The latter has neuronal structures directly underneath the neocortex.
The subcortical networks of this "deep" telencephalon interconnect the neocortex with
the diencephalon (differentiates into thalamus & hypothalamus), the limbic system.
Computing all higher order operations is the "nominal" mode of working of the human
cerebrum and its specific, bi-modal approach : two hemispheres processing one integrated
cerebral activity from two different angles. Abstract thoughts can be thoroughly mediated
after the axonal bridge between both, the corpus callosum has been completed (cf. Piaget's
"formal-operatoric phase" after the age of 10).
Contrary to the reptilian, mammalian and all other cortical brains on Earth, the neocortex
of Homo sapiens sapiens is exceptional in size, wiring & function. Of all mammals, humans
have the most "uncommitted cortex" at birth (Penfield, 1975), i.e. fewer neurons with, in
their hardware, instinctual patterns built-in. This implies the human brain is made for
organic neuroplasticity (the more difficult a task, the more cells process it) and also has
great ability to learn and individualize.
The bi-modality of the human brain is horizontal & vertical.

unique human hemispheral specialization
after Joseph, 1993, p.44
On the horizon, there is the joint project of the two cerebral hemispheres : cerebral activity
is called to be an integration of a duality. This is accepting the difference while opening up
as many neuronal alleys between the hemispheres (cf. the "concordia discors" of thought -
Chapter 2).
Vertically, the neocortex (or upper telencephalon) and the basal telencephalon perform
different tasks (note : in left handed people, the directions should be reversed). The basal
telencephalon is part of the limbic system. It is essential in the relay of information down
from and up to the neocortex and adds "emotional color" to what comes in and goes out.
Especially the amygdala play a crucial role in this, while the association of memory &
emotion is noteworthy.
● left hemisphere - neocortex : higher order verbal operations ;
● left hemisphere - basal telencephalon : emotion/word associations, digital memory ;
● right hemisphere - neocortex : higher order visuospatial operations ;
● right hemisphere - basal telencephalon : emotion/imaginal sensations, visual memory.

08. Primary & secondary sensory area :
perception & its cortical processing.
The stretching & bending human body (touch) is constantly afloat in a pool of chemicals
(smell & taste), air pressures (hearing) and electromagnetic radiation (sight). The chemical
senses (smell & taste) produce odors & tastes, the mechanical senses (touch & audition)
feels & sounds and the visual sense transforms radiation into pictures of the world around
& outside us. Through them, an experience of the immediate environment becomes
possible.
The relay from stimulus to perception seems rather "automatic". Although the inputs of the
sensory organs are transduced, then relayed to the thalamus to be finally projected into
the neocortex, what enters the cerebrum at any given moment is very likely the coded
effect of the state-altering stimuli received. Perception is based on the S-R (Stimulus -
Response) format, whereby the same stimulus, in ceteris paribus, causes the same
response. In neo-Darwinian logic, these forms are the outcome of the countless "trials &
errors" of evolution, eliminating inadequate paths and keeping the fittest. An imperative
algorithm is implemented and "somehow" stored in the cells. This is like software
permanently encoded on the hardware, reacting in tune with biological and electromagnetic
laws.
The research of Kaas (1995) et al. suggest the primordial neocortex (existing to some
degree in all living species) consists of three types of cortex, called the "primary sensory
cortex", the "secondary sensory cortex" & the "motor cortex". These receive input from the
thalamic nuclei relaying data from the basal telencephalon & the cerebellum and send
outputs to motor control neurons in the brain stem & spinal cord.
● primary sensory cortex : receives as first signals from the ascending sensory
pathways, relayed by the thalamus and project these into the secondary sensory
areas ;
● secondary sensory cortex : very interconnected with the primary sensory areas, as it
were assisting computation ;
● motor areas : concerned with the control of voluntary movement.
09. The association areas :
to the final integration of perception.
The cortex proceeds by shaping a three stepped "neuronal sensation ladder" :
● primary sensory area : processing the thalamic projection and the decodation of its

information ;
● secondary sensory area : assisting decodation.
In the human brain, even after assigning primary sensory, secondary sensory, primary
motor & secondary motor areas to the neocortex, a considerable amount of bark,
particularly in the frontal & temporal lobes, remains : the association areas.
● association areas : process the recent, human development of the primate cortex,
namely the ability to symbolize & interpret in terms of unobservable mental states.
Conscious sensation compute here, for sensations are interpreted (reconstructed)
perceptions.
In these association areas of the human neocortex, sophisticated processing mediates
higher order functions & operators. These areas contain neurons able to "associate" or
"gather together" neural states from various parts of the brain, not only the neocortex.
Information from the sensory areas, memory systems and the diencephalon (emotional
states) is put together and integrated in order to optimalize the possibilities of the nervous
system and execute, process, compute, mediate & enhance a conscious sensation of the
world. Some of these areas are interconnected with the amygdala, hippocampus, limbic
system and the autonomous nervous system.

the functional areas of the human cerebrum
adapted from Bear, Connors & Paradiso, 2001, pp.208 & 642.
Four "association areas" have been discovered :
● visual association area : inferior temporal cortex : highest integration of visual
function & analysis - end station of a system of visual recognition of specific and
particular shapes and objects of interest, both cognitively as well as emotionally -
interconnected with the amygdala, hippocampus, limbic system (olfactory cortex) and
the autonomous nervous system ;
● spatial association area : posterior parietal cortex : highest integration of analysis and
integration of higher-order visual, auditory and somaesthetic (touch & body position)
information - three dimensional image of the body in space - distinction between
what is at arm's length (bodily sense) and what is further away (the world) - some
neurons motivate and guide hand movements, including the grasping of objects
within grasping distance ;
● verbal association area : angular gyrus, at the junction of the posterior-superior
temporal and the occipital-parietal lobes : area of the highest integration of all
sensory input, with rich interconnections with all other association areas - processes
abstract thought and their relation to words (Wernicke & Broca in the left
hemisphere) - conceptual comparisons, ordering of opposites, naming of objects,
higher logical operations ;
● volitional association area (also : attention association area) : prefrontal cortex,
frontal lobes : receives fibers from all sensory systems (vision, hearing, touch, taste,
smell), but has few connections with the primary sensory areas - very interconnected
with the limbic system (emotional responses), verbal and spatial association area
(conceptual thought and egocentric spatiality) - coordinates highly complex
movements and is the "seat of the will" for all goal-oriented behaviors, actions and
intentions - able to focus on important tasks through redundancy (screening out
superfluous input) - planning, imagining, deciding and attention regulation
throughout the cerebrum are computed here, but a complete functional picture is far
from clear.
The association areas allow us to "experience" in a conscious way, and integrate all higher
order functions, such as cognition, affection, volition and consciousness. In the formal &
critical modes of thought (cf. Chapter 2), circular consciousness circumambulates a sense
of personal identity. At best, this empirical ego is present & attentive of itself and its
environment in every cogitation, affection and/or volition. This is the "subject of
experience" confronted with an "objective" fact and its extra-mentality (resulting from
causes seemingly outside the perimeter of the ego).

Although both subject and object of experience seem unconstructed, the neuronal
processing enabling their manifestation betrays a modular sequencing. Insofar as the
sensory system is concerned, the association areas bring in a wide range of inputs, from
emotional coloration to verbal, spatial, volitional, imaginal regulations. This brings to the
fore the constructed, fabricated, mediated, derived, conditioned, assembled, mapped
nature of sensation. To express sensation, cognition, affection, volition & consciousness, a
wide range of neuronal areas are addressed. Indeed, at the higher levels of the nervous
system, neuronal activity is secured by neurons arranged in colonies or modules, making
neuronal parsimony highly unlikely.
Eccles (1981, p.361) speaks of "neuronal prodigality", linking the processing of
consciousness not with psychoneural identity, but with "reading out from the multitude of
active centres at the highest level of brain activity, namely the liaison areas of the
dominant cerebral hemisphere. The self-conscious mind selects from these centres
according to attention, and from moment to moment integrates its selection to give unity
even to the most transient experiences. Furthermore the self-conscious mind acts upon
these neural centres modifying the dynamic spatiotemporal patterns of the neural events.
Thus we propose that the self-conscious mind exercises a superior interpretative and
controlling role upon the neuronal events. A key component of the hypothesis is that the
unity of conscious experience is provided by the self-conscious mind and not by the
neuronal machinery of the liaison areas of the cerebral hemisphere." (p.362).
Sensation, the final integration of perception, involves interpretation and construction.
Sensation is the result of an active modulation of the perceived inputs. Hence, conscious
sensation can not do away or eliminate these interpretations, for consciousness does has
no direct experience of perceptions, but only of sensations.
An interesting neuronal pathology called "blindsight" makes this very clear. Normally,
primary & secondary visual areas are so integrated we are unable to isolate the particular
role played by each in our day-to-day visual processing. But when the primary visual cortex
is lost, the secondary cortex reveals itself as blindsight.
When patients lack the function of the primary visual cortex on one side of the cerebrum,
then their consciousness (mediated by the prefrontal cortex) seems "blind" to events taking
place in their visual field on the opposite side. So far nothing special. But this is not the
same kind of absolute visual loss as when an eye is gone or the optic nerve is severed. This
blindness is relative. For if a moving stimulus is offered to their blind field, then patients
point at the target even though unable to consciously see it. In other words, forced to
guess about whether a stimulus is present in their blind field, some observers do better
than chance. Their secondary visual enables the ability to respond appropriately to visual
inputs while lacking the consciousness of having seen them.
The hierarchy at work in the sensory system makes the distinction between perception &
sensation pertinent.
10. The angular gyrus : symbol tools.

In the human cerebrum, the angular gyrus and hemispheric specialization are quite unique.
Hominoids and other non-human mammals lack an angular gyrus and their artistic, toolmaking
& symbolic capacities are limited to hammering rock & throwing or manipulating
leaves, sticks & twigs (Fedigan, 1992).
The angular gyrus, at the junction of the posterior-superior temporal and the occipitalparietal
lobes, is crucial in all constructional tasks, in the control of sequential hand
movements, in the manipulation of external objects and internal impressions, but also in
naming. Joseph (1982, 2000) evidenced how the evolution of this area allowed humans to
engage in complex creative, symbolic and artistic activities. Devoid of this gyrus, humans
develop apraxia, the inability to perform tasks involving interrelated steps and sequences.
Besides naming, this gyrus is also involved in word finding and grammatical speech
organization, "and is in part an extension of and links Wernicke's with Broca's
areas" (Joseph, 1993, p.357).
This is the cortical area of the highest neuronal integration of the perceptions of the five
senses. Rich in interconnections with all other association areas, the angular gyrus
processes abstract thought (the "form" of identities & relationships) and their relation to
words in terms of speech & the coordination of the making of correct acoustic sounds or
phonemes (cf. Wernicke & Broca in the left hemisphere). Conceptual comparisons, ordering
of opposites, naming of objects, higher logical operations etc. are mediated by this area. As
the verbal association area, this gyrus integrates perception, naming and organizing as well
as the production of the spoken word. In humans, perception is used to categorize and talk.
For Joseph, the angular gyrus evolved over the course of the last two millions years and
this in parallel with the evolution of handedness and tool technology. Given the
relationships between right handedness, the left hemisphere and language, he conjectures
speech production also gradually arose over the same period. This explains the explosion of
tool-making by the Cro-Magnon, who possessed an angular gyrus and large frontal lobes.
For the Neanderthals, tools were use-specific. Handedness was not yet that developed (in
manipulative tasks, they still helped themselves with their mouth). Vocalization probably in
its infancy.
"... it is with the evolution of the Cro-Magnon, the angular gyrus and expansions in the
frontal lobe which provided the neurological foundations for tool design and construction,
the ability to sew and even wear clothes, and the capacity to create art, and pictorial
language in the form of drawing, painting, sculpting and engraving. It is the evolution of
these tissues which enabled human beings to not only create visual symbols but to talk
about them and create verbal and visual symbols in the form of written language and
religious imagery."
Joseph, 1993, p.360.
During human evolution, hemispheric specialization was probably a response to the unique
demands made by language, speech and tool construction, in short, infusing material
media with conscious meaning, enabling a lasting "sediment" or "glyph". Symbolization is
glyph-making insofar as the sediment or material carrier or calculator is lasting enough to
bridge a new generation of listeners & talkers.

Making & manipulating tools, identifying certain sounds with sensate objects (naming), as
well as grammatical order are all processed in this unique cortical area. This highest neural
processor of language & speech (directly related to the areas of Wernicke & Broca), is
associated with handedness & tool-making. Talking & listening are the most powerful tool
of the Homo sapiens sapiens (cf. the nearness of the auditory cortex).
11. The prefrontal cortex & empirico-formal concepts.
sensory areas / frontal lobe schematics
from Gloor (1997)
The exceptional evolution of the human frontal lobes materialized language
(symbolization), tool technology & art. Branched to a wide array of modules, they are the
"senior executive" of the brain (Passingham, 1993, Fuster, 1989) and are primary in regard
to all aspects of imagination, creativity, speech, language (via Broca's area) and symbolic
thinking. In the frontal lobes, the coordination and regulation of attention, individuality,
memory and cortical activity is at hand. Intellectual, creative, artistic, symbolic and
cognitive processes get executed. They subserve the expression of melodic-emotional and
vocabulary-rich grammatical (well-formed) speech. Consciousness and the sense of "Iness"
or personal identity (cf. the first person perspective of reality-for-me) also compute
in these frontal lobes.
At this level, conscious sensation, as the experience of a sensate object by the subject, is
processed. This sensation is based on what the secondary sensory areas, motor areas,
angular gyrus & other areas relay (and not so much on input form the primary sensory
areas). Hence, sensation is a highly fabricated phenomenon, sharing characteristics with
reptilian and mammalian emotional responses to certain perceptions, i.e. adding interest

(brain stem and thalamic valve), emotional coloring (limbic) and, in the case of the human,
symbolic interpretation (verbal association area) before conscious experience (prefrontal
lobes).
Already in the thalamus, state-sensitive flow-reducing processes are at work, allowing the
system to cancel the "automatic" response of the afferent pathways (from receptor organs
to thalamus). These highly complex mechanisms, sensitive to a gentle push, opening &
closing major neuronal pathways at a moment's notice, are in number present in the
neocortex. Each of these association areas accommodate a particular cortical software,
dealing with a modular representation of a set of problem-solving information-items. By
constantly interacting (cf. the ongoing, interdependent cortical process) and relaying
information to the prefrontal cortex, they allow for a higher order computation of a
hierarchy of operations, in casu, of sensory inputs.
Nominal conscious sensation of Homo normalis is the neural product of two vectors :
perception & interpretation. The conceptual mind cannot experience an object of sensation
without interpretation (identifying, naming, associating, etc.). This is normal and nominal in
the waking state. Maybe consciousness is to be "expanded" or "altered" to include what is
today only "unconscious" ? Can the liaison brain be more than the frontal lobe of the
dominant cortical hemisphere ?
Next to the congenital codation from receptor organs to thalamus (in accord with the S-R
model), highly state-dependent cortical networks or modules invite free will (and volition)
to alter ongoing procedures (based on the brain's actual & past functioning). Directly
influencing the probability-fields of wide populations of neurons (cf. Popper, 1982),
consciousness (via the prefrontal cortex ?) may perhaps alter the fabric of the brain itself,
if not at least influence it for the better.
Consciousness superimposing probability fields does not violate the physical conservation
laws (for m = 0), but, ex hypothesi, co-determines the final momentum of matter &
information and this hand in hand with the deterministic evolution of the physically
determined vector, either as material states (particles, forces) or material glyphs (material
states infused with meaning). Each nondetermined choice needs many sensitive & statedependent
states to influence, alter, modify, etc. the most likely outcome (the automatic
result). In a constructive sense, this calls for many nondetermined choices to alter the
determined result so all involved may benefit from it. Sensation, the end result of the
sensory system, is therefore not automatic, but very user-specific, implying an "internal
process". The latter includes consciousness as well as its executive cortical modules.
perception is S-R : S (stimulus) - R (response) model
sensation is S-I-R: S - I (internal process) - R model
Empirico-formal knowledge is a valid (corroborated & consensual), factual, discursive,
conceptual & propositional interpretation of perception (cf. Chapter 2). The paradigm of
science consists of a system of valid concepts. At the core, a series of axioms are
articulated. Great tenacity is displayed not to change them. The closer one comes to the
periphery, the more accepted verisimilitude diminishes and statements less display the
appearance of truth.
Ideally (Quid Juris ?), scientific truth (a dyad) cannot be absolute truth (a monad), but only

the best of relative truth, arrived at by the interplay of experimentation & argumentation
(testing & arguing). Scientific knowledge is not eternal, but an interdependent, dynamical
display of differences (energies). It is a provisional, conventional, fallible, conforming
knowledge, a system of synthetical judgments a posteriori, but the best available today to
conceive, grasp, hold, posit, conceptualize, categorize, etc. as true, at least for today. A
scientific paradigm is an object of the world of information, the creative sum, mandala or
"Gestalt" of material glyphs concerning both the integration of perception (angular gyrus),
conscious sensation and individual consciousness, the subject of experience (prefrontal
lobes). The way of the conceptual mind is in all cases a "concordia discors", an armed truce
of sorts.
Every observation, experience or sensation is theory-dependent. Science, bound to a logic
of finitude, cannot step outside itself and eliminate the limitations of its own frame of
reference (the heuristic task of metaphysics). In a chaotic situation, fixation, petrification
or fossilization are hazardous. The best we can do, as conceptual rationalists, is to let
object & subject, testing & arguing go about and at some point judge by way of proposition.
Although sensate experience is a "stream" and not a sequence of static frames, direct
observation hic et nunc is ephemeral & anecdotal (individuum est ineffabile). One cannot
conceptually hold on to it, it comes, stays a few moments and ceases. By fast repetition,
the steady illusion of an identical object is created. In fact, conscious sensation
(experience, observation) and its conceptualization (form) are fabricated. In conscious
sensation, conceptual frames and perceptions are simultaneous and fastened (so they
cannot be isolated). Conceptualizing sensation, science produces empirico-formal
knowledge about sensate objects.
Wittgenstein wrote :
12. Sensations in epistemology, ethics and esthetics.
"To perceive a complex means to perceive that its constituents are combined in such and
such a way. This perhaps explains that the figure can be seen in two ways as a cube ; and
all similar phenomena. For we really see two different facts. (If I fix my eyes first on the
corners a and only glance at b, a appears in front and b behind, and vice versa.)"
Wittgenstein, L. : Tractatus Logico-Philosophicus, 5.5423, my italics.

With "internal process" (I), both sensation & consciousness are targeted. Sensation is the
end result of a hierarchy of codes, beginning with transduction and ending as a clear &
sustained conscious presence in the face of sensate objects. Sensation is the place where
consciousness meets the world "out there". Conscious sensation of "this" object as
"that" (volitional association area) is mediated by conceptual thought and the abstract
order (verbal association area). The sensory system serves the cortex, offering afferent
information to be processed. In particular, sensoric input is processed together with
handedness, tool-making, symbolization, audition & speech. This verbal software is
connected with all association areas of the cortex. The prefrontal lobes confirm the
presence of these pre-sensate objects to a subject of conscious experience, making them
sensate.
In the phrase : "I see You.", the neuronal sequence is reversed. First, there are dynamical
visual perceptions of shapes & colors moving from the receptor organs to the thalamus and
"named" by way of the angular gyrus ("You"), then this "You" is actually "seen" by a
subject of experience ("I"). This seeing and this subject of experience seeing are
simultaneous.
"You" "see" "I"
thalamus
angular gyrus
afferents from receptor
organs
visual
association area
sensations
attention
association area
my
sensations
So to consciously observe an object, is to grasp it and hold it before a subject of
experience. Sensations are always conscious and they are because resulting from a
complex inner process, involving all association areas.
"All our knowledge begins with the senses, proceeds thence to the understanding, and ends
with reason. There is nothing higher than reason for working up the material of intuition &
comprehending it under the highest unity of thought."
Kant, I. : Critique of Pure Reason, B355.
Kant's theory of knowledge is in tune with the neurophilosophy of sensation. First there are
perceptions ("Empfindungen", "sinnliche Anschauung" or "Sinnlichkeit") relayed to the
thalamus, integrating & spatiotemporalizing them as phenomena ("Erscheinungen"). The
latter are projected in the primary sensory cortex to be recognized by the verbal
association area and the attention association area as object-knowledge. Kant's categorial
scheme, although it does have general characteristics (the neuronal structures of the
areas), does not yield synthetic propositions a priori (cf. Kant's acceptance of
foundationalism), but a series of conceptualization (of sensations), or perceptions molded
in an individual cognitive framework a posteriori. The higher order organization of the mind
by reason, is executed by the prefrontal lobes.
Although the pair perception/sensation plays a fundamental role in epistemology, it is not

without importance in ethics & esthetics. In both, the need to distinguish between the input
of the senses (perception) and the irreducible interpretation of the conceptual mind
(sensation) is crucial and calls for a critical analysis of sensation. We cannot accept our
sensate information at face value, but distinguish between the "raw" sense-data we are
bound to affirm and the elaborate appearance of sensate objects in simple to complex
conceptual frameworks. Although the conceptual mind is unable to eliminate interpretation
to witness the absolute data, it can introduce elaborate comparisons and try to integrate
information from as many subjects of experience as possible. Insofar as an intersubjective
consensus is at hand and sensations are repeated over and over again, the subjective
margin may be reduced, although never completely eliminated (the scientific language
game has no privileged access to naked perception).
13. The argument of illusion.
For Shankara (788 - 820), the main representative of Advaita-Vedânta and an important
renewer of Hinduism after the success of Buddhism in India, "mâyâ" (deception, illusion,
enchanting display) is a universal principle inseparably united with Brahman, the absolute.
As universal ignorance or cosmic illusion, "mâyâ" draws a veil over Brahman and so
confuses our vision, making us witness diversity rather than unity. Because of illusion, we
consider sensate objects to be separate entities with definite characteristics. Here we are in
error, and witness illusion rather than true reality. The origin of ignorance is the
superimposition of unreal objective conditions on what is truly at hand (adhyâsa).
Moroever, the transfer of an object (a sensate not-I) along with its accidents to the subject
(the I), is deemed false knowledge ("avidyâ"), mixing up reality with unreality, incapable of
distinguishing transient from intransient and real from unreal. In the famous simile, we fear
a coiled snake, while it is only a rope. In the Vedanta, the key is always to discriminate
(viveka) between the real (Brahman, the absolute) and the unreal (mâyâ, the relative).
This eliminates ignorance.
To take away "avidyâ" brings enlightenment (samâdhi), destroying past & future
"karma" (or operational causes). Only the "karma" already bearing fruit, sustaining this
present life has not yet vanished. The "jîvanmukta" ("one liberated while still alive"),
witnesses how he experiences activities caused by "prârabdha karma" (which can not be
prevented), but continuously without mixing up reality.
Critical thought (cf. Chapter 2) also draws a radical distinction between absolute truth and
relative truth, between the Real-Ideal (Kant's "Ding-an-sich") and scientific empirico-formal
propositions a posteriori. Avoiding dogmatism (the unchangeable yes) & skepticism (the
unbreakable no of dogmatic negation), criticism (the open maybe) also steers away from
dogmatism or skepticism regarding absolute reality :
● dogmatic affirmation : absolute truth and conceptual rationality overlap (cf. fideism,
idealism, spiritualism, realism, materialism, logical positivism, scientism). There is
only the conceptual mode of thought to penetrate the absolute ;

● skepticism or dogmatic negation : absolute truth cannot be known (the divide cannot
be bridged). There is no mode of thought enabling the recognition of the absolute
Real-Ideal.
Universal illusion cannot be identified, for positing "mâyâ" turns it into something
particular, contradicting its universality. Neither can we exclude universal illusion by
assuming "being" equals "being known in thought", for then we move ad hoc from what we
assume to be the case to the affirmation of being as knowable as such (cf. the critique of
foundationalism). We assume the mental coincides (represents) the extra-mental and
move from this assumption to the affirmation this must be the case. This move is unlogical.
Classical metaphysics makes this category mistake (assumptions are not certainties).
Metaphysical realism (mind corresponds with reality) and metaphysical idealism (mind
makes reality) are extremes to avoid.
Although we must assume facts are the place where conceptual rationality & the absolute
coincide, and must think the ultimate consensual correspondence (or Real-Ideal), we
cannot eliminate the possibility conceptual rationality is self-deluded and, as an illusionmachine,
superimposes its own dual display upon the world it sensates and experiences,
living out, as if on stage, its own projections in the "mirror" of the world "out there". In
other words, in order for knowledge to be possible, we must suppose the absolute to be
knowable, even if this is not the case or only partially so. Indeed, conceptual knowledge
could well be illusionary, i.e. altogether different from the Real-Ideal. How can this not
humble the true scientist ?
Neurological executants are skilled cortical performers backing this interesting state of
affairs. The neurophilosophy of sensation clarifies the difference between perception and
sensation. The objects we sensate appear as they do because of our interpretation and, as
long as conceptual rationality is at hand, this cannot be put to rest or eliminated. This
"interpretation" is not something "added" to perceptions, and, by some method,
subtracted. The association areas process the construction in which the sensate objects
appear as entities (cluster of events) with accidents (quantity, quality, relation, modality,
etc.) and this by a subject of experience. Before they "enter" these areas, they have not
been introduced to the overall modular activity of the neocortex, the concert of
interpretations with the attention area mediating the will of the conductor. Once this
happens, the end relay of perception transforms into sensation, for there is interpretation
(fabrication) and a subject of experience facing a sensate object of experience.
S(ensation) = P(erception) . C(onceptual)I(nterpretation), with I ≠ 1.
The argument of illusion can be explained in objective & subjective terms :
● objective : the subject of experience never faces the totality of changes caused, so
we must assume, by particles & forces acting as a constant stream of stimuli on the
surface of the receptor organs ; they are unconscious. Only after a series of complex,
unconscious alterations (transduction, relays & integration) is the cortex informed
(primary sensory area), in its own language, about the perceived states, events,
occurrences & objects. But, this thalamic projection, in accord with the language of
the cerebrum, into the neocortex is not yet sensation. This it only becomes after the
afferent pathways enter the verbal association area, immediately connecting them
with the attention association area (while the primary sensory area has few

connections with the prefrontal lobes !). Our sensations, because of their irreducible
and pertinent interpretative, constructive, conceptual, personal nature, could be a
kind of fata morgana or mirage, composed of distorted sensory items. Ambiguity is
the least one can say of the direct observation of sensate objects ;
● subjective : the most objectifying operator of consciousness, namely cognition or
mind, works in various modes. In the ante-rational mode, sensate objects appear in
contexts and have no meaning outside these. In rational, conceptual thought, which
is formal, critical and creative, the theoretical connotations grasped by the subject of
experience make it impossible to witness sensate objects devoid of interpretation.
Even if so-called "subjective factors" are reduced or eliminated, it cannot be
conceptually known whether a collective mirage is at hand or not. Likewise, in
creative thought, the higher Self cannot be designated without its ideas and although
a panoramic view is established, at best, observation is but the view of one individual
own-Self. Finally, although nondual thought recognizes the nature of mind directly
and hence moves beyond interpretation, its wisdom is non-verbal and/or poetical and
shows in what is done & not done (cf. Does the Divine exist ?, 2005, Behaviours,
2006 & Intelligent Wisdom, 2007).
A last word about unsubstantiality, the lack of inherent existence or "substance", i.e.
"sensate objects" existing in and for themselves. If sensation is fabricated perception, then
clearly the category of "substance" refers to the mental habit of attributing "eternal" states
to sensate objects, for perceptions are a flowing stream of impressions, not fixed objects
existing solidly in and of themselves, from their own side. This "nature" of things is
therefore a conventional halting of the ongoing stream of changes which is totally
dependent of a decision ad hoc by some subject of experience or a community of such
subjects. Paradigm paralysis is precisely the inablility of the scientific community to reckon
the spatiotemporality of perception and sensation. Of course, conceptually, we must
assume "something" causes perception, but in fact this is probably only a stream of
differential inputs, (vector) products of differences or energies.
Epilogue
Because decontextualized, the empirico-formal knowledge of science is not iconical but
formal. Beyond ante-rational thought, it is not bound to images and their particularized,
concrete conceptualization (as in proto-rationality).
The rational cognitive activity of science is critical and pursues the sustained production of
knowledge (cf. Chapter 2).
nondual symbol-of-no-symbol
creative
in-between
symbol & meta-symbol
natural light
of mind
ontic
own-Self

threshold between rationality & meta-rationality
critical meta-symbol transcendental ego
formal symbol empirical ego
threshold between rationality & ante-rationality
proto-rational icon imitations
pre-rational pre-icon tribe
threshold between reason and the irrational
myth signal libido
To experiment and to argue about propositions positing connections between phenomena, i.
e. to test a proposed hypothesis, scientists rely on sensate & mental objects. The empiricoformal
propositions of strict science are mental objects representing facts, and the latter
refer to sensate objects.
Sensate objects depend on, so we must think, perception and the five senses. Sensate
objects are however problematic. The architecture of the physical process of perception
betrays multiple "translations" of the original stimuli. Even if the natural, "automatic"
processes are isolated, the impact of the posthalamic projections remains huge on the final
result and necessary to compute conscious awareness of sensate objects. The impact of
interpretation on perception can therefore not be overlooked. Not only because it is so
vast, but also because it cannot be taken away without stopping conceptuality, leaving the
domain of possible symbolisation (as in nondual cognition).
(1) A sensate object is a direct conscious experience derived from a P(erception) based on
a sensory system and its receptor organs ;
(2) S(ensation) is being presently conscious of a sensate object as it is experienced
(grasped, designated, imputed, posited, possessed, etc.) by a subject of experience ;
(3) S = P(erception) X C(onceptual)I(nterpretation) ;
(4) Nominally, CI ≠ 0, referring to sentience ;
(5) CI is a conceptual display of the natural state of the mind ;
(6) Hypothesis : insofar the luminous emptiness of the mind is perceived, CI = 1 and S =
P ;
(7) but devoid of Mental objects there is nothing to name.
Humans are equipped to perceive only a fragment of the physical world. The sensate world
is an interpreted codification of the perceived world. The conventional world we experience
is not what it seems. For example, although co-constituted by conceptual interpretation, it
truly seems independent from the empirical ego. Like the objective causes making the
Moon seem very big, this illusion is not eliminated once discovered. While we may

understand "reality" is not what it seems, we behave as if it is precisely as it looks. Fooling
ourselves, we turn fiction into our realities (idealities).
Although words seem to refer to stable entities "outside there" or "in here", anything we
name for the sake of efficiency and conventional, worldly reasons, cannot be found. Only a
vast functional interdependence between aggregates of phenomena can be identified.
Mental objects are intra-mental and differ from sensate objects. Although linked with
sensation, they can be present in the absence of sensoric input (cf. sensoric deprivation).
Mental objects are complex theoretical symbolical constructs of the mind. They have action,
feeling, thoughts, sensate objects or conscious awareness as direct causes. Even
articulated in a formal language, as in science, these constructs are part of a community of
sign-interpreters. The mental objects of science are intersubjective.
Finally, the argument of illusion.
Knowing things seem what they are not, consider we live in something resembling a
dream. For sure, this differs from dreams, but can it be regarded as existing from its own
side, as it appear ? If we accept, for the sake of argument, perception as the basis of
designating sensate objects, then these objects are the product of this basis and the
conceptual interpretation.
As sensate objects appear insofar perception & interpretation are simultaneous, the
stability, permanence or substantiality of the sensate world is open to doubt. The flexibility
or plasticity of Nature is dreamlike. The sensate world appears to be a stable object, but
under analysis fails to reveal substance or sufficient ground. It appears as existing on its
own, independent of subjects possessing it. It kicks & kicks back (Popper). It has tenacity
(Oger). These are however only functional states, themselves constantly arising, abiding &
ceasing. In fact, if there were substances, they would not be able to communicate. Once
interconnected, there is no longer isolation, own-Self or any sense of being from its own
side. Substance is process.
An ultimate substance is not found. A stable sensate object cannot be identified. Although
there is a regularity in Nature, thinking it unveils the mechanism of mind and vice versa.
No groundless ground arises.
If the conventional world of sensate and mental objects is not what it seems, namely a
stable world-order composed of substances interacting with each other, then like dreams, it
may be called illusionary. This implies our faith in the guarantees offered by the facts is
unwarranted. Critical vigilance is ongoing.
To nondual cognition to eliminate these paradoxes.
Suggested Reading
Aggleton, J.P. : The Amygdala, Wiley-Liss - New York, 1992.

Albright, C.R. & Ashbrook, J.B. : Where God Lives in the Human Brain, Sourcebooks - Naperville,
2001.
Allison, R. & Schwarz, T. : Minds In Many Pieces, Rawson - New York, 1980.
Alper, M. : The "God" Part of the Brain, Rogue Press - New York, 2001.
Apostel, L. : Atheïstische religiositeit ?, Communications & Cognition - RUG, 1982.
Armstrong, D.M. : A Materialist Theory of Mind, Routledge - London, 1968.
Arnheim, R. : Visual Thinking, University of California Press - Berkeley, 1969.
Ashbrook J.B. & Albright, C.R. : The Humanizing Brain : Where Religion and Neuroscience Meet,
Pilgrim Press - Cleveland, 1997.
Atran, S. : In gods we trust : the evolutionary landscape of religion, Oxford University Press - New
York, 2002.
Austin, J. : Zen and the Brain, MIT Press - Cambridge, 1998.
Bakker, S.J. : Biofeedback, Van Loghum Slaterus - Deventer, 1978.
Bear, M.F., Connors, B.W. & Paradiso, M.A. : Neuroscience, Lippincott - Maryland, 2001.
Becker, E. : Denial of Death, The Free Press - New York, 1973.
Benson, H. & Klipper, M. : The Relaxation Response, Harpertorch - New York, 1975.
Bohm, D. : Wholeness and the Implicate Order, Arc - London, 1980.
Bradley, M. : Harper's Encyclopedia of Mystical and Paranormal Experience, Harper - New York,
1991.
Bridges, H; : American Mysticism from William James to Zen, Harper & Row - New York, 1970.
Broughton, R. : Parapsychology, Ballantine - New York, 1991.
Bruce, B. : Our Spiritual Brain, Abingdon Press - Nashville, 2002.
Bucke, R.M. : Cosmic Consciousness, Citadel - New Jersey, 1961.
Burkert, W. : Creation of the sacred, Harvard University Press - Cambridge, 1996.
Bunge, M. : Causality and Modern Science, Dover - New York, 1979.
Bunge, M. : The Mind-Body Problem, Pergamon Press - Oxford, 1980.
Cade, C.M. : Self-awareness and E.S.R., Audio - London, 1980.
Cade, C.M. & Coxhead, N. : The Awakened Mind : Biofeedback and the Development of Higher
States of Awareness, Element - Dorset, 1989.
Cardena, E., Lynn, S.J. & Krippner, S. : Varieties of anomalous experience, Americal Psychological
Association - Washington, 2000.
Cassirer, E. : The Philosophy of Symbolic Forms, 4 volumes, Yale University Press - New Haven,
1955.
Castle, R., van de : Our Dreaming Mind, Ballantine - New York, 1994.
Chalmers, D. : The Conscious Mind, Oxford University Press - Oxford, 1996.
Chittick, W.C. : Imaginal Words, State University of New York Press - New York, 1994.
Chomsky, N. : Knowledge of language, Praeger - New York, 1986.
Churchland, P. : Neurophilosophy, MIT Press - Cambridge, 2002.
Clark, W.H., Malony, H.N., Daane, J. & Tippett, A.R. : Religious Experience, Its Nature and
Function in the Human Psyche, Thomas - Springfield, 1973.
Cox, M. : Mysticism : the direct experience of God, Aquarian Press - Wellingborough, 1983.
Curle, A. : Mystics and Militants : A Study of Awareness, Identity, and Social Action, Barnes &
Noble - New York, 1972.
D'Aquili, E. & Newberg, A.B. : The Mystical Mind, Fortress Press - Minneapolis, 1999.
Davies, P. : The Mind of God : The Scientic Basis for a Rational World, Simon & Schuster - New
York, 1992.
Dawkins, R. : The Selfish Gene, Oxford University Press - Oxford, 1978.
Del Vasto, L. : Approches de la Vie Intérieure, Denoël - Paris, 1962.
Dembski, W.A. & Behe, M.J. : Intelligent Design, Intervarsity Press - Illinois, (1986) 1998.
Dennett, D.C. : Consciousness Explained, Little, Brown & C° - Boston, 1991.
Dennett, D.C. : Kinds of Minds : Toward an Understanding of Consciousness, Basic Books - New
York, 1996.
Denton, M.J. : Nature's Destiny, The Free Press - New York, 1998.
Doore, G. : What survives ?, Tarcher - Los Angeles, 1990.

Eccles, J.C. : The Neurophysiological Basis of Mind, Oxford University Press - Oxford, 1953.
Eccles, J.C. : Evolution of the Brain : Creation of the Self, Routledge - London, 1983.
Eccles, J.C. : The Wonder of Being Human, Free Press - New York, 1984.
Eccles, J.C. : The Human Psyche, Routledge - New York, 1992.
Eccles, J.C. : How the Self Controls Its Brain, Springer - Berlin, 1994.
Eddington, A. : The Nature of the Physical World, Dent - London, 1935.
Eliade, M. : Techniques du Yoga, Gallimard - Paris, 1975.
Fedigan, L. : Primate and paradigms : Sex roles and social bonds, Elden Press - Montreal, 1992.
Forman, R.K.C. : The problem of pure consciousness, Harvard University Press - Cambridge, 1990.
Forman, R.K.C. : Mysticism, mind, consciousness, State University of New York Press - Albany,
1999.
Furse, M.L. : Mysticism : Window on a World View, Nashville - Abingdon, 1977.
Fuster, J.M. : The Prefrontal Cortex : Anatomy, Physiology and Neuropsychology of the Frontal
Lobe, Raven Press - New York, 1989.
Gardner, H. : Art, Mind and Brain, Basic Books - New York, 1982.
Gardner, H. : The Mind's New Science, Basic Books - New York, 1985.
Gardner, H. : Multiple Intelligences, Basic Books - New York, 1993.
Gaskin, J.C.A. : The Quest for Eternity, Penguin - New York, 1984.
Gazzaniga, M.S. & LeDoux, J. : The Integrated Mind, Plenum - New York, 1978.
Graubard, S. : The Artificial Intelligence Debate, MIT Press - Cambridge, 1990.
Greenley, A. : The Sociology of the Paranormal, Sage - London, 1985.
Gloor, P. : The temporal lobe and the limbic system, Oxford University Press - Oxford, 1997.
Griffin, D.G. : Parapsychology, Philosophy and Spirituality : A Postmodern Exploration, State
University of New York Press - New York, 1997.
Guttenplan, S. : A Companion to the Philosophy of Mind, Blackwell - Oxford, 1995.
Gof, S. : Realms of the Human Unconscious, The Viking Press - New York, 1975.
Hampten-Turner, Ch. : Maps of the Mind, Macmillan - New York, 1981.
Hanken, A. : Balanceren tussen Buddha en Freud, Het Spectrum - Utrecht, 1994.
Harner, M. : The Way of the Shaman, Harper - San Francisco, 1990.
Heigl, P. : Mystiek en Drugs, Een kritische vergelijking., De Nederlandsche Boekhandel - Kapellen,
1983.
Heil, J. : The Nature of True Minds, Cambridge University Press - Cambridge, 1992.
Hobson, J.A. : The Dreaming Brain, Basic Books - New York, 1988.
Hodson, G. : The Kingdom of the Gods, The Theosophical Publishing House - London, 1952.
Hofstadter, D.R. : Gödel, Escher, Bach : An Eternal Golden Braid, Vintage Books - New York, 1979.
Hoyle, F. : The Intelligent Universe, Holt - Winston, 1986.
Howells, W. : Getting Here, Compass Press - Washington, 1997.
Huxley, A. : The Doors of Perception, Chatto & Windus - London, 1957.
Jaynes, J. : The Origin of Consciousness and the Breakdown of the Bicameral Mind, Houghton
Mifflin - Boston, 1976.
James, W. : The Varieties of Religious Experience, Penguin - New York, (1902) 1982.
Joseph, R. : Neuropsychology, Neuropsychiatry, and Behavioral Neurology, Plenum Press - New
York, 1989.
Joseph, R. : The Right Brain and the Unconscious, Plenum Press - New York, 1992.
Joseph, R. : The Naked Neuron, Plenum Press - New York, 1993.
Joseph, R. : The Transmitter to God : the Limbic System, the Soul and Spirituality, University of
California Press - San Jose, 2000.
Joseph, R. : Astrobiology, the Origin of Life & the Death of Darwinism, University of California Press
- San Jose, 2001.
Joseph, R. : Neurotheology, University Press of California - San Jose, 2002.
Jung, C.G. : The Collected Works of C.G.Jung, Princeton University Press - Princeton, 1967-1978.
Kaufmann, S. : At Home in the Universe, Penguin - New York, 1995.
Kierkegaard, S. : Fear and trembling and the sickness unto death, Doubeday - New York, (1843)
1955.

Kim, J. : Supervenience and Mind, Cambridge University Press - Cambridge, 1993.
Kirk, R. : Raw Feeling, Clarendon Press - Oxford, 1996.
Koch, C : Biophysics of Computation, Oxford University Press - New York, 1999.
Koestler, A. : The Ghost in the Machine, Hutchinson - London, 1967.
Koestler, A. : The Roots of Coincidence, Vintage - New York, 1972.
Kripke, S. : Naming and Necessity, Harvard University Press - Cambridge, 1980.
Kruithof, J. : De Mens aan de Grens, EPO - Antwerpen, 1985.
LaBerge, S. : Lucid Dreaming, Ballantine Books - New York, 1985.
Larsen, J. : Religious Education and the Brain, Paulist Press - New York, 2000.
Laski, M. : Everyday Ecstasy, Thames and Hudson - London, 1980.
LeDoux, J.E. : The Emotional Brain, Simon & Schuster - New York, 1996.
LeDoux, J.E. : Synaptic Self : How Our Brains Become Who We Are, Viking - New York, 2002.
Libet, B., Freeman, A. & Sutherland, K. : The Volitional Brain, Imprint Academic - San Diego, 1999.
MacLean, P. : The Triune Brain in Evolution, Plenum Press - New York, 1990.
Marcuse, H. : One-Dimensional Man, Beacon Press - Boston, (1964) 1991.
Maslin, K.T. : An Introduction to the Philosophy of Mind, Polity - Cambridge, 2002.
Maslow, A.H. : Religions, Values and Peak-Experiences, Kappa - Lafayette, 1964.
Mellars, P. : The Neanderthal Legacy, Princeton University Press - Princeton, 1996.
Mithen, S. : The Prehistory of the Mind, Thames & Keedson - Phoenix, 1996.
Moravec, H. : Mind Children : The Future of Robot and Human Intelligence, Harvard University
Press - Cambridge, 1988.
Moser, P.K. & Trout, J.D. : Contemporary Materialism, Routlegde - London, 1995.
Mujeeb-ur-Raman : The Freudian Paradigm, Nelson-Hall - Chicago, 1977.
Newberg, A., D'Aquili, E. & Rause, V. : Why God Won't Go Away, Ballantine - New York, 2002.
Passingham, R. : The Frontal Lobes and Voluntary Aaction, Oxford University Press - Oxford, 1993.
Penfield, W. : The Mystery of the Mind, Princeton University Press - Princeton, 1975.
Perry, J. : Personal Identity, University of California Press - Berkeley, 1975.
Persinger, M.A. : Neurophysiological basis of God beliefs, Praeger - New York, 1987.
Piaget, J. : Biologie et Connaissance. Essai sur les régulations entre les régulations organiques et
les processus cognitifs, Coll.Idées - Paris, 1967.
Piaget, J. : Le Structuralisme, Presses Universitaires de France - Paris, 1970.
Piaget, J. : Genetische epistemologie, Boom Meppel - Boom, 1976.
Piaget, J. : The development of thought. Equilibration of cognitive structures, Oxford University
Press - Oxford, 1978.
Pinker, S. : How the Mind Works, Norton - New York, 1999.
Popper, K.R. : Quantum Theory and the Schism in Physics, vol III van The Postscript, Hutchinson -
London, 1982.
Popper, K.R. & Eccles, J. : The Self and Its Brain, Springer Verlag - Heidelberg, 1981.
Pribram, K.H. : Languages of the Brain, Cliffs - New York, 1971.
Ramachandran, V.S. & Blakeslee, S. : Phantoms in the Brain, Morrow - New York, 1998.
Sannella, L. : Kundalini - psychosis or transcendence ? , Dakin - San Fransisco, 1981.
Satinover, J. : The Quantum Brain, Wiley - New York, 2001.
Searle, J.R. : The Rediscovery of Mind, MIT Press - Cambridge, 1992.
Searle, J.R. : The Mystery of Consciousness, Granta - London, 1997.
Smith, F.H. & Spencer, F. : The Origins of Modern Humans, Alan R. Liss - New York, 1984.
Tart, Ch.T. : Altered States of Consciousness , Doubleday - New York, 1969.
Tart, Ch.T. : Transpersonal Psychologies, Harper - New York, 1975.
Tart, Ch.T. : States of Consciousness, Backinprint.com - USA, 2000.
Teilhard de Chardin, P. : The Phenomenon of Man, Harper - New York, 1959.
Teilhard de Chardin, P. : Le Milieu Divin, Collins - London, 1966.
Tipler, F.J. : The Physics of Immortality, Doubleday - New York, 1994.
Vroon, P. : Bewustijn, hersenen en gedrag, Ambo - Baarn, 1976.
Vroon, P. : Tranen van de Krokodil, Ambo - Baarn, 1989.
Vroon, P. : Wolfsklem, Ambo - Baarn, 1992.

atts, F. & Williams, M. : The Psychology of Religious Knowing, Cambridge University Press -
Cambridge, 1988.
Watson, J.D., Gilman, M., Witkowksi, J. & Zoller, M. : Recombinant DNA, Scientific American Books
- New York, 1992.
Wise, A. : The High-Performance Mind, Putnam - New York, 1995.
Wise, A. : Awakening the Mind, Putnam - New York, 2002.
Whitehead, A.N. : Process and Reality, The Free Press - New York, (1929) 1978.
Wolman, B. : Handbook of Parapsychology, Van Nostrand Reinhold - New York, 1977.
Allen, L.S. & Gorski, R.A. : "Sexual orientation and the size of the anterior commissure in the
human brain.", in : Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences - Washington, 1992, n°89,
pp.7199-7202.
Aravind, L. : "Apoptotic molecular machinery : vastly increased complexity in vertebrates revealed
by genome comparisons.", in : Science, 2001, pp.1279-1284.
Ashbrook, J.B. : "Neurotheology : The Working Brain and the Work of Theology ?", in : Zygon, 19 n
°3, pp.331-350.
Ashbroon, J.B. : "Brain, Mind and God.", in : Christian Century, 1985, pp.295-298.
Ashbrook, J.B. : "The Whole Brain as the Basis for the Analogical Expression of God.", in : Zygon,
1989, pp.65-81.
Ashbrook, J.B. : "Interfacing Religion and the Neurosciences : A Review of Twenty-five Years of
Exploration and Reflection.", in : Zygon, 31 n°4, pp.545-582.
Atran, S. : "The Neuropsychology of Religion.", in : Joseph, R. : Neurotheology, University Press of
California - California, 2002, pp.163-186.
Balter, M. : "What made humans modern ?, in : Science, n°295, pp.1219-1225.
Barlow, H.B. : "Single units and sensation : A neuron doctrine for percetual psychology ?", in :
Perception, n°1, 1972, pp.371-394.
Beck, F. & Eccles, J.C. : "Quantum aspects of brain activity and the role of consciousness.", in :
Proc.Natl.Acad.Sci. USA, n°89.
Broad, W. : "Brains, Science, Nonordinary & Transcendent Experiences.", in : Joseph, R. :
Neurotheology, University Press of California - California, 2002, pp.143-186.
Clark, W.H. : "Religious Experience in Contemporary Perspective", in : Clark, W.H., Malony, H.N.,
Daane, J. & Tippett, A.R. : Religious Experience, Its Nature and Function in the Human Psyche,
Thomas - Springfield, 1973, pp.3-20.
Clark, W.H. : "The Phenomena of Religious Experience", in : Clark, W.H., Malony, H.N., Daane, J. &
Tippett, A.R. : Religious Experience, Its Nature and Function in the Human Psyche, Thomas -
Springfield, 1973, pp 21-40.
Courseaux, A. & Nahon, J-L. : "Birth of two chimeric genes in the Hominidae lineage.", in :
Science, 2001, pp.1293-1297.
Crick, F. : The Astonishing Hypothesis : The Scientific Search for the Soul, Simon and Schuster -
New York, 1994.
D'Aquili, E. & Newberg, A.B. : "Religious and mystical states : a neuropsychological model.", in :
Zygon, 1993, n°28, pp.177-200.
D'Aquili, E. & Newberg, A.B. : "The Neuropsychological Basis of Religion.", in : Zygon, 1998, n°33,
2, pp.187-201.
Davis, M., Walker, D.L. & Lee, Y. : "Amygdala and bed nucleus of the stria terminalis : Differential
roles in fear and anxiety measured with acoustic startle reflex.", in : Annals of the New York
Academy of Sciences, 821, 1997, pp.305-331.
Deikman, A.J. : "Deautomatization and the mystic experience.", in : Psychiatry, n°29, pp.324-338.
Deikman, A.J. : "Bimodal Consciousness.", in : Archives of General Psychiatry, n°25, 1971, pp.481-
489.
Grof, S. : "Varieties of transpersonal experiences.", in : Journal of Transpersonal Psychology, n°4,
1, pp.45-80.
Hamilton, W.F. : "Theogenesis : the intelligent universe.", in : Joseph, R. : Neurotheology,
University Press of California - California, 2002, pp.133-142.

Henikoff, S., Keene, M.A., Fechtel, K. & Friston, J.W. : "Gene with a gene.", in : Cell, n°44, 1986,
pp.33-42.
Hood, R.W. : "Religious Orientation and the Report of Religious Experience", in : Journal for the
Scientific Study of Religion, nr. 9, 1970, pp. 285-291.
Hood, R.W. : "The Construction and Preliminary Validation of a Measure of Reported Mystical
Experience", in : Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion, nr. 14, 1975, pp.29-41.
Jevning, R., Wallace, R.K. & Beidebach, M. : "The physiology of meditation.", in : Neuroscience and
Biobehavioral Reviews, n°16, 1992, pp.415-424.
Joseph, R. : "The Right Cerebral Hemisphere : Emotion, Music, Visual-Spatial Skills, Body Image,
Dreams and Awareness.", in : Journal of Clinical Psychiatry, n°44, 1988, pp.630-673.
Kaas, J. : "Evolution of the Evolution of the Neocortex.", in : Bear, M.F., Connors, B.W. & Paradiso,
M.A. : Neuroscience, Lippincott - Maryland, 2001, pp.197-198.
Kirkpatrick, L. : "God as a substitute attachment figure.", in : Personality and Social Psychology
Bulletin, n°24, pp.961-673.
Larkin, A. : "The form and content of schizophrenic hallucination.", in : American Journal of
Psychiatry, n°136, pp.940-943.
Lemay, M. : "Développement Normal de la Personnalité.", in Duguay, R., Ellenberg H.F. et coll
(edit) : Précis Pratique de Psychiatrie, Maloine - Paris, 1981, pp.41-46.
Leroi-Gourhan, A. : "The archaeology of Lascauz Cave.", in : Scientific American, n°24, pp.104-112.
MacLean, P. : "The Triune Brain, Emotion, and Scientifi Bias.", in : Schmitt, F.O. : The
Neurosciences Second Study Program, Rockefeller University Press - New York, 1970.
Maclean, P. : "The Imitative-Creative Interplay of Our Three Mentalities.", in : Harris, H. : Astride
the Two Cultures, Hutchinson - London, 1976.
Maclean, P. : "A Mind of Three Minds : Educating the Triune Brain.", in : Chall, S. & Mirsky, A.F. :
Education and the Brain, University of Chicago - Chicago, 1978, pp.308-342.
MacLean, P. : "Evolutionary Psychiatry and the Triune Brain.", in : Psychological Medicine, n°15,
1985, pp.219-221.
Maslow, A. : "Lessons from the peak-experiences.", in : Journal of Humanistic Psychology, n°2,
pp.9-18.
Mohrhoff, U. : "The Physics of Interactionism.", in : Libet, B., Freeman, A. & Sutherland, K. : The
Volitional Brain, Imprint Academic - San Diego, 1999, pp.165-184.
Newberg, A.B. & Iversen, J. : "On the 'neuro' in neurotheology.", in : Joseph, R. : Neurotheology,
University Press of California - California, 2002, pp.247-266.
Ovchinnikov, I.V. : "Molecular analysis of Neanderthal DNA from the northern Caucasus.", in :
Nature, 2000, n°414, pp.490-493.
Pakkenberg, B. & Gundersen, H.J.G. : "Neocortical neuron number in humans : effect of sex and
age.", in : Journal of Comparative Neurology, n°384, 1997, pp.312-320.
Papez, J.W. : "A Proposed Mechanism of Emotion.", in : Archives of Neurology and Psychiatry,
1934, n°33, pp.725-743.
Penfield, W. : "Science, the arts and the spirit.", in : Transcript of the Royal Society of Canada,
1969, n°7, pp.73-83.
Persinger, M.A. : "Religious and mystical experiences as artifacts of temporal lobe function.", in :
Perceptual and Motor Skills, 1983, n°57, pp.1255-1262.
Persinger, M.A. : "Enhanced incidence of the sensed presence in people who have learned to
meditate : support for the right hemispheric intrusion hypothesis.", in : Perceptual and Motor
Skills, 1992, n°75, pp.1308-1310.
Persinger, M.A. : "Paranormal and religious beliefs may be mediated differentially by subcortical
and cortical phenomenological processes of the temporal limbic lobes.", in : Perceptual and Motor
Skills, 1993, n°76, pp.247-251.
Persinger, M.A. : "Transcendental Meditation and general meditation are associated with enhanced
complex partial epileptic-like signs.", in : Perceptual and Motor Skills, 1993, n°76, pp.80-82.
Persinger, M.A. & Makarec, K. : "The feeling of a presence and verbal meaningfulness in context of
temporal lobe function : factor analytic verification of the muses ?", in : Brain and Cognition, 1992,
n°20, pp.217-226.

Persinger, M.A. & Bureau, Y.R. : "The sensed presence as right hemispheric intrusions into the left
hemispheric awarness of self : an illustrative case study.", in : Perceptual and Motor Skills, 1994, n°
78, pp.999-1009.
Pigliucci, M. : "Neuro-theology, a rather sceptical perspective.", in : Joseph, R. : Neurotheology,
University Press of California - California, 2002, pp.243-246.
Holmes, R. : "Did Homo religiosus Emerge from the Evolution of the Brain ?", in : Insights -
Chicago Center for Religion and Science, 3 n°1, pp.10-14.
Rudavsky, S. : "The secret life of the Neanderthal.", in Omni, 1991, 41, pp.42-44 & 55-56.
Schwartz, J.T. : "The New Connectionism : Developing Relationships Beteween Neuroscience and
Artificial Intelligence.", in : Graubard, S. : The Artificial Intelligence Debate, MIT Press -
Cambridge, 1990.
Sperry, R.W. : "A Modified View on Consciousness.", in : Psychological Review, 1969, 76 n°6,
pp.532-536.
Sperry, R.W. : "Some Effect of Disconnecting the Cerebral Hemispheres.", in Science, 1982, 217,
pp.1223-12236.
Sperry, R.W. : "Paradigms of Belief, Theory and Metatheory.", in : Zygon, 1993, 27 n°3, pp.245-
259.
Spilka, B., Brown, G. & Cassidy, S. : "The structure of religious mystical experience.", in :
International Journal for the Psychology of Religion, 1992, n°2, pp.241-257.
Staal, F. : "Superstructures.", in : Woods, R. : Understanding Mysticism, Image - New York, 1980,
pp.93-108.
Saver, J.L. & Rabin, J. : "The neuronal substrates of religious experience.", in : Journal of
Neuropsychiatry & Clinical Neuroscience, 1997, pp.498-510.
Weingarten, S.M., Cherlow, D.G. & Holmgren, E. : "The relationship of hallucination to depth
structures of the temporal lobe.", in : Acta Neurochirurgica, n°24, pp.199-216.
Wilson, D.L. : "Mind-Brain Interaction and Violation of Physical Laws.", in : Libet, B., Freeman, A. &
Sutherland, K. : The Volitional Brain, Imprint Academic - San Diego, 1999, pp.185-200.
Chapter 5
A Philosophy of the Mind and Its Brain
against materialism & spiritualism
in defence of nondualistic interactionism
case study : the power of suggestion
"Mentality is a real and autonomous feature of our world".
Putnam, H. : "Philosophy and our Mental Life.", in : Moser & Trout, 1995, p.122.
"Philosophy must therefore assume that no true contradiction will be found
between freedom and natural necessity in the same human actions, for it
cannot give up the idea of nature any more than that of freedom."

Kant, I. : Grounding for the Metaphysics of Morals, 3:56.
"Observations not only disturb what is to be measured, they produce it."
Jordan Pascual, quoted in Rosenblum & Kuttner, 2006, p.103.
"Although our minds may be essential to the realization of a particular reality,
we cannot know or decide in advance what the result of a quantum
measurement will be. We cannot choose what kind of reality we could like to
perceive beyond choosing the measurement eigenstates. In this interpretation
of quantum measurement, our only influence over matter is to make it real."
Baggot, 2004, p.256, my italics.
"All things work together."
Hippocrates : De Alimento, 4.
"The many become one, and are increased by one."
Whitehead, A.N. : Process & Reality, § 32.
"The problem, therefore, is not merely that science is being used illegitimately
to promote a materialistic worldview, but that this worldview is actively
undermining scientific inquiry, leading to incorrect and unsupported conclusions
about biological and cosmological origins."
Beauregard, M. & O'Leary, D. : The Spiritual Brain, HarperOne - New York, 2007, p.27.
Table of Contents
INTRODUCTION
Definitions
I : Beyond Materialism & Spiritualism.
1. The Epistemology of Materialism.
1.1 Reduction of the Subject of Knowledge.
1.2 The Naive Inflation of the Real.
1.3 Prospective Materialism.
2. The Metaphysics of Materialism.
2.1 Greek Atomism.
2.2 Objectifying Essentialism.

2.3 Newtonian Physicalism.
3. The Criticism of Materialism.
3.1 Criticism of Observation.
3.2 Criticism of Common Sense Realism.
3.3 Criticism of Materialist Dogmatism.
4. The Epistemology of Spiritualism.
4.1 Reduction of the Object of Knowledge.
4.2 The Naive Inflation of the Ideal.
4.3 Spiritual Obscurantism.
5. The Metaphysics of Spiritualism.
5.1 Greek Pythagorism & Platonism.
5.2 Subjectifying Essentialism.
5.3 Monarchic Transcendence.
6. The Criticism of Spiritualism.
6.1 Criticism of Personal Experience.
6.2 Criticism of Fideist Idealism.
6.3 Criticism of Spiritualist Dogmatism.
7. An Ontology beyond Materialism & Spiritualism.
7.1 Criticism : Cutting-Through Appearances.
7.2 Ontology : Panexperiential Occasionalism.
7.3 Functional Domains of Explanation.
II : The Mind/Body Problem.
8. Positions.
8.1 Ancient Egyptian Shamanism : Hylic Pluralism.
8.2 Platonic Dualism & Peripatetic Hylemorphism.
8.3 Cartesian Interactionism.
8.4 Occasionalism.
8.5 Psycho-Physical Parallelism and Panpsychism.
8.6 Physicalism : Analytical Behaviourism and Identity or Central State Theory.

8.7 Eliminativism, Epiphenomenalism and Behaviourism.
8.8 Functionalism.
8.9 Anomalous Monism, Supervenient Emergentism.
8.10 Panexperientalism.
9. Functional Interactionism.
9.1 Solving the Mind/Body Problem ?
9.2 A Triadic Model of What Works.
9.3 How Brain-Mind Interaction Happens.
9.4 The Endlessness of Brain and Mind.
10. Suggestology.
10.1 The Power of Suggestion.
10.2 Spiritual Paths of Suggestion ?
10.3 Aqua Magica : Healing with Dyed Water.
Epilogue : Taking Our Own Power Seriously.
Suggested Reading
INTRODUCTION
"Our reasonings are grounded upon two great principles, that of contradiction,
in virtue of which we judge false that which involves a contradiction, and true
that which is opposed or contradictory to the false. And that of sufficient
reason, in virtue of which we hold that there can be no fact real or existing, no
statement true, unless there be a sufficient reason, why it should be so and not
otherwise, although these reasons usually cannot be known by us."
Leibniz, G.W. : Monadology, §§ 31-32, my italics.
In the ontological assumption of naturalism, the world (all possible events) or
"Nature" is a single all-embracing spatio-temporal system. Being quasideterminist
and self-enclosed, all events are probabilistically determined solely
by other events in Nature, not by an absolute "hypokeimenon" ontologically
transcending it.
Until recently, and starting with the Greeks, naturalism was mostly essentialist

and concept-realist. Objects had a substantial ground, base or foundation.
Concepts conveyed absolute reality. Substance denoted whatever remained
identical with itself, i.e. a thing depending upon nothing else for its existence
than itself. Conceptual thought had direct access to this ultimate reality, either
by remembering ("anamnesis" - Plato) or by abstracting ("intellectus agens" -
Aristotle).
Designating one (ontological monism), two (metaphysical dualism) or more
(metaphysical pluralism) foundational substances did not alter the view of
Nature as consisting of entities inherently possessing their properties from their
own side. When this essentialism, to explain Nature as a whole, posited a
supreme "substance of substances", it either viewed it as transcending the
world (cf. a supreme idea of ideas or an Unmoved Mover) or identical with it
(cf. the Stoic "pneuma"). But the notion these sufficient ground existed by its
own right, without the need besides itself, remained. In the Greek mind,
isolated objects were more important than connected ones. This Olympic mind
fed substantialism. Process naturalism eliminates it.
Indeed, with the advent of quantum mechanics, this substance-like view,
mostly coupled with a strict causal determinism, was replaced by a process-like
view, one embracing relativity, probabilism and a whole spectrum of law-like
determinations (like neo-causality, interactionism, holistic determination, etc.).
In this non-essentialist approach, all phenomena are impermanent events,
arising, abiding & ceasing. Caught in an endless process of ongoing creative
becoming, they do not possess an unchanging, self-identical core in and of
themselves. Interconnected with all other phenomena, each event is devoid of
own-nature, i.e. empty of an essence exclusively attributed to it, characterizing
and distinguishing it from all other events in an unchanging, eternalizing way
(cf. Emptiness, 2008 & Ultimate Logic, 2009). Things are what they do, not
what remains after eliminating the accidents.
The objects of Nature are no longer characterized as substances (or selfpowered
entities, properties or states), but as processes (P) which go the way
of occasions (o1 , o2 , ... o ). Every existing object A or A is characterized by
m
a set of occasions O = {o A1 , ... o Am } making A unique. This set constitutes
the occasion-continuum of A. Everything outside the occasion-horizon of A
does not constitute A. Of course, certain occasions constituting A may also
constitute B, while the occasion-continuum of each A remains unique.
Can we do more than accept o x as a logical primitive, a given ? Following
Whitehead (1861 - 1947) and his "quantum ontology" :

(a) occasion o x , an instance of the set of occasions O = {o 1 , ... o m }, is an
atomic & momentary actuality characterized by "extensiveness" ;
(b) event e x , an instance of the set of events E = {e 1 , ... e n }, is the nexus of
occasions, and
(c) entity en x , an instance of the set of entities En = {en 1 , ... en p }, is the
nexus of events, while "entity" and "object" are synonymous.
"The core issue for both Whiteheadian process and quantum process is the
emergence of the discrete from the continuous."
Stapp, 2007, p.88.
Entities and events are occasions interrelated in a determining way in one
extensive continuum, and an actual occasion is a limiting type of an event with
only one member. Nature is built up of occasions. Events are aggregates or
compounds of occasions. Entities are aggregates or compounds of events.
Extensiveness is what occasions x have in common. This extensive plenum of
the continuum of each occasion can be :
(a) spatial : as in the case of geometrical objects ;
(b) temporal : as in the case of the duration of mental objects ;
(c) spatio-temporal : as in the case of the endurance of sensate objects.
Mentality, besides materiality, is an autonomous feature of Nature, one
interconnected with matter and information. To comfortably argue the point,
one needs to back how the non-material, non-corporeal, non-physical aspects
of Nature interact with (co-determine change in) the material operator of
spatio-temporal systems composed of occasions, each having material,
informational and self-determinative features.
The proposed naturalism is therefore not a materialist naturalism. Neither is it
a spiritualist naturalism. Both half-truths are rejected. It stays within the order
of Nature, introduces no "transcendent significant" (Derrida), posits no
transcendent, constitutive idea beyond the series of natural determinations
(Kant) ; not on the side of the material, nor on the side of the non-material
operators of Nature, namely information & consciousness. If a supreme "logos"
is considered, then merely as an immanent architect, but not as a transcendent
creator. Rather a subtle fire than a transcendent spirit, a Caesar of sorts
overtowering Nature (monotheism). Valid metaphysics is necessarily
immanent. Transcendent metaphysics and its poetry, being non-conceptual and

nondual, is, while influencing the subject of experience, ineffable in an
excellent & exemplary way. Hence, although transcendence is not rejected and
may be cognized, it is deemed non-conceptual, nondual & ineffable.
Materialism is a form of naturalism whereby the spatio-temporal system is
identified with matter only, precluding other possible factors or operators
within Nature (like the mind). Ontological materialism posits matter as a
substance, while process materialism rejects occasions feature anything else
besides matter (the latter is merely a logical possibility, for process thought
promotes a physico-mental view).
We must distinguish between classical materialism (Democritus, Leucippus,
Lucretius, Hobbes, Gassendi) and contemporary materialism. For classical
materialism and its essentialism, Nature is nothing but collections of selfcontained,
indivisible atoms in the void. In the XVIIth century materialism
became a form of mechanism. Nature as a gigantic clockwork. The language to
describe this became more and more logical & mathematical. Material entities
were viewed as solid, inert, impenetrable, conserved, substantial objects,
possessing their properties from their own side (inherently) and isolated from
other material occasions, events & entities. This own-nature could be
conceptually known. These ideas became the cornerstones of the Newtonian
worldview. Classical materialism has been proven wrong. Contemporary
physics promotes process (not substance), discontinuity (Planck), relativity
(Einstein), wave-collapse (Bohr, von Neumann, Schrödinger) and
interdependence (Bell). Hence, adjacent materialism holds the view the single
material, empirical operator is what a true & complete physical science says
about it. This form is called "physicalism".
Physicalism or behaviourism is a materialist form of naturalism claiming all
occasions, events, entities, processes, properties, relations and facts are those
studied by physics or other physical sciences. The latter are considered to be
able "in principle" to develop suitable bridge concepts linking its vocabulary to
chemistry and molecular biology, entailing credible approximations of all their
established laws. Physicalism is not necessarily essentialist, as functionalism
shows. But in all cases, only material occasions are accepted as the
fundamental building blocks of Nature.
operator/
ontology
matter
essentialism process
materialism
physicalism
functionalism

non-material
classical
spiritualism
Mind-Only
all stuff hylic pluralism panexperientialism
This table compares, in the context of naturalism, the kind of stuff introduced
(material, non-material or both) with the ontology at hand (accepting
substances as in essentialism or not, as in process thinking). Let us review
these six monisms :
● classical materialism accepts substances (things existing from their own side,
possessing inherent nature) and posits a monism : only matter is the
fundamental stuff. Contemporary physicalism corrects this : only physical
realities as given by physics are the sufficient ground of Nature. The physical
universe is mechanical, gravitational, thermo-dynamical, electromagnetic,
relativistic and quantummechanical ;
● functionalism thinks relationships and so process, change, transformation,
but only in terms of what physics has to say. It endorses physicalism and so
monism, without accepting essentialism. Non-substantiality or the absence of
autarchic, self-powered material monads embraces process, grasped as a
dynamical system of functions and interdependent factors, whereas
essentialism fixates and eternalizes ;
● classical spiritualism accepts the "substance of substances" (a point at
infinity within or without Nature). This actual infinity is the ultimate substance
the human mind is able to cognize. Hence, absolute knowledge is possible, for
"revealed" to the absolute mind. Matter is created by spirit. Also here a single
sufficient ground is conjectured ;
● in the Mind-Only school ("Cittamâtra") of Buddhism (cf. the Yogâcârin
School, "practice of yoga school"), absence of inherent existence is
acknowledged except for the absolute mind. All phenomena are other-powered,
i.e. dependent on conditions & determinations outside them, but the absence
or lack of duality between perceiving subject and perceived object is taken to
have own-nature ("svabhâva"). Except for the absolute mind, all is otherpowered.
All phenomena are merely manifestations of this monadic absolute
mind ;
● hylic pluralism posits a multitude of substances, a hierarchy organized in
static ontological levels (planes, worlds), with at the bottom the coarsest forms
of matter and at the top the most refined forms of spirit. Matter is a
materialized spirit and spirit spiritualized matter. A single ontological ladder
unfolds, a "scala perfectionis" or universal "Tree of Life". While all beings form
one continuum, the differences between them is relative ;

● for panexperientialism, espousing process and pluralism, each actual
accasion has various aspects or attributes, like matter, information &
consciousness. These phenomena or domains are organically organized in
ontological strata. All phenomena are made up of occasions, the buildingblocks
of the organic dynamism of Nature. Because each occasion is executive
(hardware), informational (software) and to a degree participatory (userware),
it shapes novelty and is an individual. Occasions always interconnect and
become events and entities. Thus individualized societies and nonindividualized
compounds arise. Human consciousness allows for an inner life
and conscious experience, manifesting a high degree of freedom and choice.
"The panexperientialist philosophy (...) says that individuals at every level have
their own power, so that, although much of the power of the atom is found in
its subatomic particles, the atom as a centered whole has power that is not
reducible to that of its parts. The same is said of, for example, ordinary
molecules, macromolecules, cells, and animals, with the power of the animal as
a whole being that of its soul."
Griffin, 1997, p.147.
Applying the last position to neurophilosophy, I argue interactionism hand in
hand with monism. The brain is a spatiotemporal material entity, defined by
space, time, mass, force, etc. Adding the perspective of organization, it is a
compound of matter (hardware) computing code or information (software)
attended by the conscious mind (consciousness) or not (unconscious). The
human mind (and in a lesser degree the mind of all higher primates) is an
extraordinary society of occasions, a temporal, mental entity, determined by
sensations, volitions, affects, thoughts & (self) consciousness, a cognizing
awareness, capable of solving problems by operating signals, icons and
symbols in a well-ordered way, a intentional, percipient participator, a
meaningful conscious choice, a wave-collapsing observator, etc. The human
mind interacts with the body and its information precisely because, on the
most fundamental level, it is not made out of ontologically different "stuff" than
the brain. Neuronal events are occasions. Mental intentions are also occasions.
That distinct logics accommodate the distinctness between these occasions is
clear. But this does not necessarily implies there is an ontological difference
(another kind of being, made of different stuff). The key to this interactionism ?
All occasions are material, informational & sentient.
Given brain and mind, the central question is how to relate both ? Let us first
touch a few logical, epistemological, ontological, physical, phenomenological &
ethical issues involved here.

Logic
What about the pivotal difference between a monist or a non-monist central
axiom ?
Monist logics privilege a single principle or monad. Examples are materialism &
spiritualism. The latter understand matter as the lowest degree of spirit, while
for the former spiritual activity emerges out of matter. Panexperientialism
discovers a deeper layer, for both material (physical) and non-material (nonphysical)
things are occasions. An occasion is an extensive atomic &
momentary actuality caught in process.
Non-monists logics always introduce more than one fundamental ontological
principle (a duality, triplicity, quaternio, etc.). Duality, with its powerful
reflective capacities, introduces otherness. This is a first step outside the
monadic & monarchic continuum, adding alteriority as a new unity. But herein
lies the weakness of dual systems : now two principles are generated. How to
reconcile their ontological difference in a single Nature ? How can they interact,
and if they do, how ? The power of duality is felt in epistemology. Reflection on
the structure of thought itself reveals a binary structure, erected on the
principles of the transcendental logic of thought itself, the norms of valid
empirico-formal propositions and the maxims of an efficient production of
knowledge (cf. Clearings, 2006 & Criticosynthesis, 2008). A trinity of factors
brings in the first logical closure, and by adding a third principle, duality is not
longer "locked" in singular division, no longer the nature morte of the "dead
bones" of formal logic, but indeed becomes an "unlocked", plural process
capable of thinking the manifold. In many ways, triadism is equipped to deal
with manifolds.
Applied to neurophilosophy, monadic logics, like those used in materialist
neuroscience, affirm the material brain to be the single last principle. All other
operators (like information & consciousness) end when the brain dies. A
contrario, spiritual systems will think the brain as materialized spirit, and affirm
the "spiritual core" of the mind is the single last principle. Introducing a tertium
comparationis, we may apprehend the brain as the executive computer
(hardware) processing mental objects (as software) attended or non-attended
by conscious choice (userware). These operators are at work on a cosmic level,
as well as each and every occasion.
For the monist, the validity of the first principle must be argued well. Can
everything be explained by the privileged monad ("matter" in materialism,
"spirit" in spiritualism, "occasions" in process thinking) ? If so, then by
Ockham's Razor we keep it simple. But if a single case can be found where the
principle does not apply, then a forteriori monism is wrong. For the non-

monist, in particular the essentialist, the validity of the interaction between
ontologically different principles must be strongly backed. How, in this case,
can this material brain interact with the distinct and different non-material
mind (and thus experience a non-cerebral impact) ?
Logically, monism coupled with essentialism has difficulty explaining the
manifold, its multiplicity, variety, differentiation, complexity, richness &
interconnectedness. A single static factor lies at the heart of this approach. So
certain aspects of the manifold (of Nature) cannot be explained. One either
accepts the combination to be a failure or one continues to try to explain the
manifold anyway. The combination fails because of essentialism. Thinking a
single dynamic factor solves many of the problems. In the West, processmonism
is rather recent. Although we find traces of it in Greek philosophy
(Heraclites) and a first draught in Leibniz, elaborated by Whitehead.
Logically, substantialism (essentialism) should be avoided. From functionalism
we integrate the interconnectedness between phenomena. But not in the
exclusive sense of materialist functionalism. There may be other aspects of the
same thing also working functionally. Idealist solutions (like Mind-Only) cannot
be reconciled with how matter behaves. Panexperientialism couples process
with a pluralist view on the distinctness of occasions (not their ontological
difference !), embracing, in principle, endless distinguishing attributes, aspects
or operators, but reducing these to the three known to function today : matter
(hardware), information (software) and consciousness (userware). Regarding
the latter, the crucial distinction between consciousness per se and human
conscious experience (or inner life) should not be missed. On this planet, the
human mind is an extraordinary continuum of occasions, the only one capable
of featuring inner life & conscious experience. A single occasion evidences the
smallest possible degree of sentience.
Epistemology
Epistemology answers two questions : How is valid knowledge possible ? and
How can knowledge be produced ? The first question brings in two disciplines :
transcendental logic, uncovering the logical structure of conceptual thought
itself, and theoretical epistemology or theory of knowledge, unveiling the
normative structure of empirico-formal knowledge and its validation. How a
particular research-cell produces such knowledge is summarized by the maxims
of applied epistemology. Together, this trinity of factors covers the rationale of
valid conceptual knowledge and its production.
Neurophilosophy makes use of the epistemological study of sensation,
explaining how sensate objects arise. How do we sensuously perceive, interpret

& sensate our outer environment, and what is the role of this in the validity of
our knowledge ? This calls for the difference between "naked" and "natural"
perception.
Let us consider naked perception first. The receptor organs of the sensory
system are fed by impulses based on chemical substances (smell, taste),
collisions & frictions (touch), air pressures (audition) and electromagnetic
radiation (vision). These impulses are the first cause of perception, nothing
else. Stimuli are the direct, external changes caused by a narrow band of
material objects on the surface of the receptor organs of the sensory system.
This perception is called "naked", because we must assume a direct influence
of the outer physical world on the sensitive surfaces of the receptor organs.
These organs effectuate a decisive transformation of the signal (called
"transduction").
Indeed, in each receptor organ, this transduction is operational from, on the
one hand, chemical (smell, taste, touch), mechanical (touch, audition) or
electromagnetic energy (sight) to, on the other hand, encoded sequences of
electric voltages running through neurons and their axons and dendrites :
● smell : transduction of chemical stimuli (odorants) by temporal coding
(the timing of spikes) ;
● taste : transduction of chemical stimuli by membrane potential changes,
either depolarizing or hyperpolarizing (voltage shift) ;
● touch : transduction of mechanical and chemical stimuli by membrane
potential changes & mechanoreceptors (with mechano-sensitive ion
channels ?) ;
● audition : transduction of mechanical energy by a change in membrane
polarization ;
● sight : transduction of electromagnetic radiation by a change in
membrane polarization.
This transduction implies an automatic interpretation from receptor organ to
thalamus. To do so, evolutionary, biological software is present. This is
integrated (a) in the hardware of the receptor organ (transduction), (b) in the
peripheral nervous system (coded relays) and (c) in the brain (thalamus).
Natural perception happens at the level of the thalamus, where reptilian &
mammalian software takes over. Before entry into the neocortex, this "inner
room" or "storeroom" (of a Greek or Roman house) receives the neuronal

messages of the five senses. This sensory information is spatio-temporalized,
integrated and finally projected into the primary sensory cortex, while the
intensity of the flow to and fro the neocortex is monitored and if necessary
inhibited. This "automatic" level of perception is called "natural" because our
brain shares it with all higher mammals. In humans, the thalamus acts not only
as a receptor and an integrator-projector, but also as the initiator of a series of
higher cortical functions.
Finally, when all this information is projected in the neocortex by the thalamus,
the last level of interpretation occurs, and this one is not automatic. Sensation,
the final integration of perception, involves interpretation and construction.
Sensation is the result of an active modulation of the perceived inputs. Not only
the projected is computed & recomputed, but associated with all known
neuronal networks and finally synthesized, labelled & named. Hence, conscious
sensation can not do away or eliminate these interpretations, for consciousness
has no direct experience of perceptions, but only of sensations.
S(ensation) = P(erception) . I(nterpretation), with I ≠ 1.
The neurophilosophy of sensation clarifies the difference between perception
and sensation. The objects we sensate appear as they do because of our
interpretation and, as long as conceptual rationality is at hand, this cannot be
put to rest or eliminated. This "interpretation" is not something "added" to
perceptions, a thing, by some method, to be subtracted. The association areas
of the neocortex (receiving the data projected by the thalamus) process the
construction in which the sensate objects appear as entities (cluster of events)
with accidents (names & labels such as quantity, quality, relation, modality,
etc.), i.e. as sensate objects possessed by a subject of experience. Before they
"enter" these areas, they have not yet been introduced to the overall modular
activity of the neocortex, the concert of interpretations with an attention area
mediating the will of the conductor, the pilot, the swimmer, the conscious self.
Once this happens, the end relay of perception transforms into sensation and
its objects. And with them there is always interpretation (fabrication, naming,
labelling) and a subject of experience facing & possessing sensate objects of
experience.
These epistemological considerations on perception bring to bare how naive
realism, the cornerstone of essentialist materialism, positing the identity
between perception and sensation or the reducibility of interpretation is flawed.
We have no direct access to any sense datum. It also shows how spiritualism,
claiming the mind creates its objects, cannot be reconciled with the fact all
sensation is rooted in naked & natural perception, i.e. the recording of
something stimulating ...

Ontology
The metaphysical study of existence or ontology asks : What is the sufficient
ground of all things ? and What kind of things are there in existence ? For the
monist, there is only one sufficient ground allowing for various, distinct kind of
things. Distinguishing objects does not lead to designating another sufficient
ground.
The possibilities of cognition itself determine what can be known. In the past,
the view determining how knowledge is possible & how it can be increased was
rooted in the sufficient ground given by ontology. Materialism claimed the real
to be this "hypokeimenon", while spiritualism affirmed it was the ideal. Hence,
the possibilities of cognition were determined by an ontological choice made ad
hoc. Criticism has done away with this, showing how epistemology is a
normative discipline, not one based on a metaphysical description of the world.
It benefits ontology, before engaging in any kind of speculation about the
fundamental nature of objects, to first consider the two principles of
transcendental logic, namely the division between the transcendental object
and the transcendental subject of all possible thought.
Let us consider a few materialist (realist) tenets without the restrictions
imposed by transcendental logic.
1. Physical reality is the only reality.
2. Physical reality originates from totally impersonal natural forces.
3. This reality functions without the intervention of any immaterial force of any
kind.
4. Life & consciousness emerge in the material universe purely by accident.
5. Every typical "human" feature is determined solely by what happens in the
body, in particular the brain, and forces acting on it from the physical
environment.
6. When the body dies, consciousness dies.
Applying the principles of transcendental logic, this set of ideas cannot be
accepted for the following reasons :
1. Because all possible thought happens in the dynamism between an object of
knowledge and a subject of knowledge, the statement only physical reality
exists involves a "contradiction in actu exercito", for the subjectivity or
community of subjectivities making the statement are kept out of the equation
when it is uttered. Like somebody closing a door and saying "the door is open",
a logical error is at hand. As there is no "Archimedic point" outside the
"concordia discors", or the domain of the interaction between object & subject
of thought, one simply cannot make such a statement. Indeed, it presupposes

an absolute view, one no thinker is logically and practically able to assume.
The alternative ? Logic forces us to assume both object & subject.
2. Again, how does one know "totally impersonal forces" are at hand ? The
same counter-argument works. But there is more. Lots of recent sciences (like
cultural anthropology, observational psychology & physics) posit an intimate
connection between observer and observed, destroying the "strong" statement
physical reality only originated from impersonal forces, i.e. exists without any
interference from the side of subjectivity. Reality operates physical & nonphysical
entities.
"To perceive a complex means to perceive that its constituents are combined in
such and such a way. This perhaps explains that the figure can be seen in two
ways as a cube ; and all similar phenomena. For we really see two different
facts. (If I fix my eyes first on the corners a and only glance at b, a appears in
front and b behind, and vice versa.)"
Wittgenstein, L. : Tractatus Logico-Philosophicus, 5.5423, my italics.
3. Is the act of observation by itself a material force ? If it were, then it would
be possible to describe this act in purely public terms, i.e. exclusively using a
third-person language of some kind. But this is not the case. In fact, as the
famous "cube" of Wittgenstein (a Gestalt switch) shows, here attention defines
observation, and the structure of "my" or "your" attention must contain private
indexicals to describe it. If it contains a single private indexical (and in fact it
contains more), then one cannot say all observation is purely public and
therefore purely physical.
4. Hoyle (1986) concludes random events and change occurrences are
insufficient to account for the complexity of living organisms. He compared this
chance with the event the junk pieces of a Boeing 747 would completely
reassemble by a single gust of wind ! So, we can either choose to investigate
the possibility of natural higher-order at work in the universe or believe in the
ongoing mathematical miracles of a blind nature morte. Likewise, Maxwell
(1831 - 1879) pointed out the contrast between the evolution of species,

featuring biological changeability, and the existence of identical building blocks
for all observed actual physical entities. Calculate the odds of spontaneous
emergence, given the effectiveness of Newton's laws on the mesolevel (the
inverse-square law of gravity being optimal for the becoming of the Solar
system), our knowledge of what happens in stars (in particular the production
of carbon and oxygen) and the cosmology of the Big Bang ! Doing so, a choice
has to be made between either a (natural) intelligent design (which does not
necessarily imply creationism of any kind) or a monstrous random and blind
sequence of accidents producing a gigantic complexity, which seems rather
unlikely. Finally, although mathematically, the equations of physics,
representing the fundamental architecture of the order of the physical world,
also produce outcomes when other quantities of the same natural constants
are put in, the world would be lifeless and barren (instead of a haven for
incredible complexity) if even a small amount of these values would be
changed. This points to the weak anthropic principle : life & consciousness
were pre-planned to emerge and the physical world accommodated this.
5. This positions can be attacked by the same logic used above. Human
consciousness, intention, intimacy, personal life, "reality-for-me", the firstperson
perspective etc. all involve private indexicals, i.e. words referring to
components of mental states. They imply a special ostensive definition
featuring private access only. Moreover, they are completely defined by other
words alone and thus private ostension is coupled with semantic isolation.
Indeed, these are the only words available to talk about human sentient
experience. Hence, unless a human being has actually experienced the referent
of one or more private indexical, no understanding of it is possible. The brain
however, is described by public indexicals. They too are always definable by
description, but never completely by other words alone. Their description
requires a normal ostensive definition, i.e. a verbalization including at least one
non-private component. Hence, they can be intersubjectively validated, while
private indexicals only privately.
This is the symmetry-problem handicapping the reduction of mind to brain. For
if mind is fundamentally only brain, then nothing belonging to mind should not
belong to brain. If a single instance of mind can be found which cannot be
reduced to or be made to "emerge" from brain, then mind involves another
distinct (not different) working principle than matter and the brain. And this is
precisely the case. Mind is private, brain is public and any reduction is
henceforth problematic. Moreover, besides this lack of symmetry between brain
and mind, there is a semantic problem. The "meaning" derived from brain is a
manifold or plurality, while the mind cannot be apprehended without some
experience of unity, of a plurality brought to unity and conscious of itself as a
unity. This distinctness points to the presence of at least two ontological

operators or aspects, not only one.
6. Of course, if "mind" is but another word, function, secretion or emergent
property of matter, then the demise of the manifold defined as "brain" is also
the end of the mind and its conscious apprehension of itself. In that case,
volition, emotion, thought & (self) consciousness disappear when the lifespan
of the brain is exhausted. The mind stops being secreted or determined by the
dead brain, and so, mutatis mutandis, the mind stops being mind. If however,
the case can be made brain and mind belong to two different sets, worlds,
aspects or operators of the same universal occasion-continuum of Nature, then
another situation may be at hand. The elements of the brain return to the
physical order to be recycled, while the future of the mind may be different. As
this moment of consciousness is followed by the next moment, the moment
consciousness is not longer interacting with the brain may also be followed by
another moment of consciousness, albeit disembodied or subtly embodied.
"When finally a brain stops acting altogether, or decays, that special stream of
consciousness which it subserved will vanish entirely from this natural world.
But the sphere of being that supplied the consciousness would still be intact ;
and in that more real world with which, even whilst here, it was continuous,
the consciousness might, in ways unknown to us, continue still."
James, 1989, pp.85-86, my italics.
Let us now consider some spiritualist (idealist) tenets without the restrictions
imposed by transcendental logic.
1. Non-physical ideality is the only reality.
2. Physical reality originates from personal natural forces.
3. Physical reality functions with the intervention of immaterial forces.
4. Life & consciousness emerge in the material universe by transcendent design.
5. Every typical "human" feature is determined solely by the universal mind.
6. When the body dies, consciousness survives (there is life after death).
Apply the principles of transcendental logic on ontological speculations :
1. The object of thought cannot be "taken out" and replaced by a mental
monad. Doing so contradicts the fact all possible thought and all possible
knowledge are always about something, i.e. must presuppose an extra-mental
reality in order to be called "knowledge" at all. Hence, non-physical ideality
cannot be the only reality, for then all facts would be solely defined by our
theories and in no way possess, so we must assume, the credentials of "realityas-such"
or the absolute state of affairs in the world.
2. The fact physical reality has its own domain is clearly demonstrated by the

advancements in science, in particular physics, chemistry, biology &
cosmology. Here, natural forces are at work (at least at the macro- and
mesolevel of existence) independent & separate from any conscious observer.
While on the microlevel the observer, by the very act of observing, participates
in the collapse of the wave-function (cf. Bohr, Van Neumann), it is not the case
the observer determines what is present before the collapse or is able to cause
a particular outcome after the collapse. The observer merely "makes" reality to
actualize, but not what kind of reality.
3. Although one should not a priori deny the possibility of co-determining nonphysical
agents like information & consciousness, the principle of parsimony
forces us not to multiply entities when simpler explanations are possible.
Besides material execution (matter), we may -in the case of human beings-
reckon with theoretical abstraction & validity (theory - information) and
percipient, sentient participation (consciousness).
4. Creationism goes one step too far. Although a natural higher-order
intelligence can be rationally explained (cf. Ockham on the First Conserver or
Kant on the "architect" of the universe), one logically cannot step outside the
natural order and posit a transcendent Being (a Creator-God) without seriously
crippling reason and moving beyond discursive thought. On purely fideist
grounds one may believe as one pleases, but this does not necessarily produce
correct & valid thinking, quite on the contrary. The debate regarding intelligent
design must, as Kant clearly pointed out, stop at the natural order and never
move beyond it. We should therefore not try to explain the world from a
transcendent perspective, one per definition no concept can cast, but limit
ourselves to explaining the natural order in natural terms.
"The utmost, therefore, that could be established by such a proof would be an
architect of the world, always very much hampered by the quality of the
material with which he has to work, not a creator, to whose idea everything is
subject. This would by no means suffice for the purposed aim of proving an allsufficient
original Being. If we wished to prove the contingency of matter itself,
we must have recourse to a transcendental argument, and this is the very
thing which was to be avoided."
Kant, I. : Critique of Pure Reason, B653.
5. Clearly the brain influences the mind. There can be no discussion about
that ! Although the driver of a car is not the car, the way the car moves about
influences the driver and his decisions. An ongoing interaction is at hand, not a
unilateral causation (from mind to brain, or from brain to mind). Stating the
mind always takes precedence over the brain (denying downward causation) is
neglecting the fruits of hard scientific labour and cannot be justified. But
logically too there are problems. Only by negating the facts of natural evolution

can one blind oneself for the fact so many human features are close to primate
behaviour. If the universal mind would be the "model" used to profile humans,
then clearly this mind is also reptilian & mammalian ?
6. Considering the possibility consciousness may switch from "body" after
ending its interaction with its brain (accepting the driver leaves the car and
asking what happens next) is not the same as "filling in" what happens after
the demise of the brain with stories of an afterlife resembling this-life. How
many religious systems have not viewed the afterlife in terms of what we know
of our life here on Earth ?
"Let us reflect in another way, and we shall see that there is great reason to
hope that death is a good, for one of two things : - either death is a state of
nothingness and utter unconsciousness, or, as men say, there is a change and
migration of the soul from this world to another. Now if you suppose that there
is no consciousness, but a sleep like the sleep of him who is undisturbed even
by the sight of dreams, death will be an unspeakable gain. For if a person were
to select the night in which his sleep was undisturbed even by dreams, and
were to compare with this the other days and nights of his life, and then were
to tell us how many days and nights he had passed in the course of his life
better and more pleasantly than this one, I think that any man, I will not say a
private man, but even the great king, will not find many such days or nights,
when compared with the others. Now if death is like this, I say that to die is
gain ; for eternity is then only a single night. But if death is the journey to
another place, and there, as men say, all the dead are, what good, O my
friends and judges, can be greater than this ? If indeed when the pilgrim
arrives in the world below, he is delivered from the professors of justice in this
world, and finds the true judges who are said to give judgment there, Minos
and Rhadamanthus and Aeacus and Triptolemus, and other sons of God who
were righteous in their own life, that pilgrimage will be worth making. What
would not a man give if he might converse with Orpheus and Musaeus and
Hesiod and Homer ?"
Plato : Apology, 32.
These considerations show how both ontological materialism and ontological
spiritualism, being extreme, antinomic positions, are off-track. Materialism
cannot explain the presence of the mind, in particular consciousness, and
spiritualism cannot explain the executive effectiveness of matter. Accepting all
occasions as individuals endowed with (potential) materiality, code & sentience
allows one to think process & multiplicity, as well as explain interactionism
without the use of different ontological principles, but adhering to one only,
namely occasions and their multiple distinct aspects.
Physics

Is it surprising, given the long dogmatic hold of Catholic spirituality on free
study and the success of physics since Galileo, Kepler & Newton, XIXth century
science embraced a metaphysical research program dedicated to materialism ?
Despite German Idealism and Protest Philosophy, Marxism and logical
positivism followed their lead. The success of the Industrial Revolution spawned
a belief in endless growth and the end of human suffering thanks to
technology. Mental events were but "superstructures" erected on a materialist
base, and in such a view, "downward causation", or mind influencing body
(brain) was impossible. The Newtonian model reduced all determinating factors
(lawful relationships between events) to causality, absolute time, absolute
space and an "atomic" perspective. Newton himself knew this worldview
conflicted with the nature of light (was it a particle or a wave ?), as well as with
his own law of gravity. For not only was F = G m 1 .m 2 /r² not a causal law (but
one based in interaction or a mutual, simultaneous influence), but, more
disturbingly, how could F travel in a vacuum ? Newton rejected "actio-indistans",
but found no better conjecture.
The two "clouds" seen by Lord Kelvin in 1900 in a lecture entitled "Nineteenth-
Century Clouds over the Dynamical Theory of Heat and Light", proved to herald
the end of classical physics. The fact the speed of light was a constant
(Michelson-Morley experiment) and the discrete, jump-like nature of the
radiation spectrum of a black body (with no optical emission), respectively
heralded special relativity and quantum theory. A constant light speed made
the "ether" impossible. This was a special medium supposed to be at rest with
respect to absolute space (of which it was the materialization). In 1887, it
became clear there was no "ether wind", i.e. the velocity of the laboratory had
no effect on the measured speed of light. Moreover, in Newtonian physics, the
distribution of the luminous energy as a function of the frequency (or
wavelength) or spectrum of radiation, was conceptualized as continuous, and
so jump-like radiation in "quanta" did not fit in.
Classical physics had used visual concepts like position, velocity, space, time,
force ... Mathematics had provided added precision but this without altering
their common sense meaning, one close to our experience of the meso-level of
reality. With the work of Maxwell, these visual concepts began to be replaced
by more abstract notions, like that of an electric or magnetic "field". The
mathematics involved here was more than merely a translation of our common
view, but the only form making these new concepts explicit. Maxwell's physics
became a series of mathematical relationships among quantities, describing
their connections and their dynamics. Mathematical language started to take
precedence over other forms of common sense understanding. The "two
clouds" pointed to two phenomena making things much worse.

Special relativity, discovered by Einstein in 1905, rejected both absolute time &
absolute space. Distance (space) and the passing of time depended on the
motion of the observer measuring them ! Moreover, although Einstein's
relativistic theory of gravitation explained the great question unresolved by
Newton (namely how the force of gravity propagates in a vacuum), it did so by
introducing concepts inaccessible to common sense. Gravitation propagates
gradually at the speed of light, and it does so in space-time, an entity
connecting space & time as a result of motion. Mass was reduced to being a
"curvature" of this space-time. All came down to non-Euclidian geometry.
Given space and time had never been clearly understood and the relativistic
effects only happen at great speeds, relativity seemed to invite us to retain a
common sense view, one in which matter could still be seen and touched.
Indeed, in Einstein's special and general relativity, physical objects continued
to possess their properties inherently (independent from observation) and each
object was Einstein-isolated from other objects. But the notion objects could be
positioned in absolute space & time was relinquished. Distance and time
depended on the observer ...
Quantum mechanics had to relinquish both, introducing the observer and nonlocality.
Doing so implied the "very small" was ruled by a set of laws
contradicting our common sense view on physical objects.
"Let us only add that, despite the many efforts to discredit it, quantum
mechanics has always come out on top, and that today it may be considered as
a completely accurate theory, even when experiments involve distances
between particles of one-billionth of an angström, or energies thousands of
time that of the proton's mass energy. The agreement between theory and
experience has in certain cases reached over ten significant digits, a precision
unequaled in any other scientific domain."
Omnès, 2002, p.146.
Although it took the best part of the previous century to decide whether
quantum theory could be replaced by a theory deemed "more
complete" (read : less weird), by the beginning of the '80 non-locality had been
experimentally demonstrated (Aspect) and so "saving" the classical view on
physical reality, devoid of non-locality, was made contra-factual. The principle
of superposition (saying a elementary particle is scattered over the
experimental setup as a whole) and non-locality (positing interconnectedness)
invites an interpretation reintroducing the observer as well as action-at-adistance.
In other words, physical properties are co-established by observation
and not a single physical object is isolated from other objects. Despite the
many efforts to discredit quantum theory, it is considered to be a completely

accurate theory.
Phenomenology
Traditional philosophical phenomenology (Husserl, Heidegger) feels called to go
back "to the things themselves", the true nature of phenomena. Because this is
viewed in terms of an "eidos" or essence of something existing inherently, it
remains essentialist (substantialist). Put aside this epistemic claim of
conceptual access to the absolute nature of things, viewed substantially, the
importance given to intention & the "first person" perspective can not be
overlooked.
Indeed, private indexicals, i.e. words referring to components of mental states
always involve an ostensive definition featuring private access only. This
special definition, precluding public access, makes private access unique. The
semantic isolation of these indexicals reflects the intimacy of the first person
perspective. Each and every observer is a unique vantage point. Unless a
human being has actually experienced the referent of one or more private
indexical, the experience cannot be conceptualized. To be intersubjectively
validated, public indexicals always refer to at least one non-private component.
The second and third person perspectives are intersubjective & social
communities of sign-interpreters.
Clearly most if not all of mental life is described by private indexicals. A refined
description of this inner experience conveys the contours of the immediate
intimacy between the conscious observer & participator and its objects. This
personal experience is valid in terms of relevance, not significance. But
precisely here (auto)suggestion & placebo may be used to the advantage of the
wellbeing of individuals.
Although each personal experience is unique, phenomenology may discover
common patterns of existential functioning. These point to a common heritage,
evolution and autoregulation in the domain of consciousness itself. The latter is
viewed as an infinite continuum of interconnected streams of consciousness,
each with its own dynamics, ongoingly participating with the whole.
Phenomenology as the study of the first person perspective, of its
intentionality, introspection, attention, (self)awareness & cognition, helps to
clarify state & contents of human consciousness. Taking personal life serious, it
elucidates origin, process and aim of the percipient participator. This is the
"userware", deciding when, why & how to use information ("software") to
manipulate matter ("hardware"). Active in a domain (or subworld) of its own,
human consciousness interacts with both matter & information. These factors
or operators are irreducible to one another. They are each independent aspects

of the same occasion-continuum. Each works by its own kind of determinations
& conditions. Human consciousness differs from all other known types of
consciousnesses in terms its inner life & conscious experience. It slowly
emerged, constituting its own "realm" or "world" within the occasion-continuum
of Nature.
Ethics
Even if we reject Nature to possess an inherent sense of justice, fairness &
goodness, then we must at least accept the possibility of an actual conscious
choice. If the word "conscious" is taken serious, then one must, and not only in
principle, be able to choose without outside determinations. Suppose this is
rejected, then a sense of goodness -as necessitated by ethics- cannot be
established. Freedom of choice is a moral imperative.
One cannot designate free choice without introducing a non-determined factor.
For even in its probabilistic, conjectural format, science works with lawlike
determinations and conditions. The choice suggested by ethics must then fall
outside these and if the world is deemed to be only material & informational,
then one cannot grasp what the status of that choice might be. Only by
accepting moral choice belongs to the world of human consciousness and the
first person perspective, able to interact and so influence the other operators,
can an "inherent" sense of justice be given its place. Nature is just, perhaps
not in terms of matter & information, but surely insofar as consciousness, as
creator of meaningful self-determination, is at work. This naturalism rejects an
ontological difference, integrating the three known distinct operators in a single
spatio-temporal natural system, with a single first ontological principle of
process : all things are occasions. Moreover, within the domain of
consciousness it is crucial to distinguish between human and non-human
consciousness. Although we may, following Leibniz, designate potential,
sleeping & dreaming states of consciousness to other individualized societies
(like atoms, molecules, minerals, crystals, plants & animals), only human
consciousness has inner life and conscious experience.
Let me briefly summarize the salient points of process ontology.
Actual occasions are the final things of which Nature is made up. They are also
called "drops of experience, complex and interdependent" (PR, 27). In process
thinking the notion of "substance" (monad) is changed into that of "actual
occasion". Substances (monads) are closed, self-referential, and with inhering
qualities. Occasions are open and other-powered, existing interdependently.
They are also called "individuals". Organic process philosophy abandons the

substance-like notion of actuality. Because the characteristics of an actual
occasion are reproduced in a prehension, togetherness among actual occasions
is possible. This fact is called a "nexus", the coming together of a multitude of
actual occasions.
Immediate actual experience can thus be grasped by way of these three :
actual occasions, prehensions & nexus. Occasions are extensive, atomic and
actual. They feature spatiality, temporality (duration) and spatiotemporality
(their extensive continuum), cannot be further divided (their atomic nature)
and constitute immediate actual experience (they exist in the moment).
Prehensions exhibit the most concrete elements in the nature of actual entities.
Because all actual occasions prehend other actual occasions, they are all part
of the universal process. Involving each other by reason of their prehensions,
real, individual and particular togetherness is possible. These facts of
togetherness are nothing more than societies of actual occasions.
For Whitehead, the ultimate metaphysical principle is "the advance from
disjunction to conjunction" (PR, 32). Because of their prehensions of each
other, actual occasions always come together, and this togetherness brings
about the production of novelty, for actual occasions are disjunctively "many"
in process of passage to conjunctive unity. "The many become one, and are
increased by one." (PR, 32). This production of novelty by togetherness
(resulting from the prehensions of actual occasions) is "concrescence", whereas
"creativity" is the principle of novelty. "Creativity introduces novelty into the
content of the many." (PR, 31). Hence, an actual event is a concrescence of
actual occasions, and an actual entity is a concrescences of actual events. At
each step of this increased togetherness, creative advance is at hand. And
because actual occasions prehend other occasions, all actual occasions form
facts of togetherness and produce creative advance & novelty.
This complex network of interrelated occasions, events & entities forms
societies or interrelated actualities or individuals. On the one hand, societies of
individuals are formed unaware of their own individuality. Examples of these
nonindividualized societies are rocks, stars, oceans, cars, nation states, etc.
These are merely compounds. Although the individuals forming these do
experience themselves as a unity, the aggregate itself does not. A star does
not grasp itself as a star. On the other hand, societies of individuals are formed
in various degrees aware of the individuality of the whole. Examples of these
individualized societies are minerals, plants, animals, humans. In the case of
humans, two extraordinary features are added : conscious experience & inner
life.
Although all individuals experience a certain degree of unity, including actual
occasions, particles, atoms, molecules, etc., not all society of individuals

experience this sense of unity. This because no dominant occasion can be
identified. Panexperientialism posits all individuals have a degree of selfdetermination,
spontaneity and experience of unity, but some cannot -being
part of a nonindividualized society- extend this beyond the confines of their
own individuality. Remember : the molecule in a rock thrown at a cat is more
analogous with the cat than with the rock ... Panexperientialism does not
attribute consciousness to all concrescences (as in Spinoza's panpsychism), but
only to individuals (actual occasions) and individualized societies of individuals.
In doing so, it does not designate the same degree of consciousness to all
individuals and individualized societies. It singles out human consciousness as
the most complex society, one able to develop a first person perspective (inner
life) and a direct conscious experience of itself and its environment.
"Evidently, there are enormous gradations between consciousnessess,
depending on the elaborate or primitive nature of the structure on which they
can learn : the set of impressions which an ant or a microscopic animal or a
plant receives surely show much less variety that the sets of impressions which
man can receive. However, we can, at present, at best, guess at these
impressions. Even our knowledge of the consciousness of other men is derived
only through analogy and some innate knowledge which is hardly extended to
other species."
Winger, 1967, p.182.
Finally, returning to actual occasions, and precisely because of their
prehensions causing creative, interdependent togetherness, we may posit each
actual occasion to exhibit limitless potentialities of which three are known :
each actual occasion has the potential to (a) execute, effectuate and compute
(matter), (b) organize, abstract and validate (information) and (c) project selfdetermination,
prehension and unity of experience. These operators, aspects or
attributes of each actual occasion bring about its creativity, spontaneity or
novelty. Of course, the degree with which this is realized depends on the
complexity of the togetherness. If, to paraphrase Leibniz, in a single actual
occasion, these aspects are merely potential, they "sleep" in nonindividualized
societies, "dream" in certain individualized societies (like plants), are "awake"
in others (like animals) and may be conceptualized in the most evolved (like
humans).
As all phenomena, entities or objects (whether mental, informational, or
material) are fundamentally actual occasions prehending other occasions, the
interaction between the various aspects of occasions, events & entities is less
problematic than in the case of metaphysical dualism. Indeed, in process
ontology the distinctness of the attributes is not rejected, but there is no
ontological difference. If this were not the case, as in dualism, then it becomes

highly problematic how two (or more) different kinds of things (not aspects of
the same thing) can communicate. How can the non-material mind interact
with the material brain if both matter & mind are different substances, i.e.
made out of different "stuff" ? As the act of prehension is fundamental to each
and every actual occasion, the prehension of the brain by the mind and the
prehension of the mind by the brain poses less difficulties.
The core issue to be solved is to stay in tune with thermodynamics. This is
difficult (but not impossible) when the interaction is viewed in terms of the
manipulation of the energy of the brain. Avoiding this, we may conjecture the
ongoing prehension of the brain by the mind to happen by way of probabilityfields
altering the likelihood of certain neuronal events (in particular large,
interconnected populations or modules of neurons) As these fields (like the
photon) have no mass, there can be no infringement of the law of energyconservation.
The ongoing impact of the living brain on the mind can be viewed
as the power of its physical inertia on the possibilities of the mind to read
neuronal events or change them by way of altering the probabilities of certain
features of the neuronal societies populating the brain (in particular at the
synapses). Of course, other conjectures can be made, but the "problem"
facing ontological dualism (namely bridging the gap between distinct and
different entities) is not at hand.
Panexperientialism also offers a way to integrate the results of
parapsychological research (in particular ESP and PK) and psychosomatic
science, while offering vistas to understand hypnosis, (auto)suggestion &
placebo (nocebo). Moreover, in terms of OBO's (out of the body experiences),
and life after death, it also allows fruitful speculative insights.
naturalism
Definitions
The world (all possible actual occasion, events & entities) or "Nature" is a
single all-embracing spatio-temporal system. Nature is quasi-determinist selfenclosed,
meaning all events are determined solely by other events in Nature.
materialism
Matter is the sole "stuff" out of which Nature is made. Matter is the set of
spatiotemporal physical objects possessing mass, energy and force (ontological

ealism).
essentialist materialism
Material objects possess their properties from their own side.
physicalism (behaviourism)
Physicalism or behaviourism is a materialist form of naturalism claiming all
occasions, events, entities, processes, properties, relations and facts are those
studied by physics or other physical sciences.
logical positivism (logical empirism or neo-positivism)
Neo-positivism combines empiricism, rooting valid knowledge of the world in
observational evidence, with deductions in epistemology and mathematical and
logico-linguistic constructs. It is materialist, validating knowledge by way of a
correspondence theory of truth.
mechanism
The way the material universe works is only explained by efficient causation
effectuated by way of push. There must be a physical force and a material
medium through which this force travels.
functionalism
Functionalism always relates, connects or associates a non-analytical object
with other synthetic objects in a functional, efficient way, i.e. one involving an
effective determination or lawful connection of some kind (like efficient
causality).
spiritualism
Spirit (mind) is the sole "stuff" out of which Nature is made. Spirit (mind)
apprehends its object directly, without using means, or by ideal concepts
creating their objects (ontological idealism).
essentialist spiritualism
Spiritual objects possess their properties from their own side.
hylic pluralism
The world-system is a layered manifold of occasion-continua, each with their
own degree of freedom, order & material executants. These societies interact

and form an ontological hierarchy or pluriversum of coarse, subtle and very
subtle beings. Human existence as we know it manifested on the coarse plane
of this gigantic manifold. More subtle levels of existence are possible.
process philosophy
Nature is a manifold of actual occasions, ongoingly entering by prehension in
each other's evolution, causing concrescence and fostering creative advance.
There are no substances and no "substance of substances", only processes.
organicism
The universe works and a unity of creative togetherness, creating strands of
interrelated occasions, events and entities. The total organization of Nature
rather than the functioning of individuals is the determinant of life processes.
panexperientialism
All individuals, starting with actual occasions, experience themselves and their
environment in varying degrees. As they form larger wholes functioning as
aggregates of individuals, individualized and nonindividualized societies of
actual occasions emerge. The former experience themselves as a unity, the
latter not. Panexperientalism only refers to individuals and individualized
societies.
ontology (immanent metaphysics)
The study of being qua being. This branch of metaphysics deals with untestable
but arguable propositions about why there is something rather than nothing,
about the origin of the cosmos, about life and about consciousness. It is called
"immanent metaphysics" because these propositions never move outside the
confines of the world-system, i.e. do not posit transcendence.
occasions, events, entities
Actual occasions are the "stuff" constituting all things. They are actual, not
abstract, atomic, not plural and feature spatial, temporal or spatiotemporal
extensiveness. An event is a concrescence of occasions. An entity is a
concrescence of events.
prehension
Prehension is the capacity of all individuals to enter in the process of other
individuals, either by sensoric, non-sensoric or mental ways. Non-sensoric
prehension is the fundamental capacity of actual occasions to be together with

other occasions, events & entities.
concrescence
The togetherness of two or more occasions is more than merely the addition of
another relation between occasions, but a creative interaction resulting in a
larger, richer whole. This creative entry of occasions in the ongoing process of
other occasions feeds the creative advance of Nature.
ontological operators
Each occasion and so every event & entity, operates three irreducible aspects
of existence : matter (hardware), information (software) and consciousness
(userware). The first is physical, the last two non-physical.
matter
Each occasion, in accord with physics, operates a series of energetical events
and physical objects characterized by mass & momentum.
information
Each occasion, in accord with logic, system-theory & functionalism, operates a
series of codes, theories, notions, ideas or information.
consciousness
Each occasion, in accord with panexperientialism, operates a degree of selfdetermination,
spontaneity and experience of itself as a whole. While this
sentience is operational in occasions and individualized societies of occasions
(like atoms, molecules, plants, animals, humans), it is not in nonindividualized
societies (stars, oceans, rocks, tables, cars, etc.). Human conscious experience
is a rare, refined kind of consciousness.
interactionism
The human mind and its living brain are two distinct but not ontologically
heterogeneous occasion-continua mutually influencing each other. Because all
occasions operate three ontological operators (albeit not with the same
complexity, order and degree of conscious experience), the interaction between
mind and body is non-dualistic.
I : Beyond Materialism & Spiritualism.

Let ab initio, free study in general and the metaphysical background of
neurophilosophical research, study & reflection, be as uncommitted as possible.
This means ontological operators, or aspects of actual occasions, events,
entities & states of existence should not beforehand be reified into substances,
i.e. ontologized. Ontologizing the conditions of the possibility and advancement
of knowledge also leads to epistemologies unable to think the possibility of
knowledge without logical self-defeat (cf. Clearings, 2006). Likewise, the
prolegomena to any possible metaphysics receives from the normative
disciplines (the "hard core" of philosophy) the directive to consider the totality
of what exists, without focusing on the existence of the occasion from its own
side, inherently itself, above any possible determination & conditioning.
Metaphysics must consider process before essence, becoming before being.
To achieve this, avoid both poles of essentialism : ontological materialist &
ontological spiritualism. Avoidance means one is aware of the extremes, but
remains focused (also thanks to this awareness), in the "middle way". This is
the way of how things appear when they are merely observed withough the
presence of any world-thought or image-thought in the field of consciousness
(as seen from the moment hic et nunc), allowing the vision of their
interconnectedness & non-locality (not being fundamentally ontologically
separated from other previous, simultaneous and future moments) to
transpire. This view does not isolate the thing "as it is" and "what it does", but
attends to what it does, discovering how things emerge from what they did, do
and will do, the continuum of becoming. This process-based metaphysics was
developed in the East, in particular in Taoism & Buddhism.
A remarkable synthesis is forthcoming, one integrating matter, information &
consciousness. Although in this synthesis, physicality remain fundamental (cf.
the role of "efficient causation", encompassing all known conditions &
determinations pertaining to an occasion), the role of consciousness (the
subjective factor) is not denied, but integrated in these objective conditions (cf.
the role of "final causation" in self-determination, creativity, valuation and the
experience of conscious unity, entering efficient causality & producing novelty).
"The subject reflects the world in a specific activity, reproducing objective
phenomena in subjective forms (knowledge). While the subject can only know
its own products, the very process of subject-mediated world transformation is
objective, and the universality of the subject ensures that there is nothing in
the world that could not be involved in the subject's activity."
Ivanov, P.B. : "Consciousness as a Relation between Material Bodies.", in : The Ontology of
Consciousness, MIT - Cambridge, 2008, p.253.

Let us argue this Middle Way, using epistemology, metaphysics & criticism.
MATERIALISM
1. The Epistemology of Materialism.
Can materialism be coupled with non-substantiality, i.e. with the processnature
of all things ? Or, does singling out matter (or physical objects) always
lead to the notion the "stuff" defining matter exists from its own side, ownpowered,
i.e. autarchic and with an inhering nature ? Suppose criticism
prompts materialism to divorce essentialism, is process-materialism then
possible ? This would be a view embracing non-substantiality and the primacy
of matter. Historically, materialism never explained itself that way. In the
West, and this until the quantum, substantial physical objects were always
viewed to exist from their own side only.
In process metaphysics, material process alone is "efficient". But without
"finality", it would be "vacuous", without real novelty. As this conflicts with
observation (cf. Progine and the negentropy in complex, chaotic dissipative
systems), another type of causation must be present. Is this physico-mental
instead of physical tout court ? Moreover, mentality not being supervenient as
it was in non-reductive physicalism. Because of downward causation, final
causes entering efficient causes, and of upward causation, efficient causes
changing the impact of valuation, a more balanced view results.
"The panexperientialist version of physicalism can affirm this belief because its
'physical entities' are physical-mental entities, and because there are various
levels of such entities, one level of which is that of the dominant occasions of
experience constituting the human mind."
Griffin, 1998, p.237.
The epistemology of materialism, explaining itself as an ontological
materialism, is the story of how the conditions on the side of the object of
knowledge are reified to become the exclusive ground of knowledge, justifying
concept-realism. The facts, the something at hand, is substantialized, reified,
"eternalized" and inflated into a real, objective world "out there" effectuating
change by way of physical laws, and this independent of the subject of
knowledge, merely acting as a passive (empirical) registrator.

1.1 Reduction of the Subject of Knowledge.
To be able to explain the world as a system of physical objects, ontological
materialism has to either eliminate the subject of knowledge or reduce it to a
passivity unable to infringe upon the supposed monarchic objectivity of the real
world.
Most serious materialists understand one cannot eliminate the subject of
knowledge without violating the logic of the transcendental subject of all
possible thought. Only those less trained in these subtleties of epistemology
make bold statements to the effect that because everything is material the
subject of knowledge does not "really" exist, but is merely an illusionary
appearance. These are not all too careful. To identify the subject as such, valid
knowledge becomes impossible. Hence, most materialists agree the subject of
knowledge is primarily passive. How a totally passive subject of knowledge is
able to abstract anything becomes unclear (even Aristotle had to introduce an
"active intellect").
1.2 The Naive Inflation of the Real.
The object of knowledge, identified with the real-as-such, is given a direct
access to the outer world. Even Kant retained a kind of quasi-causal
relationship between things-as-such and the cognitive apparatus. The notion
observation and its theoretical connotation are simultaneous eludes them.
"The hardest of hard data are of two sorts : the particular facts of sense, and
the general truths of logic. (...) Real doubt, in these two cases, would, I think,
be pathological. At any rate, to me they seem quite certain, and I shall assume
that you agree with me on this. Without this assumption, we are in danger of
falling into that universal scepticism which, as we saw, is as barren as it is
irrefutable."
Russell, B. : Our Knowledge of the External World, Mentor - New York, 1956, p.60.
Theoretical connotations, theories, metaphysical backgrounds, ideas, notions,
values etc. are not considered as co-constitutive of facts. Facts are monolithic
and in all ways extra-mental. This position leads to untenable logical problems.
For one, the view is self-defeating, for the naive realist is unable to explain how
he is able to validate naive realism. Meta-objective problems are not seen.
1.3 Prospective Materialism.
In a superinflation of ontological materialism, the proposed success of the view
is promoted well over its possible expiration date. For although one may posit a
naive access to the real, one cannot therefore possibly know what future

esearch & experiment will discover. Perhaps matter is not the sole substance
after all ? Perhaps there are no substances at all ? Perhaps matter is merely
one of the operators, factors or elements running the system proposed by
naturalism ? etc. Of course, if physical objects are viewed as solely determined
by their initial position and momentum, then -theoretically at least- all that can
possibly be known about these objects will eventually be known. For then, all
possible futures only depend on what is known on the basis of the initial
condition, the momentum and its differential equation. The logic of prospective
materialism works because it is a gross reduction of contributing factors.
"Promissory materialism is a peculiar theory. It consists, essentially, of a
historical (or historicist) prophecy about the future results of brain research
and of their impact. This prophesy is baseless."
Popper & Eccles, 1981, p.97.
Prospective (or promissory) materialism also claims all problems facing
materialism today (like validation, intentionality, conscious experience, free
choice etc.) will also be solve in the future. And this only by positing a
sufficient physical ground. As this, per definition, cannot be demonstrated
today, why bother ? Perhaps this will not be the case.
Let us observe what there is to be observed.
2. The Metaphysics of Materialism.
The metaphysics of materialism is a series of untestable but arguable
statements affirming matter (or physical objects as described by physics) is the
fundamental "stuff" of Nature.
2.1 Greek Atomism.
The fact objects can be split into smaller objects and the latter can be divided
up again, etc. forces one into considering the ultimate division, i.e. one leading
to an object no longer divisible. This is the "atom". Visualized as an inert, solid,
impenetrable object existing from its own side, i.e. as a substance, all things
are then said to be made up of atoms. All objects are merely aggregates of
colliding atoms.
Greek atomism was assimilated to Newtonian physics. Only at the end of the
XIXth century became it clear atoms had to be divisible. Moreover, as the
radiation of dark objects showed, the continuity-hypothesis associated with the

Newtonian approach of radiation could not be maintained. This lead Planck to
reluctantly introduce the "quantum". The framework of classical physics (the
equations of Newton and those of Maxwell) could not be reconciled with a
planetary view on the atom (a nucleus, composed of neutrons & protons,
around which electrons revolve). Indeed, the speed necessary for an electron
to stay in a stable orbit around the nucleus (like a planet around its Sun) would
cause it to radiate and so loose energy, triggering the collapse of the orbit,
making the electron crash against the nucleus. In the classical theory,
electrons would be stable only for only a billionth of a second !
When quantum theory saw the light, the atom was further divided in electrons,
protons & neutrons. It took only a few decades to discover these could be
further split too. Today, a whole array of elementary particles adorn the
equations of physics. They are so elusive and transient, one cannot longer
visualize them. They spring out, interact and then return to the quantum
vacuum field. Indeed, before they are observed, they are in a state of quantum
superposition (eliminating any possibility to grasp them conventionally), and
depending on how they are measured, they manifest different properties ...
Despite these recent developments, matter -viewed as stuff which kicks and
kick back- remains the cornerstone of materialism, albeit not in its atomic
form. All atoms are impermanent.
2.2 Objectifying Essentialism.
Besides atomism and/or the focus on material events, materialism embraces
objectivity at the expense of the subject and is mostly (if not always)
essentialist, considering material events as possessing their properties from
their own side, isolated from (but interacting with) all other events.
These isolated material objects with their inhering properties constitute reality
and this reality is objective, i.e. not influenced by subjective considerations.
Moreover, a direct access to this reality is provided by our senses, delivering
data to the mental objects of the categorical scheme of cognition, producing its
empirico-formal statements of fact (propositions).
The truth or validity of statements of fact is organized by way of the
correspondence theory of truth according to which valid knowledge
corresponds with reality-as-it-is. Verification is inductive or falsificationist, but
in both cases facts are extra-mental, bearing nowhere the seal of our theories,
theoretical connotations, ideas or notions. The subject of knowledge is either
illusionary or reduced to a passive registrator & organiser (as in neopositivism).

Although realist objectivism has been comprehensively criticized elsewhere, let
us consider the case of the sense-data theory, claiming all valid knowledge is
based on the "hard data" given by particular "facts of sense". Empirical
justificationism posits these "sense-data" as "certain, context-independent &
neutral". However, claiming something is certain involves a valuation which can
never be a sense datum. The same can be said of the so-called "neutrality" of
the "sense-data" and their supposed "context-independence". How can this be
known ? Not by way of sense-data and so the justification of knowledge on the
basis of sense-data alone can not be accomplished. As there are no contextindependent
sense-data, this form of justificationism (based on naive realism)
is self-defeating.
2.3 Newtonian Physicalism.
In Newton's system, materialism, realism and objectivity come together. With
his idea of absolute time and absolute space, Newton's observer has no impact
on the flow of time or the structure of space. The world is an object "out there"
in which the observer operates as a "ghost in the machine". The gigantic
clockwork of this mechanism is independent from the observer and the physical
conditions defining him or her (like mass & momentum). The reference-system
is absolute.
With special relativity, absolute space and absolute time were abolished. With
the quantum, continuity had to be relinquished, for Nature jumps. With chaos
theory, high-order determinism emerged, and non-linear systems were
discovered everywhere. In fact, linear systems, insensitive to small changes,
are the exception. Recent physical theories predict even protons, after a very
long time, eventually decay, eliminating the idea of material stability. All
material processes are impermanent.
Applied to psychology, the Newtonian view can do no more than search for
ways to explain mental objects in terms of physical ones. The brain secretes
thoughts like the kidneys urine ... This reduction leads to an impoverished view
on subjectivity, as shown in Freudianism and behaviourism (to mention two
conflicting theories of mind). Although the scientific study of conscious
experience is still in its infancy, a few important points are clear : (a) material
events are public whereas mental events are private, (b) material events
define a manifold whereas mental events emerge as part of an experience of
unity, and (c) objectivity & subjectivity are necessarily linked, causing
contradictions in any system trying to operate only one (reducing or negating
the other).
If physical and mental events are characterized by a different semantic field
and are not symmetrical, it may be the case they cannot be reduced to one

another. This is the point made by panexperientialism, positing an occasionmonism,
but attributing to each occasion three irreducible ontological
operators. Insofar as information can be related to the structure of matter, a
kind of hylemorphism pertains. Glyphs (signs in the form of signals, icons &
symbols) can be defined as well-formed states of matter, intimately linking
matter & information. But this functional approach is not an exhaustive
definition of information, leaving out the existence of purely abstract objects,
like those pertaining to mathematical spaces (extensively used in quantum
theory). Taken together and viewed functionally, matter & information
constitute the "form" side of all occasions. Panexperientialism needs to explain
how this form aspect interacts with the sentient aspect. This leads to an
interactionist explanation of the communication between, on the one hand,
consciousness, and, on the other hand, matter and information. This is not an
interaction between two different kinds of things (or substances), as in
ontological dualism, but merely two distinct aspects of a shared substratum, as
in ontological monism.
3. The Criticism of Materialism.
"The principal argument against materialism is not that illustrated in the last
two sections : that it is incompatible with quantum theory. The principal
argument is that thought processes and consciousness are the primary
concepts, that our knowledge of the external world is the content of our
consciousness and that the consciousness, therefore, cannot be denied."
Winger, 1967, pp.176-177.
In a general sense, "criticism" is a philosophical approach of epistemology
focusing on putting down proper divisions, frontiers, limitations between the
two sides of the transcendental logic defining the a priori principles governing
the possibilities of conceptual thought. Criticism avoids affirming one principle
at the expense of another (as in dogmatism), and also avoids negating one of
both principles (as in scepticism). Avoiding the extremes of dogma & skepsis,
criticism proposes a three-tiered model of the possibilities of knowledge : (a)
principles of correct conceptual thought (transcendental logic), (b) norms of
valid knowledge (theoretical epistemology) and (c) maxims of effective
knowledge-production (applied epistemology). Given epistemology is not a
descriptive but a normative discipline, throughout this model, ontological
illusion is avoided. In other words, these principles, norms & maxims are never
considered as the sufficient ontological ground of knowledge. Not reified, they
are merely discovered by thought reflecting on its own conditions & possibilities.

A crucial argument against the reduction of all events to the physical, is the
resulting impossibility to posit principles of valid inference, for the latter a
forteriori do not belong to the domain of the material (but to the realm of logic,
theory or information). Physicalism is therefore self-defeating. It cannot claim
to be supported by rational arguments, for the latter -if materialism were true-
do not exist. Indeed, particles & forces do not deal with validity. This is a
stronger version of the weaker argument, already formulated in Greek
philosophy, stating the claim all things are merely material cannot be made by
a purely material entity (for sentience does not belong to matter). Making such
a claim involves a "contradiction in actu exercito". Hence, either one accepts
materialism and then one has to refute rational argumentations and their logic
& principles of validation, or one has to accept materialism cannot be true and
so is incomplete, calling for another aspect covering its own validation (not of
matter as a single monad, but merely as the executive aspect of reality, one
working hand in hand with a "logos" distinct from material conditions).
3.1 Criticism of Observation.
"Quantum theory has observation creating the properties of microscopic
objects. And physicists generally accept quantum theory applies universally. If
so, wider reality is also created by our observation. Going all the way, this
strong anthropic principle asserts the universe is hospitable to us because we
could not create a universe in which we could not exist. While the weak
anthropic principle involves a backward-in-time reasoning, this strong
anthropic principle involves a forms of backward-in-time action."
Rosenblum & Kuttner, 2006, p.206.
In the XXth century, observational psychology, linguistics, cultural
anthropology, comparative studies, but also (transcendental) logic & theoretical
epistemology discovered the subject of knowledge cannot be eclipsed.
Observation happens in the framework of theories, theoretical connotations,
ideas & notions. Both are simultaneous. It is not the case sensoric data are first
and theories later. The subject of knowledge is a sign-interpreter, and the
community of sign-interpreters co-define what is consider a fact and what not.
Hence, facts are not exclusively extra-mental, but hybrids with two facets : one
theoretical, and another, so we must assume, extra-mental. Besides
experiments, testing and observation, scientific research also calls for
theoretical work, argumentation and a provisional consensus. Especially in
quantum physics this is the case, for without the theoretical twists and turns of
mathematics, a lot of particles & relationships between particles would never
have been discovered.
3.2 Criticism of Common Sense Realism.

Common sense realism presupposed a direct access to reality-as-such.
However, this is a metaphysical claim, not a scientific one. Moreover, it cannot
be properly argued. It is metaphysical because it can only be backed by
arguments, not by factual evidence. There is no "Archimedic point" or ideal
vantage point "outside" the dialectic between object & subject. All what
happens takes place as an occasion part of the field of consciousness. So
nobody is able to directly observe the subject of knowledge has this assumed
direct access to reality-as-such. How could this be observed without this being
the observation of a particular subject ? Moreover, how to argue this. In order
to identify this "direct access", the distinction between "direct" and "indirect"
must be made, and this is not based on empirical observation but on logic.
Consider these points.
Firstly, transcendental logic shows one cannot eclipse the subject of thought
without introducing contradictions. The reduction itself shows the presence of
an active subject, not a mere passive registrator. Secondly, theoretical
epistemology discovers how facts are co-determined by theories and so are not
monoliths but hybrids. Thirdly, applied epistemology finds how the production
of knowledge is co-defined by the opportunistic, local rules-of-thumb of the
research-cell competing with other researcher facilities.
"It appears that there exists only one concept the reality of which is not only a
convenience but absolute : the content of my consciousness, including my
sensations."
Winger, 1967, p.189.
The neurological study of perception clarifies the distinction between prethalamic
perception and post-thalamic sensation. All perceptions have to be
multiplied by a wide array of interpretations before they can be identified by
the subject of knowledge as sensations. Hence, a direct access between the
subject and "its" perceptions does not exist. While the sense organs
themselves alter the impulses they receive into perceptions, the latter are
again altered and pre-processed by the relays to the neocortex. Finally, when
projected in the neocortex by the thalamus, these pre-processed afferent
impulses are computed by primary & secondary sensory areas before being
named, labelled and identified by the subject of knowledge. Naive realism is
therefore to be abolished.
3.3 Criticism of Materialist Dogmatism.
Rejecting the fundamental argument against materialism (the fact it eliminates
the possibility of validating itself, i.e. is self-defeating) leads to dogmatism.
This is affirming the position ad hoc, without any good reason, even quite on

the contrary. Often this dogmatism is fed by promissory materialism, the view
all problems will be solved by future materialist research anyway. Clearly a
rational person has to refute this position thoroughly. It is based on bad
argumentations, rejects clear normative principles, norms & maxims and runs
against what is known from observational psychology and the neurology of
perception. It can only be maintained by coupling it with authoritarianism, and
this is exactly what has happened. In that case, the difference between
materialist science (scientism) and fideist religion is small. Both adhere to their
positions without any evidence and reject good arguments because they cannot
accommodate the cherished ideas. As such, both exemplify they own
weakness, herald of their final demise.
SPIRITUALISM
4. The Epistemology of Spiritualism.
It goes without saying spiritualism faces the same problems as materialism,
albeit reversed. While materialism does not wish to attribute an irreducible
status to the subject of experience, spiritualism tries, in vain, to assimilate or
eliminate the object of experience, i.e. the fact valid empirico-formal
knowledge must be knowledge about something extra-mental. The third person
is not just a linguistic category for plural, non-dual communication between
minds. Its public feature reflects (a) the intersubjective (already given with the
second person) and (b) objective facts, deemed to represent reality-as-such.
Ontological spiritualism is in flagrant opposition with the tenets of Western
physical science. Neither can it be reconciled with the physico-mental (or
psychophysical) view of process metaphysics. In the latter, physical objects are
not reduced to the mental, but viewed as an independent, causative,
irreducible & autonomous physical societies of actual occasions. Ontological
spiritualism has been (a) historically very prominent (from the beginning of
civilization in the Neolithic and earlier -Shamanism- to the advent of the
Renaissance) and (b) lurks as a danger, a trap not to be fooled by again.
The rejection of an independent mentality leads to a "vacuous", nature morte
of "disjecta membra". So to avoid this absurdity, the mind needs to be
reintroduced. But this does not mean the physical is denied to play its role as
some extra-mental thing. The subject is not made to constitute the object.
Denying this leads to the horror chambers of falsehoods, the "scandal" (Kant)
of philosophy.

Briefly exploring this option, in particular the points to guard against.
4.1 Reduction of the Object of Knowledge.
Idealism, in its classical ontological form (Fichte, Schelling & Hegel), or in its
more sophisticated format (Frankfurter school), denies the object of knowledge
to exist without the subject. An epistemology without an object ensues. The
truth of propositions does not in any way depend on an objective state of
affairs identified as an extra-mental, empirical physicality, but merely on the
consensus established between all involved sign-interpreters of what they call
"physicality" or "fact", whatever that is. As knowledge is deemed to be
exclusively symbolical, i.e. dependent on language, theories, ideas, notion,
etc., it is considered besides the point to propose any direct access to "reality",
as in empirism or realism. Hence, all valid knowledge is historical & relative.
How avoid scepticism ?
Either reality-as-such is directly ontologically dependent on the conditions of
the mind, for the absolute spirit (absolute subject) creates and then confronts
Nature (as in Hegelianism) or this reality of otherness is deemed inaccessible
to knowledge, for the latter is merely an intersubjective convention or
language-game. Accepted is the tenet saying third person knowledge always
calls for valid empirico-formal propositions informing us only about reality-forus.
This kind of "pure" transcendental idealism was aimed at by Kant, although
-to fire up the categorial scheme- he had to designate a "quasi-causal"
influence on the senses. In a transcendental, consensus theory of truth,
knowledge happens in language systems, and only argumentation & consensus
drive the theory of truth validating propositions. But, the critical theory of truth
at hand, is not a "pure" transcendental theory, it is not a description, but a
norm assuming facts do possess the credentials of reality-as-such.
Clearly both ontological and epistemological idealism cannot avoid a
fundamental contradiction. If all knowledge is merely intra-mental or part of an
intersubjective communication leading to conventions, then "reality" is reduced
to an (inter)subjectivity. Facts are merely theory-driven. What we experience
as factual evidence is nothing more than paradigmatic knowledge established
on the basis of subjective mentation (either on a gigantic scale, as in
ontological idealism, or epistemologically, as a consensual theory of truth). But
how can knowledge not be knowledge about something and remain
knowledge ? How to couple this "insight" with the evidence of science and our
common sense ?
The idea of conceptual knowledge is based on critical, normative epistemology,
and its principles, norms & maxims must confirm both object & subject of

thought. Do otherwise entails a fundamental contradiction. The subject of
thought is also an object possessor and not only an intersubjective languageproducer.
Conceptual, scientific knowledge must always be about something
outside the realm of the mind, for if this were not the case, then how can one
say it refers to a state of affairs ? Although we may (and must) reject the
possibility concepts directly represent reality-as-such, we cannot (without
eliminating the possibility of thinking knowledge as knowledge about
something) accept knowledge to be merely an intersubjective convention. It
must also be knowledge about an extra-mental something, albeit so must we
think to safeguard the possibility of conceptual knowledge itself.
The nugget of gold found in realism (knowledge is about something) cannot,
without severe problems, be eliminated by idealism. The nugget of gold of
idealism (knowledge is sign-based & intersubjective) cannot, without
contradiction, be eliminated by realism. The "concordia discors" of conceptual
thought is the "factum rationis" one cannot escape.
4.2 The Naive Inflation of the Ideal.
Inflation of the subject is ontological and epistemological. In the former case,
the object is constituted by the subject, in the latter, the possibility of
knowledge is grounded in the subject of knowledge, the intersubjectivity of the
community of sign-interpreters.
In ontological idealism, the object-possessor becomes an object-creator. The
object is only a form of subjectivity, a "projection" of the subject-as-creator.
Eventually, this supreme subject may be is identified with the Divine. Then it is
placed outside the world, transcending its conditions & determinations.
Concrete reality is downgraded. The process of becoming, with its variety,
differentiations and constant changes, are merely reflections of the eternalized,
unified and substantial "ideas" (as in Platonism).
In a "pure" transcendental epistemology, the definition of reality and facts
depends on linguistic conventions. Theoretical structures constitute the
"reality" captured. If reality-as-such is considered at all, then it remains
unknown. Knowledge is purely intersubjective, and so consensus constitutes
truth. Observation and its theoretical connotation are not simultaneous. What
we observe "appears" because of prior (inter)subjective structures. Theoretical
connotations, theories, metaphysical backgrounds, ideas, notions, values etc.
are considered as constitutive of facts, monolithic and intra-mental.
This position leads to untenable logical problems. For one, the view is selfdefeating,
for the naive idealist is unable to think knowledge as about some
real thing extra-mental. Hence, this cannot be knowledge at all, but merely a

gigantic form of subjectivity.
4.3 Spiritual Obscurantism.
Religious systems often cherish ontological idealism. It can be found in Ancient
Egypt, in Hermetism, in Brahmanism and in the three "religions of the book".
God created the world "ex nihilo", i.e. without being limited by any "outside"
conditions. As an absolute, free Spirit, God -by His creative command- made
the laws of Nature as well as all outer objects. His transcendent omnipotence
sustains the world. As a Caesar of sorts, this monotheist God could change the
laws of Nature whenever He likes (miracles). Hence, the independent study of
reality was deemed unnecessary & heretical, for God revealed what He
expected from His human creatures and the only thing necessary was to
comply. With deism, a correction was introduced : God no longer changed the
laws of Nature !
This fideist mentality led and leads to obscurantism. Not only does it hinder the
free study of the world and its objective conditions (often contradicting
revelation), but it also narrows down the spiritual emancipation of humanity,
reducing "my" spiritual responsibilities to those of "our" religion. In this way,
"my Lord" is replaced by "our Lord" and the personal relationship with the
Divine is forced, often "de manu militari" within the narrow confines of spiritocommunal
dogma's invented by a male elite to indoctrinate the community and
safeguard its political, economical and social power. Free, laic thought was and
is the direct enemy of this spiritual obscurantism and we may thank the great
thinkers of the European Enlightenment to have liberated us from our chains
and the limitations we ourselves enforced upon our mentality.
Historically, realism and materialism can be explained as extreme reactions
against this blatant, mind-wrecking ignorance. But as we always remain
dependent of what we reject, the time has come to free ourselves from the
limitations we self-imposed when fighting this sordid obscurantism. Has it not
been overcome by contemporary science & philosophy ? The advancement of
science will precisely be determined by the measure with which it is able to
move ahead without being encumbered by rejecting spiritual obscurantism and
without pulling down its critical safeguards. To reject both ontological
materialism and ontological idealism is the core feature of this measure. The
task is to foster the correct, open limitations (criticism), and to reject the
emphatic "yes" (dogmatism), as well as the enforced "no" (scepticism).
5. The Metaphysics of Spiritualism.

Grosso modo, the metaphysical view embraced by spiritualism is not satisfied
by merely designating a universal mind or "logos", but it tries to describe this
in terms of an inherent order, structure, architecture etc. organizing the world.
This supreme mind and its order exist inherently, from their own side. The
material world is a mere reflection, densification, or manifestation of this
primordial spiritual mentation. The first texts proposing such a view were
composed in Ancient Egypt (cf. the Memphis Theology at the end of the
Ramesside Period). In Greek philosophy, two proponents of this view
influenced the Western mind for centuries : Plato (428 - 347 BCE) &
Pythagoras (ca. 580 BCE, island of Samos, Ionia - ca. 500, Metapontum,
Lucania). Before Thomas of Aquinas (ca. 1225 - 1274), Plato had a very
prominent impact on Plotinus (240 - 270 CE), neo-Platonism and Augustinian
thought, whereas Platonism itself was strongly influenced by the Eleatic school
(cf. Parmenides of Elea, ca. 515 - 440 BCE, a pupil of Xenophanes, ca. 580/577
- 485/480 BCE). The latter was inspired by Pythagoras.
Why these systems are classified as "spiritualist" is because they not only
identify the non-physicality, but attribute to it a fundamental role, and this to
the point of letting Divine thought & speech create all things.

Shabaka Stone : LINE 53 (Memphis Theology)
(hieroglyphs in red are reconstructed)
"There comes into being in the mind. There comes into being by the tongue. (It
is) as the image of Atum. Ptah is the very great, who gives life to all the gods
and their Kas. It all in this mind and by this tongue."
"Heart" may be translated as "mind" and "tongue" as "speech". The
simultaneity of the mental (subjective) and the material (objective) sides of the
cognitive process, is indicated by the use of symmetrical writing (cf. the use of
a double column at the beginning of the text).
The "heart" of Ptah is not yet a Greek "nous" devoid of context, i.e. an
abstract, rational Platonic Mind. It is too early for that. Rather, the contents of
mind (meaning of the words uttered) simultaneously move Ptah's tongue (the
words uttered). Formal and material poles come together in Ptah's continuous

actions, the overseeing "Great Throne" of Ptah.
The mental process suggested here is ante-rational & proto-rational, and aims
at establishing a solid case for the ongoing creative speech and ontic
supremacy of Ptah as "the very great" (while allowing, consistent with
henotheism, other deities to exist as such "in" Ptah).
"In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word
was God. He was in the beginning with God. All things were made through him,
and without him was not anything made that was made."
Gospel of John, 1:1-3.
In a philosophical discourse, the spiritualist ontologies propose an absolute
subject (Schelling). One of the consequences of this absoluteness, is its
capacity to encompass the object of knowledge exhaustively. As in Anselm's
ontological proof, the notion existence in reality is greater than existence in the
understanding alone, leads to the tenet the absolute subject creates the object.
This asymmetry downgrades physicality & its becoming, turning it into an
illusion ("mâyâ"), a mere shadow, reflection or echo, passively receiving the
influence of the sculptor. Underneath these options, a prejudice against
constant change, dynamism & transformation is felt. Coupled with an Olympic
spirit, a substance-based absolute subject sees the light. The commoners are
looked at from a very high vantage point. They seem little moving points. One
does not realize each perspective is relative.
In a static spiritualism (Pythagoras, Plato, Plotinus, Augustine, Spinoza), the
absolute subject is an eternal, self-referential, isolated, singular Divine
"substance of substances" or "idea of ideas". This "summum bonum" is the
most abstract capstone of a hierarchy of ideas. For in Platonism, in tune with
the Greek sense of autarchy, the ontologically superior is also morally better.
In the monotheist theologies, this static absolute subject is equated with God,
thus emphasizing the question how one can relate to such a remote God ?
Mystification, Divine grace nor blind faith make the critical mind rest.
In a dynamic spiritualism (Heracleites, Qabalah, Hegel, Bergson), the absolute
spirit, in order to ultimately spiritualize, freely externalizes non-physical
Nature. A dialectic process is thereby defined, implying an eternal return of the
same and an itinerary, or the stages of a process. As Nature plays her part and
plays it well, this spiritualism embraces the physical. It is not hostile to Nature
and willingly integrates becoming. It remains a form of spiritualism (and not for
example process thinking) because the absolute subject remains before the
object, bringing in an asymmetry. In spiritualism, the whole immanent process
of Nature and spirit must be understood as embraced or taking place in an
ontological realm transcending Nature. Nature is not self-sufficient. Without the

transcendent God-as-Creator, not a single physical phenomenon would exist.
When thinking in terms of process, Nature is a self-sufficient system, the sole
realm of actual occasions, of concrete things. There is no other realm than
Nature, than actual occasions. This does not preclude Nature operates distinct
ontic levels, allowing one to distinguish between concrete and abstract. But
these are not two different ontological planes. The abstract level, side, aspect
of Nature transcends the concrete (the spatiotemporal), but not Nature herself.
5.1 Greek Pythagorism & Platonism.
With Pythagoras of Samos , the son of an engraver of gems, we encounter the
first Greek "school" of thought, a teaching in which religion, mysticism,
mathematics and philosophy were allowed to interpenetrate each other and
orchestrate a totally new symphonic whole, one having a decisive influence on
Greek thought as well as on Greek architecture. This school was so unique,
that Pythagorism may well be called the second major orientation in pre-
Socratic philosophy next to Milesian materialism as a whole. Unfortunately,
none of the writings of Pythagoras have survived, and Pythagoreans invariably
supported their doctrines by indiscriminately citing their master's authority. It
is difficult to distinguish his teachings from those of his disciples, neither
legends from historical fact.
However, he is credited with the theory of the functional significance of sacred
numbers in the objective world and in music (obtained by stopping a lyre string
at various points along its length - the octave (2: 1), the fifth (3: 2) and the
fourth (4: 3)). Other discoveries attributed to him, like the incommensurability
of the side and diagonal of a square, and the Pythagorean theorem stating the
square of the hypotenuse of a right-angled triangle equals in area to the sum
of the squares of the other two sides (well-known in Egypt and Mesopotamia),
were probably developed only later by the Pythagorean school.
The teachings drew a large following in the Greek colony of Croton in southern
Italy, were he went to live. A kind of Freemasonry "avant la lettre" rose among
the aristocracy. It was a fraternity with Pythagoras as its "master". Its
members had a lot of political power (based on "areté" and "ponós", excellence
and effort), but were eventually massacred in a riot long after Pythagoras had
died. The followers spread the principles and caused Pythagorism (or
"Pythagoreanism") to become part of the Greek world. Iamblichus quotes his
master, who had said : "number is the rule of forms and ideas, and the cause
of gods and demons".
The problem of describing Pythagorism is complicated by the fact the surviving
picture is far from complete, being based chiefly on a small number of
fragments from the time before Plato and on various discussions in authors

who wrote much later - most of whom were either Aristotelians or neo-
Platonists. In spite of these historical uncertainties, the contribution of
Pythagorism to Western culture has been significant and therefore justifies the
effort, however inadequate, to depict what its teachings may have been.
The character of original Pythagorism is controversial, and the conglomeration
of disparate features it displayed is intrinsically confusing. Its fame rests,
however, on some very influential ideas, and likely most of these prevailed in
the school of Croton :
● the metaphysics of number and the conception reality, including music
and astronomy, is, at its deepest level, mathematical in nature :
Pythagoras' sufficient ground is not a cosmic substance but an inner
organization or structure coupled with a liberating, salvic intentions, albeit
ascetical & philosophical ;
● the use of philosophy as a means of spiritual purification : a lover of
wisdom is more than an intelligent person aware of problems and their
solutions, for his pursuit of wisdom must be a window to the immortal
soul, the light of which draws him near to the original and fundamental
level of reality : the mathematical order of being whispering a hidden,
mysterious language of silence, with a code available to the initiate only ;
● the heavenly destiny of the soul and the possibility of its rising to union
with the Divine : Pythagoras is not satisfied with the mundane, immanent
perspective, for the Pythagorean philosopher is before all the rest a lover
of unity and its experience, implying transcendence, trance, osmosis etc. ;
● the appeal to certain symbols, sometimes mystical, such as the
"tetraktys", the Golden Section, and the harmony of the spheres :
symbols are the residue of spiritual experiences and contain a code to
trigger co-relative experiences later ;
● the Pythagorean theorem : mathematics and the solution of particular
problems are the "purest" way to encounter the immortal soul, for its
language is that of sacred number ;
● the demand members of the order shall observe a strict loyalty and
secrecy, the order is a private affair and has no "outer order".
For Plato, strongly influenced by Pythagoras and the Eleatics, there is a real,
Divine world of ideas "out there" or, as in neo-Platonism, "in here", a
transcendent realm of Being, in which the things of this fluctuating world

participate. Ideas are the unchanging aspects of a thing.
Obviously then, truth is the remembrance ("anamnesis") of (or return to) this
eternally good state of affairs, conceived as the limit of limits of Being or even
beyond that. These Platonic ideas, like particularia of a higher order, are no
longer the truth of this world of becoming but of another, better world of Being,
leaving us with the cleaving impasse of idealism : Where is the object ?
The Platonic ideas exist objectively in a reality outside the thinker. Hence, the
empirical has a derivative status. The world of forms is outside the permanent
flux characteristic of the former, and also external to the thinking mind and its
passing whims. A trans-empirical, Platonic idea is a paradigm for the singular
things which participate in it ("methexis"). Becoming participates in Being, and
only Being, as Parmenides of Elea (ca. 515 - 440 BCE), inspired by Pythagoras
and pupil of Xenophanes (ca. 580/577 - 485/480 BCE) taught, has reality. The
physical world is not substantial (without sufficient ground) and posited as a
mere reflection. If so, it has no true existence of its own (for its essence is
trans-empirical). Plato projects the world of ideas outside the human mind. He
therefore represents the transcendent pole of Greek concept-realism, for the
"real" moves beyond our senses as well as our minds. To eternalize truth,
nothing less will do.
5.2 Subjectifying Essentialism.
Besides focusing on the structure of the ideal mind or community of minds,
spiritualism embraces the subject of knowledge at the expense of the object
and this in an essentialist way, considering the absolute spirit as existing from
its own side, isolated (but interacting with) all other minds.
Ontologically, the object is created, generate or produced by the absolute
mind, and so reduced to a mere illusion. An subjectifying essentialism
emerges. The absolute mind constitutes reality and only the mind. The truth or
validity of statements is not dependent of something outside the mind, but
wholly determined by this "Divine mind" or, in a more intersubjective
approach, the "consensus omnium".
The monotheisms, Platonizing their revelation, embrace this kind of view
willingly. God, as an absolute, perfect spirit isolated from the world, is a selfsufficient
fountain of truth. Empirical data have a lesser status, in any at all.
5.3 Monarchic Transcendence.
In the henotheism of Ancient Egypt, the radical ontological difference between
the creating and the created can already be found. The former (natura

naturans), consisted of the light-spirits of the gods and royal ancestors (the
"akhu"), residing in the circumpolar stars, untouched by the movement of
rising and setting, shining permanently from above. These spirits did interact
with their creation (natura naturata) by means of their "souls" ("bas") and
"doubles" ("kas"). The Bas represented the dynamical, interconnective
principle, ritually invited to descend and bless creation by way of the offerings
made to their Kas. These resided on Earth in the cult-statue hidden away in the
dark "naos" or "holy of holies" of the Egyptian Temple. Only the king or his
representatives could enter this sacred space and offer the world-order
("Maat"). This exclusivity was the result of the fact gods only communicate
with gods and the king was the only "Akh" or deity actually living on Earth. So
he alone could make the connection. The transcendent nature of the deities,
their remote presence as well as their exclusive mode of interaction, point to a
mentality stressing their monarchic transcendence, and, mutatis mutandis, the
ontological difference between the eternalized world of the deities and the
chaotic, everchanging world of man.
In the Cannibal Hymn, the deified king is described as :
"He has revolved around the whole of the Two Skies.
He has circled the Two Banks.
For king Wenis is the Great Power that Overpowers the Powers.
King Wenis is a Sacred Image, the most Sacred Image
of the Sacred Images of the Great One.
Whom he finds in his way, him he devours bit by bit."
Cannibal Hymn, Utterance 274.
The Greeks, no doubt also influenced by Ancient Egyptian thought, confirmed
this state of affairs. The ontological difference between the world of becoming
and the world of being was preluded by the views of Anaximander and

Parmenides, and finally synthesized by Plato. The world of being consisted of
unchanging, inherently existing "ideas", constituting the entities populating the
world of becoming, radically separated from the former. Only the elite of
contemplative philosophy had access to this world of being ... With the
ontology of the One (Plotinus), this radical transcendence was finalized. Selfsufficient
and autarchic, the One is a "substance of substances". Its Olympian
nature is beyond any doubt.
Both Augustine (first third of the 6th century – 604) and Thomas Aquinas
(1225 - 1274) accepted this view and adapted it to Christian theology. The
ultimate God-as-substance created the world "ex nihilo", and was believed to
be the ontological "imperial" root of all possible existence. This God is distinct
(another thing "totaliter aliter") and radically different (made of other kind of
"stuff" as the world). By identifying the mind of God with Plato's world of ideas,
the Augustinian Platonists had to exchange Divine grace for enlightened,
intuitive reason. Thomist Peripatetics introduced perception as a valid source of
knowledge and so prepared the end of fundamental theology, the rational
explanation of the "facts" of revelation.
For Thomas Aquinas, the relation between God and the world is a "relatio
rationis", not a real or mutual bond. This scholastic notion can be explained by
taking the example of a subject apprehending an object. From the side of the
object only a logical, rational relationship persists. The object is not affected by
the subject apprehending it. From the side of the subject however, a real
relationship is at hand, for the subject is really affected by the perception of
the object. According to Thomism, God is not affected by the world, and so God
is like a super-object, not a subject (ps.-Dionysius would say a "hyperobject")
! The world however is affected by this object-God, clearly not
"Emmanuel", God-with-us. Hence, the relationship between God and the world
cannot be reciprocal. If so, the world only contributes to the glory of God
("gloria externa Dei"). The finite is nothing more than a necessary "explicatio
Dei". This is the seen as the only way the world can contribute to God.
In this line of reasoning, the monotheist God, like a Caesar of sorts, is
omnipotent and omniscient. This means God knows what is possible as
possible, what is presently real as real and also the future of what is real
(predestination). Moreover, God can do what He likes and so is directly
responsible for all events (cf. "insh'Allah"). These views make it impossible not
to attribute all possible evil, like the slaying of the innocent, to God ! Such a
theology turns the good God into a brutal monster or proves the point He
cannot exist (cf. Sartre). Finally, free will cannot be combined with this view of
God as the sufficient condition of all things, for freedom only harmonizes with a
view of God as merely the necessary condition.

This radical ontological difference between God and the world influenced the
Cartesian ontological rift between the material body and the incorporeal mind.
Indeed, the latter was deemed to be able to understand God. If not, Descartes
(1596 - 1650) would not have been able to back his fundamental intuition "ego
cogito sum" with his proofs of God, and a "malin genie" could have tricked him
after all ... As the mind had this contemplative capacity (we find in Plato,
Plotinus and Augustine) to directly (intuitively) access the radically
transcendent "mind of God", it could a forteriori not be made of the same
"stuff" the world (body, brain) was made of. Hence, ontological dualism
(positing two ontologically different substances) was inevitable. Clearly both
mind & brain were then posited as distinct entities, but on top of that they
were also considered different in nature.
With the failure to explain "intuitional knowledge" (cf. Spinoza's "verum index
sui"), Kant's rational distinction between a constitutive (ontological) and a
regulative (epistemological) use of the ideas of reason & the disruptive inflation
caused by German Idealism (triggering Protest Philosophy, Marxism and
Positivism), a direct (non-physical) access of the mind to absolute truth was
deemed impossible. In this context, epiphenomenalism (reducing to mind to a
by-product of the brain) rose. Hence, the study of the mind was deemed
impossible without the study of physiology and the brain (cf. Freud). Making
mind part of Nature implied materializing it !
Contemporary neurological materialism is the XXth century adaptation of this.
With a new ontology and an alternative definition of "mind", such radicalization
is perhaps unnecessary ... Crucial here is to understand that while mind and
body are distinct entities, they are made of the same ontological stuff. So mind
and body are not ontologically different.
6.1 Criticism of Personal Experience.
6. The Criticism of Spiritualism.
Thinking the possibility of valid scientific knowledge, or a third-person
perspective on the world, does not eliminate personal experience, but neither
does it inflate it. Although a third-person view is based on a set containing the
first-person perspectives of individual observers communicating what they
experience, the intimacy and so private nature of the observation of each
empirical ego can per definition not be open to scrutiny, except by
introspection and autoreflective activity. These two mental operations indeed

offer ways to alter inner states of mind, experiencing these changes directly &
intimately. While this can be communicated, no other subject devoid of the
same results of introspection will truly understand what is being said. Likewise,
if one has never tasted honey, no description of the experience will suffice to
communicate what it is like. Individuum est ineffabile.
The distinction between reality-for-me and reality-for-us is pertinent. Science
deals with the latter. But also intersubjectivity is not enough. For if we identify
valid knowledge with intersubjective consensus, the objectivity of knowledge
can no longer be thought. If all we know is merely intra-mental, then there is
not such a thing as knowledge about something. And if knowledge is not that,
then knowledge can no longer be called "knowledge" at all. Hence, while
subjectivity is a necessary condition, it is not sufficient to explain the possibility
& expansion of knowledge.
Idealism reifies the subjective conditions of knowledge to the point of allowing
these to constitute objectivity. While the consensus catholicus is a regulative
idea, one helping the intersubjective dimension of knowledge to take shape, it
does not define what valid or true conceptual knowledge is all about.
6.2 Criticism of Fideist Idealism.
Of course, faith in the conditions imposed by a supposed Supreme Spirit cannot
satisfy rationality, based on communication, argumentation and the
establishment of a reversible consensus.
While we should not dismiss the experience of mystics, and should accept the
"visio Dei experimentalis", one cannot move a step further and a forteriori
welcome the conceptual superstructures erected on such a personal
experience. Any conceptual structure must be open to argumentation and
rational validation. If not, it should be dismissed as invalid metaphysics.
6.3 Criticism of Spiritualist Dogmatism.
Dogmatism is merely the emphatic confirmation of an absolute spirit at the
expense of the objective data offered by, so must we assume, extra-mental
reality. The assumption that facts must, besides theory-dependent, be
somehow extra-mental, i.e. possess a theory-independent side, is rejected on
descriptive grounds (as in Hegel's dialectical, phenomenological process of the
Spirit and its Nature).
But the assumption is normative. Criticism does not affirm or claim facts are
extra-mental, but can do nothing else but normatively assume this to be the
case. Not to do so would cripple our understanding of the conditions of possible

conceptual knowledge and its development. How can knowledge be possible if
it is not about something else than the subject ?
Dogmatic affirmation mostly takes the form of a community of "blessed"
individuals able "by Divine grace" to understand this Supreme Spirit. This
empowers them to enforce their view upon the members of their spiritual
community, if not on humanity at large. The "language of science" is not a
"sacred" language, one spoken by "high priests". The language spoken by
science & normative philosophy must be open, critical and flexible.
Valid conceptual knowledge is hard to get. This fact humbles the scientist as
well as the philosopher.
7. An Ontology beyond Materialism & Spiritualism.
To ask metaphysics to empirically prove its speculative insights, is like asking a
dentist to transplant a heart. Metaphysics does not deal with experiments,
tests and the validation of propositions by way of facts. The only two ways to
validate its speculative statements are logical clarity (correctness or wellformedness)
and argumentative backing. Its aim is not to conquer new factual
ground, but to encompass as many valid speculations & scientific facts as
possible to formulate a comprehensive view or Gestalt on all possible objects of
thought. And should it surprise valid metaphysics, while allowing speculation,
backs its arguments with science ?
Besides offering a grand synthesis, metaphysics is the "heuristic assistant" of
science. Working in the background, metaphysics formulates a research
programme inspiring scientific research to venture into new domains and try
out novel connections between its objects. Invalid metaphysics will do poorly at
this, leading science away from new crucial experiments. Valid metaphysics is
the wise guide of science. It accommodates the manifold of scientific
knowledge by devising a synoptic, unified, detailed, descriptive and
explanatory account, providing a comprehensive framework for understanding
the world and our place within it.
Insofar as this object is "merely being", metaphysics is ontology, the
speculative study of being qua being. As ontology, metaphysics is immanent,
meaning it stays within the confines of the "world" or "Nature". Moving beyond
this, as in transcendent metaphysics, posits a transcendence, an actual infinity,
inviting paradox and other inconsistencies into conceptual thought. As a non-

conceptual approach, its core is nondual and ineffable (although, this much can
be said, cognitive in an unsaying, mystical way). Together, immanent and
transcendent metaphysics encompass the totality of all possible things.
Immanent metaphysics poses four fundamental questions : Why something
rather than nothing ? Why the universe ? Why life ? Why consciousness ?
Answering these four by way of a single well-formed set of interconnected
statements backed by scientific fact and arguments, is the aim of ontology.
In the present context, two opposed metaphysical options have been
scrutinized and found mistaken. Irrespective of the historical reasons why
these extremes saw the light, we cannot accept these monisms because they
fail to incorporate all possible known facts. This is their limitation and hence
their insufficient capacity to answer the fundamental questions of ontology.
Materialism is unable to explain the self-evident private nature of personal
experience. The elements of its set are all public ! Moreover, personal
experience is unitary, while the disjecta membra of matter (at least on the
macro- and mesolevels) define a manifold. These a-symmetries make it
impossible to accept materialism as a valid metaphysical system. Likewise,
spiritualism is unable to explain the self-evident influence of public events on
private life. The elements of its set are all private (subjective) or social
(intersubjective). Knowledge can no longer be thought, for it is never about
something but always in some way about "me" or "us". Moreover, the same asymmetries
hurt the system : here we have a unitary experience unable to
explain the manifold.
It seems as if this antinomy points to a lack of depth & extension in both
positions. They fail to find a common denominator for both mind & matter and
so continue to create conflicts at the surface. They lack a broad perspective
allowing both mind & matter to co-exist, and so are forced to either completely
reduce the other polarity or reject it as illusionary and so unworthy of
consideration. In both cases, their view on the world is crippled and the
resulting metaphysical background is unable to invite new experiments & the
articulation of a better scientific theory.
Both materialism & spiritualism are invalid metaphysical research programmes.
As such, they hinder the advancement of science. They should be replaced by a
more comprehensive view.
7.1 Criticism : Cutting-Through Appearances.
On both sides of the cognitive spectrum encompassing object & subject of
knowledge, reification causes extreme positions to engage. Insofar as the
logical condition of simplicity is satisfied, these extremes are monisms (for only

one fundamental principle is imputed), entertaining reductionism (for one side
of the spectrum is explained by the other side). In a more confused logical
choice, both sides are acknowledged, triggering ontological dualism.
The last option faces the task to explain how different kinds of stuff interact ?
Given no common denominator is in place, different entities a forteriori have no
doors. Then how to bridge the ontological difference and maintain Nature is a
single substance ? The communication between fundamentally different kinds
of things possessing their properties inherently is bound to be problematic.
But monism itself is not deep and extended enough to sufficiently grasp the
totality of Nature. Logical simplicity (numerical singularity) needs semantic
fields to become operational. By reifying the two sides of the transcendental
conditions of conceptual thought itself, these traditional answers did nothing
more than skim the surface, uncomfortably satisfied with the chosen view.
Ontological materialism posits a real object, ontological idealism an ideal
subject. The real object causes real influences, the ideal subject constitutes its
object. Both grounds (real objective or ideal subjective) are self-sufficient and
possess their nature or essence from their own side. Materialism looses sight of
the theory ladenness of observation. Idealism becomes more self-engrossed,
forgetting knowledge must also be about something else than mentalities.
Two reification are to be abolished : the extreme of positing sense-data as the
bedrock of science & knowledge and the extreme of attributing objectconstituting
characteristics to ideal, (inter)subjective formations. A deeper
stratum of experience must be found to counter both claims, namely Nature as
a material substance versus Nature as substantially mind. One must cutthrough
the appearance of the world as a material entity as well as the mirage
of the world as the product of mind.
Cutting-through is deontologizing both sides of the cognitive spectrum.
Ultimate logic teaches there are no substances. All objects of perception/
sensation and all subjective states are impermanent, transient & everchanging,
caught in ongoing process of interdependent happenings or
occasions. When both the experiencing "I" and the experienced "other" are
without permanent, eternal & never-changing inherent properties, cuttingthrough
means apprehending all entities as made up of actual occasions,
atomic & momentary actualities characterized by "extensiveness".
To understand what these actual occasions are, one has to prioritize activities
over substances. The contrast between process & substance is rather
considerable. In the categories of Aristotle, substance, quantity, quality &
relation exist inherently. Likewise, space, time, matter & momentum are

absolute. In essentialism or substance philosophy, discrete individuality &
separateness are linked. A fixity within a uniform nature defined unity of being.
This allows for descriptive & classificatoric stability & passivity.
Process categories bring in process, quantitative features, topicality & relational
interconnections. Spatiotemporal location and inner state are relative. Not a
single property exists form its own side, self-powered. Here, interactive
interrelatedness, wholeness and self-determination are linked. Novelty goes
hand in hand with unity of functional typology (law). Productive fluidity &
agency (activity) ensue.
7.2 Ontology : Panexperiential Occasionalism.
In the organic totality of Nature, an actual occasion is the smallest unity of
process. Each momentary occasion extols a perpetual va-et-vient between two
modes of existence : an objective mode, in which it only exists for others
("esse est percipi"), and a subjective mode of existence, in which the actual
occasion is none but subjective experiential properties ("esse est percepere").
In the first, objective mode, a physical experience is at hand, explained in
terms of efficient causation. In the second, subjective mode, a mental reaction
ensues, bringing about final causation.
"... if we consider processes of collapse as representing the objectivized aspect
of actual entities, the agreement between Whitehead and quantum mechanics
is perfect."
Malin, Sh. : "Whitehead and the Collapse of Quantum States.", in : Eastman & Keeton,
2003, p.80.
Actual accasions, contrary to Leibnizian monads, do communicate with other
actual occasions. In terms of logical order, an actual occasion "begins" with an
open window to the past, showing previous events, the efficient causation of
the past world on it. Next, it reponds to (a) this past actuality but also to (b) its
own inner & dynamic current ideality drawing possibilities out of what was
received and weighting the options in order to favour a single outcome. By
doing so, the actual occasion exercises final causation, showing selfdetermination,
spontaneity & self-determination. The difference between
efficient and final causation is analog to the difference between actual and
potential in quantum mechanics, brought about by the "collapse" of the wavefunction
(Heisenberg, von Neumann), turning an infinite number of possibilities
into a single one.
While taking a decision ends subjectivity, the actual occasion does not perish.
Its end as subjective experience is the beginning of its existence as efficient
cause on subsequent occasions, being the physical past entering their event-

horizon. Actual occasions are therefore never in "one place" or "solitary", but a
forteriori enter in each other's process (togetherness) and so define continua of
occasion-streams. They are interconnected momentary events, not isolated
(Olympic) enduring substances.
"The past actualities generate potentialities for the next actual occasion, which
specifies a new space-time standpoint (region) from which the potentialities
created by the past actualities will be prehended (grasped) by the current
occasion. This basic autogenetic process creates the new actual entity, which,
upon its creation, contributes to the potentialities for the succeeding actual
occasions."
Stapp, 2007, pp.91-92.
The panexperiential dimension of process thinking is precisely the presence of
final causation. Because of this inner, non-physical mode of existence, each
occasion has a degree of consciousness (self-determination, spontaneity &
novelty). This is not the same as saying occasions have an "inner life" in the
way humans experience this. The subjective mode of actual occasions rules a
weighting procedure effectuating a decision. And as the outcome of each
occasion is richer than what physically, by way of efficient causation, entered
its window of past actualities, novelty is possible. Only when very complex
societies of occasions are individualized (as in humans), can a degree of
freedom be maintained to allow for a genuine "inner, sentient life". Moreover,
as compounds of actual occasions (like rocks & artefacts) do not share a
conscious experience of unity, individualized societies of actual occasions (like
minerals, plants, animals, humans) do. So this is not a panpsychism.
7.3 Functional Domains of Explanation.
"Whilst levels of organization refer to divisions within a specific explanatory
domain (the physical), domains of explanation distinguish description
(comprising both theories and data) of irreducible but interdependent faces of a
single underlying reality."
Jamiesson, 2007, p.136.
The two modes of an occasion encompass its three known aspects. These
appear as integrated explanations of the functioning of the organic totality
known as "Nature". They refer to specific descriptions (of theories and data) of
irreducible but interdependent facets of each occasion.
Efficient lawfulness and the objective mode of each occasion call for the
physical aspect of matter, while final causation and the subjective mode call for
the aspect of abstract validation (information) and a degree of participatory
self-determination (consciousness). These define ontological boundaries,

allowing for a better understanding of ongoing process. They are not principles,
or worse, substances, but merely aspects explaining physical objects,
informational content, its value, and states & contents of consciousness.
● matter : sub-atomic, atomic, molecular, cellular, physiological, societies of
actual occasions or the domain of the physical ;
● information : embodied or disembodied notions, ideas, languages, logics,
theories about actual occasions or the domain of the informational ;
● consciousness : the self-determination, spontaneity, novelty & participatory
grasping of actual occasions or the domain of the conscious.
The consciousness domain is organized in degrees of freedom, beginning with
that of each individual occasion and all individualized societies of occasions.
Hence, subatomic particles, particles, molecules, tissues, natural kingdoms
(mineral, plants, animals, humans) all possess a degree of consciousness.
While sentient, they do not entertain an inner conscious life comparable to that
of humans on this planet. Such an intimate development of consciousness calls
for a high-order complexification of mental occasions, one producing the
complex, non-linear subdomain of human inner life. As on this planet this
distinct type of sentient life is rare, all human life is by nature precious. But all
other complex individualized societies of occasions do experience themselves
as a unity run by a hierarchy, and so fall within the field of panexperientialism.
Mere aggregates or compounds of occasions are not sentient. So traditional
panpsychism, stating all possible things have a subjective mode, is avoided.
Although the individuals part of such an aggregate do experience a degree of
self-unity, the aggregate itself does not. Rocks, rain, rivers, oceans, streets,
cities, provinces, countries, continents, planets, artefacts, etc. are insentient.
Lacking any self-conscious finality, they are ruled by efficient law. There is no
ontological difference though, for both aggregates and individualized societies
are merely actual occasions, ongoingly oscillating between objective
(efficiency) & subjective (aim), and described in terms of their material,
informational and conscious properties. In aggregates, fomed by the natural
togetherness of actual occasions, actual occasions form events & objects
barren of the experience of unity. Every actual occasion happening in such a
compound remains interlocked with all co-relative occasions, and this without a
single dominant actual occasion or set of dominant actual occasions "leading
the way". Because ontic hierarchy is absent, aggregates are not sentient, while
their constituting occasions are (at their level).
A contrario, in individualized societies of occasions, interdependence and
complex relationality engender negentropic dissipative systems. The most
intricate of these is able to give a high-order degree of finality to the impulses
of past efficient processes. Here human conscious life enters the picture, with

each human being experiencing him or herself as a unity. Nothing precludes
the presence of more complex levels of consciousness, nor of other means to
embody consciousness (cf. subtle, yet unknown, non-physical bodies, like the
subtle "sheets" of the Indian yoga tradition). Hence, process ontology has no a
priori regarding togetherness, interrelatedness & concrescence. Of course, the
question remains whether speculations about non-physical life can be argued
with a comfortable measure of validity ?
II : The Mind/Body Problem.
In general philosophy, the "mind/body problem" refers to the relationship
between the human brain and the human mind. There is a problem because
mental phenomena (occasion, events, entities, objects) seem to be sui generis,
unique in their characteristics, irreducible and not explicable in terms of
physical phenomena only. Moreover, both phenomena seem to interact
causally, nomologically and explanatorily.
Carnap (1891 - 1970) and others argue such a problem does not exist, for the
human mind is nothing else than the human brain. So discussing the
relationship is a priori unnecessary. The same logic applies if one would argues
the brain is merely a reflection of the (ideal) mind, but this position, although
logically possible, is deemed untenable. The advances in physics, biology &
neurology seem to rule it out.
The "mind/body problem" must be situated in the context of the preciousness
of human life. The complexity of the operational domains explaining the human
being is extraordinary. To try to explain the facts of this individualized entity is
not an easy task, if at all possible. In any case, process philosophy has a very
subtle, deep & extended view on this. In what follows, each time the words
"mind" and "brain" are used, the case of the human mind and the human brain
is at hand. In a panexperiential view, designating finative considerations to all
actual occasions, this distinction is not unimportant.
We are not looking at an ontological difference between mind and brain, but
wish to understand their distinctness in the ongoing world-process. Both are
individualized societies forming explicatory domains to grasp the human being
as an organic whole. The human being is an individualized society of individual
objects, events & actual occasions. As a single entity, each human is a "world"
consisting of material, informational and sentient events. As each actual
occasion has two modes of existence, so has the human being : an objective,

physical existence processing efficient lawfulness (matter) and a subjective,
mental existence, dealing with knowledge & principles of validation
(information) and conscious experience (consciousness), i.e. the power to
produce changes in itself and let these enter the existence of other occasions.
The "brain" is the name for the efficient laws individualizing the most complex
physical occasion explaining each human being. The "mind" is the name for the
final decision taken on the basis of all available knowledge and made by a
percipient participative self, a focus of consciousness existing in its own inner,
private, cognitive & conscious life. This free choice individualizes the nonphysical
(finative) actual occasion needed to grasp what human life is all about,
namely the "mind".
As brain and mind are both societies of actual occasions, the interaction
between both is not an interaction between two different substances, but
merely a mutual exchange between distinct operational domains,
encompassing the physical (matter) and non-physical (information &
consciousness) modes of occasions. The notion "information" includes the
regulative idea of a super-system of expert-systems (all possible knowledge)
and a weighting of possible choices. The notion "consciousness" calls for an
actual choice favouring the actual possibility with the highest probability in
terms of (a) the reinforcement of the experience of conscious unity and (b) the
greatest harmony for as many societies of individuals as possible.
8. Positions.
Before formulating the panexperiential interactionism, let us summarize the
various positions.
8.1 Ancient Egyptian Shamanism : Hylic Pluralism.
The ante-rational stance of Ancient Egyptian cognition makes it impossible to
rationally explain their view on the body and the spiritual elements caught in
its "net". In various texts they mention elements such as the "ka" (double),
"ba" (soul), "ib" (heart), "khaibit" (shadow), "akh" (spirit) and the like. In the
Pyramid Texts they play an important role in the process of transformation &
ascension of the divine king. In the Amduat, the "ba" of Re travels through the
Duat to seek replenishment (in the 6th Hour of the night). One interesting text
explains how a mad Egyptian viewed his "ba". This is the "Discourse of a Man
with his Ba", a manuscript from the Middle Kingdom (XIIth Dynasty, ca. 1938

- 1759 BCE), translated & discussed elsewhere.
Especially the "ka", "ba" and "akh" are crucial elements. While the body is
alive, the "ka" and "ba" are "caught" in its net, but when it dies, they are
released. During life, a man makes sure his "ka" was "pleased", for this
element would become the crucial object of offering after death. While alive, it
is content when one lives "in accord with Maat", the principle of cosmic
harmony (cf. Ptahhotep and the sapiental literature). As soon as the physical
body is shed, the "ka" escapes and can be satisfied by mummification, funerary
offerings and (voice) offerings made in front of the "false door" by those alive.
When the "ka" is thus replenished, the "ba" is gratified and its dynamic task of
reconnecting the deceased with his or her spiritual core ("akh") can commence.
But before this happens, the "mind" (will, intention, consciousness) of the
deceased, its "heart" ("ib") must be weighed against the Feather of Maat. If
found heavier, it is devoured and the process of transformation can not begin.
Helped by the "negative confession" (enumerating the faults not done by the
deceased) and protective magic (placing a scarab beetle over the heart left in
the mummy), this balance is found perfect, and the deceased may regain its
divine states as a spirit ("akh"). This luminous spirit either abides -in the case
of a commoner- in the Lunar heaven of Osiris (the highest state in the Duat)
or, for royalty, in the Solar heaven of Re (the circumpolar stars).
In this scheme, the distinction between the physical body and what could be
called "spiritual principles" is apparent. The afterlife depends on the latter. But
even during life on Earth, these register ("ib") and sustain ("ka") the moral
psychological and spiritual activities of the human being. It cannot be said the
"ka", "ba" and "akh" are non-corporeal or immaterial. Rather, a hierarchy of
states prevails, each being composed of intermingled physical and "spiritual"
stuff. Ante-rational hylic pluralism, also found in Shamanism, is at hand. While
a rational discourse on these elements is absent, it is clear the functional
distinction between, on the one hand, the physical body, and, on the other
hand, the "ka", "ib", "ba" and "akh" is acknowledged. The impact of a "heavy
heart" and a revolted "ka" on this-life too.
8.2 Platonic Dualism & Peripatetic Hylemorphism.
The doctrine of Plato (428 - 348 BCE) defines a strict ontological divide
("chorismos") between two separate worlds, namely a perfect word of being
and an imperfect world of becoming. Material processes belong to the latter,
and the soul of man to the former. Knowledge is remembering ("anamnesis")
what was encountered before being embodied. In this ontological dualism, the
relationships between mind and body are far from ideal, for the body is the
"prison" of the mind or soul, the true, immortal person (a view elaborated upon

y Plotinus and the neo-Platonists). In death, mind and body, made of
ontologically different stuff, separate. The latter decomposes into its original
elements, but the mind or soul, not being a material compound, does not. This
provides hope for survival of the person after the death of the body.
Although Plato gave dualism an extended treatment, it was Pythagoras who
was the first to posit the transmigration of the soul, i.e. the view the soul is
immortal and only temporarily bound up with the body. Purified after its
separation from this transient physical dwelling, the soul returns to its heavenly
abode or transmigrates into another body. Here, the ontic distinctness of body
& mind is affirmed hand in hand with their ontological difference.
For the purposes of understanding the psychology of Aristotle (384 - 322 BCE),
his hylemorphism is crucial. From its inception, it exploits two distinct but
related notions of form : in the first, "form" is the essence of the material
compound whose form it is, and in the second, it is the accident of its subject.
The soul is an essential form, whereas perception involves the acquisition of
accidental forms. Entelechy ("entelécheia") is then a fullness of actualization
requiring an ongoing or standing investment of effort in order to persist. It is
opposed to energy ("energeia") which is the activity of actualization not
necessarily completed. Entelechy is associated with fullness of form, and
potency is associated with material stuff which potentially has the form.
Hylemorphism (or "matter-formism") is a compound word composed of the
Greek for matter ("hulê") and form or shape ("morphê"). The notions of "form"
and "matter" are developed within the context of a general theory of causation
and explanation. When we wish to explain what there is to know, for example,
about a bronze statue of Hermes, a complete account necessarily alludes to at
least four factors : the matter of the statue, its form or structure, the agent
responsible for that matter manifesting its form or structure, and the purpose
for which the matter was made to realize that form or structure. These four
factors are the four causes ("aitiai") :
● the material cause (causa materialis) : that from which something is
generated and out of which it is made, e.g. the bronze of the statue ;
● the formal cause (causa formalis) : the structure realized by the matter, in
terms of which it becomes something determinate, e.g. the Hermes shape by
virtue of which this quantity of bronze is said to be a statue of Hermes ;
● the efficient cause (causa efficiens) : the agent responsible for a quantity of
matter receiving form, e.g. the sculptor who shaped the quantity of bronze into
its current Hermes shape ;
● the final cause (causa finalis) : the purpose or goal of the compound of form
and matter, e.g. the statue created for the purpose of honouring Hermes.

When introducing the soul as the form of the body, which in turn is said to be
the matter of the soul, Aristotle treats soul-body relations as a special case of a
more general relationship existing between the components of all generated
compounds, natural or artificial. Aristotle regards the body as the matter of a
human being in the way the bronze is held to be the matter of a statue of
Hermes. The following analogies run through his psychology : soul / body =
form / matter = Hermes-shaped statue / bronze. But it is difficult to fully
appreciate this analogy. Indeed, while bronze can exist as an indeterminate
lump, being potentially but not actually the statue of a Deity, the body is not so
much stuff lying about waiting to be enformed or animated by a soul. Rather,
human bodies become human bodies by being ensouled.
"It is not necessary to ask whether soul and body are one, just as it is not
necessary to ask whether the wax and its shape are one, nor generally whether
the matter of each thing and that of which it is the matter are one. For even if
one and being are spoken of in several ways, what is properly so spoken of is
the actuality."
Aristotles : De Anima, ii 1, 412b6-9.
Aristotle does not eschew questions concerning the unity of soul and body as
meaningless ; rather, he suggests they are readily answered or somehow
unimportant. If we do not spend time asking whether the wax of a candle and
its shape are one, then we should not exercise ourselves over the question of
whether the soul and body are one ...
It should be emphasized, however, Aristotle does not decide the question by
insisting the soul and body are identical, or even "one" in some weaker sense.
This he denies. He rejects materialism. The form of the body is not material,
just like the candle is not the wax. Instead, just as one might well say the wax
of a candle and its shape are distinct, on the grounds the wax could easily exist
when the particular shape is no more, or, less obviously, the particular shape
of the candle may survive the replenishment of its material basis, so one might
equally deny the soul and body to be identical, i.e. of the same nature or made
of the same "stuff".
Another way of appreciating this is to consider the question of the separability
of the soul from the body, a possibility embraced by ante-rational thought (cf.
supra), Pythagorism and substance dualists from the time of Plato onward.
Aristotle answers : if we do not think the Hermes-shape of this particular
statue persists after its bronze is melted and recast, we should not think the
soul survives the demise of the body. Hence : "It is not unclear that the soul -
or certain parts of it, if it naturally has parts- is not separable from the
body." (De Anima, ii 1, 413a3-5). So, unless we are prepared to treat forms in
general as capable of existing without their material bases, as does Plato and

ontological dualism with him, we should not be inclined to treat souls as
exceptional cases. Hylemorphism gives us no reason to treat souls as separable
from bodies, even if we think of them as distinct from their material bases.
However, Aristotle does not appear to think his hylemorphism somehow refutes
all possible dualism. For he appends to this denial of the soul's separability
from the body the observation some parts of the soul may in the end be
separable after all, since they are not the actualities of any part of the body
(De Anima, ii 1, 413a6-7). This view prefigures his complex attitude toward
mind ("nous"), a faculty he repeatedly describes as exceptional among
capacities of the soul. It is this faculty which, in his theory of knowledge, is
linked with the "intellectus agens", the active intellect "abstracting" the essence
of an object, and this by using the manifold gathered by the passive intellect
on the basis of the senses.
But in general, the Hermes-form is the actuality of the bronze statue, since its
presence explains why this particular quantity of matter comes to be a bronze
statue of Hermes as opposed to some other kind of artefact. Looking at soulbody
relations as a special case of form-matter relations references the soul as
an integral part of any complete explanation of living beings in general. So
Plato and other dualists are right to stress the importance of the soul in
explanations of living beings. But their commitment to the separability of the
soul from the body is unjustified merely by appeal to formal causation.
Aristotle allows the soul to be distinct from the body, namely as its actuality,
but this does not provide the ground for supposing the soul can exist without
the body, i.e. it does not justify the ontological difference between body &
mind. His hylemorphism embraces neither reductive materialism, nor Platonic
ontological dualism. Instead, it seeks to steer a middle course between these
alternatives by pointing out these are not exhaustive options.
When Thomism integrated the Peripatetic view, the notion the soul came to its
end with the demise of the body had, in view of survivalist Christian theology,
to be "corrected". This was done by supposing that after death the soul became
the form of a subtle, spiritual body.
8.3 Cartesian Interactionism.
Descartes (1595 - 1650), the first modern philosopher, shaped the current
understanding of the mind/body problem. He clearly & distinctly conceived his
mind to exist without body and his body without mind, and concluded they
must be separable, different, irreducible "natures" or substances.
As the body, like a clock, was a complex mechanical device of sorts, the mind

ecame a kind of "ghost in the machine".
For Descartes in Le Monde, a rational view on how body & soul, the spatiotemporally
extended and the merely temporally extended, indeed form a unity
can be arrived at by studying both independently. He wrote : "and finally, that
I show You how these two Natures have to be joined and united in order to
compose humans who resemble us." (Adam & Tannery, 1964-1974, XI, p.120).
Cartesius seeks the interaction between the physically extended ("res
extensa") and the non-physical ("res cogitans") in the pineal gland. But as in
this crucial argument, the presumed interactions, like a Deus ex machina,
happened by way of a special ontological category acting as their justifiable
bridge, the reasoning was flawed (logically, because of Ockham's Razor, and
scientifically because the pineal gland houses no "spirit-beings").
Often ridiculed because of this weak conjecture to back a central question,
Cartesian interactionism became a bad start for interactionism as a whole.
Later rationalists like Spinoza (1632 - 1677) & Leibniz (1646 - 1716) avoided
interactionist strategies ... In this way, they did not need to explain how nonextended
substance contacts extended substance (and this in the context of a
mechanistic physics in which causation is by contact). Popper (1981) tried to
clarify why rationalism & materialism are incompatible, for the distinction
between the extended thing ("res extensa") and the thinking thing ("res
cogitans") is fundamental to science.
Recently, the question of how body and mind interact is replaced by asking
how interaction is possible without energy ? As the laws of thermodynamics
apply, the non-physical, to have impact, must expend energy and so add
energy, violating its principle of conservation. Although this problem has been
addressed without violating energy-conservation, a definitive solution, no doubt
inspired by the Copenhagen interpretation of the Schrödinger equation of
quantum theory, identifies the "activity" of mind as a mere weighting of
propensities, making certain outcomes more likely than others. This involves a
rearrangement of the physical order by a change in its underlying propensitystructure
of possible outcomes, not by any actual physical occasions (always in
need of energy). Hence, this phenomenon can only occur in large populations
driven by statistical laws and a chaotic phase-space allowing for the Butterflyeffect
(small causes, large effects). What happens in neurons and at their
synapses being a very suitable candidate for this conjectured propensity-bridge
or immaterial "liaison" between the brain and the mind. The mind "scan" the
brain, makes a choice and alters by making certain outcomes more likely. It
interacts with the propensity-field (cf. Popper) of the brain at any given
moment. So likelihood is the occasion allowing mental and physical entities to
interact (cf. Panexperientialism).

8.4 Occasionalism.
Occasionalism, using the substances "matter", "mind" and "God", elaborates
upon the consequences of ontological dualism, claiming finite things can have
no efficient causality of their own. Substances cannot be the efficient causes of
events. In ontological monism, the question how two or more substances relate
is a non-issue, for only one substance prevails. But as soon as the numerical
singularity of the fundamental principle (the monad) is relinquished for dualism
(the dyad), thinking change and interrelatedness brings on the question how
different kind of things relate ? Occasionalism rejects the possibility of any kind
of relation whatsoever. Different substances can a priori never bridge their
natures. All physical & mental phenomena are merely "occasions" or
happenings on their own, devoid of any interconnectedness and efficient
power, utterly incapable of changing themselves.
Physical "stuff" cannot act as cause of other physical "stuff", for no necessary
connection can be observed between physical causes and their physical effects
(a view returning in the writings of David Hume, for whom causality and other
lawful determinations are merely psychological habits). Moreover, mind and
brain are so utterly different, the one cannot affect the other. Hence, a
person's mind cannot be the true cause of his hand's moving. The mental
cannot cause the physical and vice versa.
Ergo, as events do exist, they must be caused directly by God Himself. For
what God wills has to be taken to be necessary.
This remarkable view, first propounded by the tenth-century Muslim thinker al-
Ash'are, can be found in the writings of Cartesians Johannes Clauberg (1622 -
1665), Arnold Geulincx (1624 - 1669) and Nicolas Malebranche (1638 - 1715).
8.5 Psycho-Physical Parallelism and Panpsychism.
In Spinoza's Short Treatise on God, Man and his Well-Being, the ontological
dualism of Cartesianism is rejected and replaced by a single substance in its
various states or modes. Nature (or God), possessing and infinite number of
attributes, is "seen" by human beings as a unity of what is extended (matter)
and what thinks. Understanding interactionism cannot be explained in the
context of essentialism, Spinoza writes : "if there were different beings in
nature, the one could not possibly unite with the other" (Short Treatise, I, 2).
Substances are distinguished by their attributes. As no substance can be
constituted by any attribute unless constitutes by every attribute there is, there
can only be one substance and it must be "absolutely infinite". Matter has an
"inside" aspect with a consciousness-like "quality", in other words, both run

parallel like the outside & inside of an eggshell. Matter and soul are the outside
and inside aspects, or attributes, of one and the same unique & singular
substance, i.e. "Nature", which is the same as "God".
"... all things are animate in various degrees."
Spinoza : Ethica, II, XIII Scholium.
Psycho-physical parallelism (or dual aspect theory) regulates the world of
attributes, both in the Divine substance and in its derived modes. The
attributes of thought and extension are irreducible and so any transition from
one to the other is impossible. Still, the series of phenomena manifesting
themselves in thought coincides perfectly with the series of phenomena of
extension. So the order of ideas coincides with the order of bodies. This
coincidence is rooted in the unity of substance of which such phenomena are
the modes, appearances or manifestation. Given the irreducibility of thought to
extension, no interaction between soul and body is possible ; but granted
psycho-physical coincidence or agreement, every manner of being and of
operation of thought finds its equivalent in the being and operation of
extension. Spinozistic parallelism is a panpsychism, for amorph aggregates like
a rock are also in some way "conscious". Mind is the idea associated with a
body, and all bodies have a mental aspect.
So with this parallelism, an identity of order or correspondence between modes
of different attributes is at hand. These modes of different attributes have not
only the same order and the same connection, but the same being ; they are
the same things, namely modes of the one substance, Nature (God). Attributes
are really distinct, parallel series that have no causal action between them.
There is no causal connection between the modes of one attribute upon modes
of another. There is identity of order and connection between modes of
different attributes. Because attributes constitute one substance, corresponding
modes differing in attribute form one modification.
"Thus the organic body of each living being is a kind of Divine machine or
natural automaton, which infinitely surpasses all artificial automata. For a
machine made by the skill of man is not a machine in each of its parts. For
instance, the tooth of a brass wheel has parts or fragments which for us are
not artificial products, and which do not have the special characteristics of the
machine, for they give no indication of the use for which the wheel was
intended. But the machines of nature, namely, living bodies, are still machines
in their smallest parts ad infinitum. It is this that constitutes the difference
between nature and art, that is to say, between the Divine art and ours."
Leibniz, G.W. : Monadology, § 64.
Breaking away from monism (Spinoza, focusing on God), dualism (Descartes,

focusing on the "res cogitans"), Leibniz's strikingly systematic metaphysics
posits a pluralism of substances. Inspired by physics, he focused on the "res
extensa". For Leibniz, "monads" (mentioned for the first time in a letter to
Fardella in 1696) are singular, partless substances. There are an infinite
number of monads or "points", and they are all substantially identical
(pluralism) and unextended intensities or "souls". But in terms of quality and
force, each monad is unique (having its own unique logical combination). In
the "first monad" (or God) are found all possible "letters" in all possible logical
combinations. Although inspired by physical atomism (dividing matter in
smaller and smaller parts to arrive at the "atom"), Leibniz does not -contrary to
Hobbesian materialism- designate a final term to this series of divisions of
matter. The continuity among existing things is not based on indivisible
material quantities, but on indivisible non-material monads.
In the Lehsätze über die Monadologie published in 1720 by Köhler (based on
Leibniz's Opus Magnum, his Essay on Theodicy of 1710), these immaterial
monads are independent, unique, singular, all-comprehensive and
imperishable. Each monad remains what it is, nothing can be added to it or
taken away from it. It has no "windows" (§ 7), meaning nothing can enter it or
go out from it. Each is unique because each possesses a rich qualitative
structure of accidents giving it its own nature, and this by a unique
combination of properties and its own logical sequence of development. Hence,
each monad is a living being permanently actualizing in itself a unique
structure, lawfulness, active force or design (§ 11). This uniqueness of each
monad is not a universal or "essence" of a species (as in the "causa materialis"
of Scholasticism), but the result of an active force attributed to each monad.
This vitalism is associated -not with Cartesian mechanistic linear impulse-, but
with a higher "kinetical" force (cf. Huygens E = m.v²). Matter is dynamical &
energetical.
So in this monadic immaterial sufficient ground of empirical reality a dynamical
"force active" is present. Not quantity is what changes all the time, but quality,
in other words, this vital force. This force serves a double purpose : (a) the
realization of increasingly complex forms of material organization (the
evolution of matter) and (b) an urge towards apperception, i.e. the reflective
knowledge of the monad of its own inner conditions. Each monad is constantly
changing from one state to the other, and this by virtue of the alteration of its
inner properties and relationships with the other monads. This interconnection
with other monads is happens by virtue of the immanent law within each
monad (regulating series or "series operationum"), for each monad is a mirror
of the whole world ("esse partes totales").
The substantial form is a teleological principle, in that every substance "sings"
its part in the universal harmony by knowing & intentionally following its part of

the universal "score". This part corresponds to its complete individual concept,
built into its substantial form. Hence, each monad is self-referential, lonely and
without any real connection with other monads. None of them acts on another,
and so all substances are causally independent from each other. Only the first
monad acts on the monads, causing their existence, though their actual states
are produced by their own natures. The first monad created an infinite set of
monads whose natures are so harmonious each successive state of a monad
(though determined by the nature of each individual monad alone), mirrors the
corresponding states of all other monads.
Monads are imperishable because something without parts cannot be
destroyed. They appear and disappear "in one piece", while all other entities do
so in pieces (§§ 4 - 5). Monads are literally "automatons", i.e. something
moving on its own accord. Appearing realities are merely phenomena of the
spiritual monads. These divisible bodies are organic wholes animated by
monads. They are the outer side of the implicate "plenum" constituted by these
immaterial monads. This leads to hylozoism. All things are alive, for in all
things immaterial, spiritual monads enter. And vice versa, for the indivisible
appears as divisible. This outer, divisible side is not substantial (as Descartes &
Spinoza thought). Divisible matter is reduced to being a mere representation (§
61) of the indivisible, spiritual monads. Matter is unable to think itself, and so
materialism is self-defeating.
"If there is no other principle of identity in a material body than the properties
just named (i.e. extension, form & movement), then not a single body would
exist longer than a moment."
Leibniz, G.W. : Metaphysical Treatise, 1686, § 12.
As a function of their qualitative ability to "perceive", i.e. move from one
situation of properties & combination to another, and "apperceive", i.e. know
by way of reflection their inner conditions, a hierarchy of monads can be
defined (starting with totally unclear to more or less clear, ending in absolutely
clear). This hierarchy of being has six tiers : (1) inorganical aggregates
(unconscious perceptions), (2) sleeping monads like plants (unconscious
perceptions), (3) dreaming monads like animals (sensation & memory), (4)
perceptive monads like humans (little conscious or very unconscious), (5)
apperceptive monads like humans (rational souls & spirits) and (6) God the
"monad monadum" or "primitive monad" (§ 47), the sufficient ground of
everything, possessing a completely clear concept of all the actual and all the
possible (§ 43), a monad able to oversee in a single thought all possibilities in
all possible combinations.
Rather than by way of the hand of God and His "continuing miracle", as in
occasionalism, mental and bodily processes correspond not because they

interact, but because they are fortuitous, having no cause. Agreement exists
just as two clocks would be in agreement if they had been started at the same
time and were accurate enough. The perfect correlation between mind and
body was ensured by God at the beginning of time in a "pre-established
harmony".
A modern version of parallelism is "neutral monism", found in Hume (1711 -
1776), Mach (1838 - 1916) and Russell (1872 - 1970). There is only a physical
ordering of "neutral" things or events and a mental ordering of the same things
or events. The things or events considered "physical" or "mental" are in fact
named as a function of the context in which they are conceived. There is only
an epistemological difference, not an ontological one. "Physical" means
something coming within the scope of physics and "mental" is explained with
the help of psychology and human activity. There are only two realms of
theories, two systems of ordering things. Every element belongs to both
orderings, but it is possible an element belonging to the body does not belong
to the mind. The main point claims the physical world and the mental world are
merely theoretical constructions of the fundamental "stuff" : "the given". One
may of cause criticize this position by observing these allegedly neutral given is
only called "neutral", for in truth they are "mental", i.e. procedures,
constructions or theoretical manipulations of physical objects.
The doctrine of panpsychism or hylozoism is very old. Plato & Aristotle reports
Thales taught "Everything is full of gods" (Laws, 899b, De Anima, 417a7). Even
Democritus regarded the psyche as a very special kind of matter. With the
moral theory of the soul, hylozoism became discredited. Nevertheless, Plato
calls the universe "a living body endowed with a soul" (Timaeus, 30b/c).
Widespread among Renaissance thinkers like Campanella & Bruno,
panpsychism received its classical form by Spinoza & Leibniz (cf. psychophysical
parallelism).
We should distinguish between classical hylozoism, attributing life, mind and
consciousness to all material objects, and a contemporary form accepting
actual occasions also possess a mental mode, while aggregates of occasions, as
mere collections of occasions, do not. This allows one to say a rock is
insentient, while atoms, molecules, plants, animals & humans have, in varying
degrees, the ability of self-organize, trigger novelty and experience unity. This
distinction is crucial to understand the panexperientialism of Process Philosophy.
8.6 Physicalism : Analytical Behaviourism and Identity or Central State Theory.
"... a physicalist has only two genuine options, eliminativism and reductionism."
Kim, J. : "The Myth of Nonreductive Materialism.", in : Moser & Trout, 1995, p.134.

The following positions (8.6 - 8.9), in one form or another, embrace
materialism (physical behaviour), and so reject, render passive or reduce
sentience (mental events).
Physicalism, a revised form of materialism, replaces "matter" by "all objects
covered by physical theory", either in actuality (incomplete) or prospectively
(complete). Applied to the issue at hand, it says mental phenomena are just a
special case of physical phenomena. Moreover, it breaks away from
essentialism. Human beings are physical organisms with two distinctive kinds
of states : physical and mental. Its two versions are Analytical Behaviourism
and the Identity theory.
In Analytical Behaviourism, mind is only (actual or potential) behaviour of
body, and so mind = physical behaviour. Behavioural analysis should not
contain unanalyzed mental items. However, this ideal condition can not be met,
for a residue of such items will always be left, causing more behavioural
analysis (infinite regression). This cripples the argument. Moreover, insistence
on reducing mental states to behavioural patterns or dispositions to engage in
such, makes one deny the existence of an "inner" subjective state, as well as
first person knowledge regarding mental states. This results in an anthropology
& psychology unable to encompass free choice, freedom and other crucial
human values. Denying black swans exist, Analytical Behaviourism is blind to
what is obvious.
For Analytical Behaviourism, each mentalistic statement is equivalent in
meaning to a statement referring to patterns of behaviour or dispositions to
behave. It rejects mental events and properties are involved in causal
explanations of other mental events and physical events. It considers it "a
category mistake" to say mental events "causes" behaviour, since mentalistic
statements do not describe the neural happenings causing the behaviour. They
merely describe either patterns of behaviour or dispositions to behave (Ryle,
1949). This highly implausible, crude form of Analytical Behaviourism
eliminates the importance of consciousness, intention and inner life. It cannot
explain the presence of these central phenomena. Neither does it explain how
neuronal statements are able to solve problems involving mentalistic
statements. The fact these problems also involve the conscious interpretation
of neuronal statements, the whole exercise is hardly convincing and somewhat
circular & self-defeating (by way of a contradictio in actu exercito).
Central state theory is a physicalist modification of parallelism : there exists an
"identity" between mental processes and certain brain processes. Every mental
state is identical with some physical state, in particular various sorts of neural
states (Smart, 1962). This is not a logical identity, but a single class of material
properties describable by means of two different vocabularies, just as the

planet Venus is both "evening star" and "morning star", two different
appearances of the same material object (linguistic parallelism). In other
words, while mental predicates differ in meaning from behavioural and physical
predicates, they refer to neurophysiological properties, and so descriptions of
mental events refer to neurophysiological events. By finding the "bridge laws",
mental and physical predicates can be connected. Mental events may cause
material events, for neurophysiological events cause behaviour. Mental
properties enter into the laws explaining behaviour because they are
neurophysiological properties and these enter into laws ...
This leads to a problem about the properties of mental states. Suppose pain P
is identical with a certain firing N in the brain. Although P is the very same
state as the firing N, we identify P in two different ways : as the actual pain P
and as the neural firing N. Regarding the mental state P, two sets of properties
emerge : mental properties when identified as P and physical properties when
identified as N. A kind of dualism at the level of the properties of mental states
arises. So identifying mental states with physical states does not eliminate the
fact mental states have mental and physical properties ! In other words, the
two vocabularies do point to different properties. Mental states can be divided
in propositional attitudes having content ("I have the thought that it will rain.),
intentionality and sensations. The above problem is most pressing for
sensations, for even if mental states are all identical with physical states, the
former appear to have non-physical properties. For Smart the distinctive
properties of sensations are "neutral" as between being mental or physical.
However, since thoughts and sensations are distinctively mental states, it
perforce has some characteristically mental property and this is lost if we
construe these properties as "topic-neutral". Although one may construe
intentional properties as wholly physical, it is unlikely some properties will not
turn out to be non-physical, even we recast the identity theory as asserting
mental states are identical with bodily states.
Another problematic consequence of the strong central state theory is that
members of different species do not share mental properties. This can be
solved by weakening the identity claim. Instead, every instance of a mental
state is identical with an instance of some bodily state, of some type or other.
Instances of a single mental state might then be identical with tokens of
distinct bodily types (the token Identity theory - Armstrong, 1968 & Lewis,
1972). However, if physical-state types do not correspond to mental-state
types, this theory is false. For Davidson (1970), an event token only belongs to
a mental type relative to background assumptions about mentality, whereas
tokens of physical events are independent of such a background, a claim easily
criticized (for even experiments have metaphysical backgrounds).
If mental events are just brain processes, then they must have the physical

properties brain events have. Given the binding problem (the conscious
experience of unity versus the manifold of neuronal happenings, free choice
versus determinacy) and a-symmetry (the privacy of consciousness & intention
versus the public nature of neurophysiological properties) this is not the case.
Indeed, if this supposed identity would be the case, then brain events must
have mental properties by virtue of which the mental events with which they
are identical are the kinds of events they are. Then no differences could in any
case be identified.
Another problem is the absence of the supposed bridge-laws after many
decades of central state conjectures. The theory also fails to explain how
neurological events & properties exemplify consciousness and intentionality. A
complete understanding of neurophysiology (by itself a very difficult goal to
achieve), leaves the qualitative character of both unexplained (cf. Nagel, 1974
& Jackson, 1986). And precisely this inner, private conscious life is the one
individuals directly experience. So one fails short in addressing the most
important fact : reality-for-us is impossible without reality-for-me. Finally, how
to explain intentional states neurophysiologically ? A concept of something, say
X, refers to a semantic field defined by the person thinking the concept and the
various features of his or her environment. Two people could be exactly alike in
terms of their neurophysiology and nevertheless think, believe and so on
different concepts, for these are causally connected to different semantic fields
(cf. Putnam, 1967).
8.7 Eliminativism, Epiphenomenalism and Behaviourism.
Eliminativism (Rorty, 1979) bluntly denies mental events & properties are
instantiated. There are no such properties at all. Mentalistic statements are like
mythical, fantastic & fictional statements. Like statements designating
supernatural powers, they are false. Nothing has mental properties, for all
things are merely physical. Hence, identity cannot be established, for "mental"
and "physical" are incompatible terms. This proposal depends solely on
whether or not one holds the mental as non-physical. This can be avoided by
saying current "folk psychology" is a mistaken & defective conception of the
mental (Churchland, 1981). Of course, this does not show mental states do not
exist, nor that a better psychology cannot be found. Eliminative arguments
always require some special way to define the mental, one not in line with what
is commonly understood by them. Without this, it turns into an Identity theory.
Moreover, by denying inner life, Eliminativism works with nothing more than
physical behaviour. But logically, it fails to show its truth-value. For to justify
itself, eliminativism must appeal to mental principles, norms & maxims of
validation. So to prove itself correct, it must use what it denies. A completely
self-defeating strategy. Of course, the wrong view has the merit to invoke a

adical revision in our habitual conception of ourselves.
In Epiphenomenalism, one does not wish to move to the extreme of eliminating
the mental, avoiding being ridiculed by any self-defeating mental slapstick. The
mental is a necessary by-product of the physical. Accepted as real, it is made
totally passive and trivial. Mental events and states figure in causal relations as
effects only, ever as causes. It is never the case, for example, that a state
causally results in a happy mood in virtue of falling in love ...
Behaviourism, the psychological version of physicalism, claims there is nothing
to the mind but the subject's behaviour and dispositions to behave (cf. the
stimulus-response model, leaving out internal process). This total repudiation
of the inner leaves out something real and important. Even behaviourists
themselves agree an "intractable residue" of conscious mental items, bearing
no clear relations to behaviour of any particular sort, abide. Finally, it is
possible two people to differ psychologically despite total similarity of their
actual and counterfactual behaviour ...
8.8 Anomalous Monism, Supervenient Emergentism.
For Anomalous Monism (Supervenient Emergentism), there are only material
substances, but they possess physical properties and mental properties
(Davidson, 1970). It accepts materialism, but rejects the type-identities
assumed by the Identity theory, i.e. mental versus behaviour types. Mental
events are token-identical to physical events, i.e. individual instances. They are
therefore subsumable under physical laws. They depend on the physical but
are not reduced to it. Mental properties supervene on (come on top of) a more
basic physical, subvenient, basal, ultimately physical phenomenon. There can
be changes in the supervenient mental phenomena if and only if there are
corresponding changes in the basal phenomena, and not vice versa.
Supervenient phenomena emerge from, and are asymmetrically dependent for
their existence upon the basal structure. There is upward causality, no
downward (hence, mind does not change brain). How mental phenomena,
which differ from physical ones, can emerge from the basal material reality is
unclear. Again, the distinction between first and third person perspectives
yields an unsatisfactory view on consciousness. But there is more.
Although mental events are reduced to material events, this view endorses the
irreducible nature of mental properties. But as these properties or predicates
have no role in laws, they are epiphenomena. Perhaps this view is incompatible
with there being an account of the physical basis of intentionality. Whatever
the case, none is provide. If supervenience is accepted, then how come there is
no physical account of intentionality ? How can one posit that changes in
consciousness are only possible if and only if there are neuronal changes and

not explain the physicality of intentionality ?
8.9 Functionalism.
In functionalism, the notion of the mind as an entity, as a substance, is
rejected. The mind is a function of the physical brain. The function y = f(x) =
x² allows one to derive values of y with any given x. A function is not physical
in nature (for it can be specified abstractly), neither is it non-physical, for it
resists classification. In order to explain mental states, they are reduced to
input/output structures. However, genuine thoughts have meaning and
intentionality, whereas the words displayed on a screen as I type this out have
meaning to us as userware but not to the "functional" computer. This is the
problem of Machine Functionalism, describing human brains at three levels :
(a) neurophysiological, (b) machine-program or computational and (c)
everyday mental (folk-psychological).
Functionalism is compatible with physicalism, but, unlike Behaviourism and the
Identity theory, it does not necessarily entail the physical nature of minds, for
it might be the case minds are non-physical and functional (as long as they
realize the relevant programs). In a physicalist view, functional states (the
mental) are always realized in physical mechanisms. Different physical states
may realize the same functional state (solving one of the problems of the
Identity theory). If mental events are functional properties, then unless there
are some "special" considerations to be made about them, then in terms of
causation they are at the same level of non-mental functional properties, say,
being an eye. Insofar as mental properties are functions of physical entities,
then physicalist functionalism works. But consciousness and intention do not
seem to be functional properties. The latter implies these properties are
exemplified, which is not the case for consciousness. It seems not instantiated
by anything (cannot be found) and so cannot be a functional property. The only
things found is a transient empirical ego, but not the conscious experience of
unity founding personhood.
Regarding intentionality, the question is how physical states can be sensitive to
the semantic sensitivity of intentional states in a way conceptual thought
clearly is ? Moreover, as the process of reasoning from evidence has (so far)
resisted computational commands (and some claim consciousness will never be
computed), and changes of mind involve changes in the relevance relations
among mental events (the weighting of probabilities), physicalist functionalism
comes in troubled waters.
If the restrictions imposed by Machine Functionalism are lifted, and mental
states are accepted as non-physical and not always realized in physical
mechanisms (but possessing their own psychic mechanism), then physical

states can be functions of mental states (downward causation) and mental
states can be functions of physical states (upward causation). With mind = f
(body), the influence of the brain on the mind is restricted to causal efficiency
by way of changes in executional (computational) and so energetic capacity.
With body = f(mind), the mind relates to the brain via final causality, weighting
possibilities and deciding for the most likely outcome (free choice). This does
not involve any energy, for the process only entails a change in the valuation of
possible outcomes in large populations of neuronal events. The mind influences
the brain without adding or taking away energy from it, but merely makes
certain physical outcomes more likely than others. This psychophysical
functionalism can be integrated in a process-based approach of Nature.
If brain and mind are two distinct domains of causation (physical, efficient and
mental, finative), i.e. distinct actual occasions, then the organic organization of
the human being as a whole, its unity, is a functional interactionism, beginning
with conception and ending with the demise of the physical body. The end of
this mutual functionality between brain and mind is not the end of the
distinctness of these actual occasions. The "end" of the physical body is an
"entry" into the stream of efficient causation of new material occasions
(recycling). This endlessness is the recurrent return of the same (eternity). The
moment the mind stops being a function of the brain and the brain a function
of the mind, that moment of consciousness if followed by another moment of
consciousness, one in which the mind enters it own beginningless stream of
consciousness. This endlessness is everlastingness. This entry is not
necessarily disembodied, for one may assume it enters a functional relationship
with more subtle forms of support.
8.10 Panexperientalism.
"Each portion of matter may be conceived as like a garden full of plants and
like a pond full of fishes. But each branch of every plant, each member of every
animal, each drop of its liquid parts is also some such garden or pond. And
though the Earth and the air which are between the plants of the garden, or
the water which is between the fish of the pond, be neither plant nor fish ; yet
they also contain plants and fishes, but mostly so minute as to be
imperceptible to us."
Leibniz, G.W. : Monadology, §§ 67-68.
Panexperientalism embraces process metaphysics ; processes rather than
things represent the phenomena encountered in Nature. Process has primacy
and priority over things. Strict process ontology rejects substances and so is
not essentialist. For substantialist, the principle "Operari sequitur esse" holds.
This means every process is owned by some substance. Here one thinks
substance first and then views change as accidental to it. Process thought

inverses the principle : "Esse sequitur operari" ; things are constituted out of
the flow of process. So things are what they do. Change is thought first and
things are momentary arisings, abidings & ceasings of dynamical units. A
process is an integrated series of connected developments coordinated by an
open & creative program. It is not a mere collection of sequential presents or
moments, but exhibits a structure allowing a construction made from materials
of the past to be passed on to the future. This transition is not one-to-one, not
merely efficient, for the internal make-up of its occasions shapes a new
particular concretion, bears finality allowing for creative advance or novelty.
Actual occasions, the units of process, are Janus-faced : they take from the
past and, on the basis of an inner, finative structure, transform states of
affairs, paving the way for further processes. They are not merely productproductive,
manufacturing things, but state-transformative. Although
indivisible, actual occasions are not "little things", but a differential change "dt"
explained in terms of efficient & final causation.
Heraclites, thinking process first & foremost, avoids the fallacy of
substantializing Nature into perduring things like substances. Fundamentally,
everything flows ("panta rhei") and although Plato disliked this principle ("like
leaky pots" - Cratylus, 440c), he accepted it insofar as the "world of becoming"
goes. Aristotle too saw the natural (sublunar) world exhibit a collective, chaotic
dynamism. Change is fundamental, and the latter is the transit from mere
possibility (potency) to the realization (act) of this potential, and this to the
point of perfection ("entelecheia"). This makes Peripatetic thought pervasively
processual. Of course, both Plato & Aristotle accepted the presence of
substance, either as a fundamental transcendent reality or as inherently
natural & biological (cf. hylemorphism). And both, although in a different way,
accept the Greek prejudice for Olympic states (cf. Plato's "world of ideas" and
Aristotle's view on contemplative knowledge/life, the "active intellect", the
"Unmoved Mover" and the "actus purus").
The standard bearer of process metaphysics in modern times is of course
Gottfried Wilhelm Freiherr von Leibniz. The fundamental units of Nature are
punctiform, non-extended, "spiritual" processes called "monads", filling space
completely and thus constituting a "plenum" (cf. supra). These monads or
"incorporeal automata" are bundles of activity, endowed with an inner force
(appetition), ongoingly destabilizing them and providing for a processual course
of unending change. And it was in the writings of Leibniz that Alfred North
Whitehead (1861 - 1947), the dominant figure in recent process thought, found
inspiration. Like Leibniz, he considered physical processes as of first
importance and other sorts of processes as superengrafted upon them. The
concept of an all-integrating physical field being pivotal (cf. the influence of
Maxwell's field equations). But unlike Leibniz, the units of process are not

substantial spiritual "monads", but psycho-physical "actual occasions".
These are not closed (not self-sufficient like substances), but fundamentally
open to other occasions, by which they are entered and in which they enter.
Thus their perpetual perishing is matched by their perpetual (re)emergence in
the "concrescence" of new occasions. Like Leibniz however, these occasions
"prehend" (Leibniz spoke of "perception" and "apperception") their
environment and this implies a low-grade mode of sentience (spontaneity, selfdetermination
and purpose). They are living & interacting units of elemental
experience. They are part of the organic organization of Nature as a whole, but
constitute themselves an organism of sorts, with a constitution of its own.
Nature is a manifold of diffused processes spread out, but forming an organic,
integrated whole. As was the case in the ontology of Leibniz, macrocosm and
microcosm are coordinated. Not because each actual occasion mirrors the
whole, but because they reach out and touch other occasions, forming, by way
of complexification, aggregates and individualized societies of occasions.
This is not a panpsychism. While individual occasions, which are not
substantial, thing-like, but the common unit of process, possess, besides a
physical, objective mode, also a mental, subjective, experiential mode (final
causation), non-individualized aggregates or compounds of occasions do not
and are therefore insentient (like rocks). The presence of these rules out
panpsychism, i.e. the claim all things live. Moreover, the mental mode of a
single occasion has the lowest possible degree of freedom. This low-order
experience should not be compared with the activity of societies of occasions
like the high-order conscious experience of human beings. Only when an actual
occasion, by entering into another actual occasions (adding its concretion or
internal make-up to others), helps bringing actual occasions together, can the
creativity of the sea of process eventually bring about individualized societies
consciously experiencing their own unity (as in atoms, molecules, minerals,
plants, animals, humans, ...). Here the process of evolution is at work,
producing more complex organizations of actual occasions, interpenetrating
each other.
"... every quantum event is associated with an element that cannot be
adequately conceptualized in terms of the precepts of classical physics, but that
resides in a realm of realities that are not describable in terms of the concepts
of classical physics, but that include our conscious thoughts, ideas, and feeling."
Stapp, 2007, p.98.
For panexperientialism, "physical entities" are always physico-mental (or, what
comes down to the same, psycho-physical). Focusing on efficient causation,
and the emergence of an independent mental out of the physical, actual
occasions are physico-mental. But insofar as final causation is concerned, and

ecause of the downward causation effectuated by high-order minds on subtle
physical processes, actual occasions are psycho-physical.
The organic togetherness of actual occasions has various levels, ranging from
actual occasions, events, entities, to insentient compounds and individualized
societies with varying degrees of freedom. On Earth, the highest level is the
dominant occasion of experience constituting the human mind. As even actual
occasions, with at least an iota of self-determination, provide the lowest-level
example of the emergence of a higher-level actuality (namely the creativity
resulting from the incorporation of the decision characterizing its mental mode
in the efficient causality entering another actual occasion, appropriating data
from its vicinity), we may understand, in comparison, brain cells as highly
complex centres of experiential creativity. So in terms of efficient causation, we
may say the mind emerged from the brain. But in terms of final causation, we
may say the possibilities offered by the brain are "weighed" and then chosen
by the mind (emerged from the brain). Moreover, the emergent property (the
mind as an actual entity in its own right), is able to exert a causal influence
(final & efficient) of its own. Mental causation is not epiphenomenal, for besides
the upward causation from the body to the mind, there is the selfdetermination
by the mind, and on the basis of this, downward causation from
the mind to the body. This is possible because mind and body are not two
different kind of things, but both highly complex individualized societies of
actual occasions, linked in a functional and interactionist way.
9. Functional Interactionism.
As Schopenhauer (1788 - 1860), in his The World as Will and Representation,
Whitehead understands human experience as constituting the model or ideal
type of the processes characterizing Nature in general. The full subjective
immediacy of the human living experience is taken as the starting-point.
Replacing this anthropocentrism brings in human experience as quintessential,
and natural process as enfeebled. We can then entertain an ontological
hierarchy, stretching from a single actual occasion, and its extremely low-grade
subjective mode, to the full-blown conscious & living experience of a human
being. This makes it easier to postulate experience beyond the human, not
ending evolution with human actuality.
Of course, in terms of the relation between mind and body, human experience
remains fundamental. The mind/body problem has to be addressed in
anthropocentric terms, for on our planet, humans are the only ones evidencing

the conscious experience of an inner life.
In a panexperiential approach, mind and brain constitute two distinct societies
of individuals. On a neurophysiological level, the brain is a highly complex &
creative organism. On a cognitive level, the mind too is such a living
organization. Although the mind emerged from the brain, it also realizes its
independence from it. Maybe physical death, the perishing of the brain, makes
the mind enter another stage of its constant evolution ... But at conception, the
opposite is at hand, for brain & mind are temporarily fused. And just as a child
grows up, becoming an individual, so the mind emancipates or emerges from
the living brain. Both are not made out of different stuff, but exhibit the bimodality
typical for all actual occasions. Both are only distinct entities, with
their own functional processes.
The evolution of the human mind is highly determined by memory just as the
individualization of a child is determined by language & knowledge. As
ontogenesis mimics phylogenesis, at first, in the mythical state of cognitive
development, the mind and the body intimately cohabit. Body-awareness and
consciousness of self form a unity. The awakening of an individual sense of
identity, crucial in the process of individualizing "my" human mind, is not
determined by the coordination of bodily movements (only offering a dim,
reflex-bound, opaque sense of selfhood, as found in animals), but by the
introduction of semiotic factors. Signals, icons and symbols, i.e. meaningful
glyphs or embodied information, "awaken" the sense of selfhood and trigger
the start of an actual living conscious experience (cf. the stage of the mirror -
Lacan). Because the human body, with its dormant, potential sense of
selfhood, is spoken to as an "I", the crucial factor enabling the individuation of
the mind to start is actualized. By giving me "a name", mental coordinations
are no longer solely defined by bodily coordinations, but individualize as a
function of the presence of language in the direct environment. The surplus of
neurons can be brought down and their inner interdependence increased. Out
of the living brain the mind emerges and immediately starts its downward
causation, reorganizing the brain. The child is also the teacher of his parents.
Insofar as the child is not spoken to, is not given a name, the brain solidifies its
efficient causations, and the mind is not given the tools to emerge &
emancipate and so cannot enter its final causations in the stream of experience
of the brain. As a result, the brains remains primitive and the mind "locked" up
in and by it ... Only its physical demise may allow this mind to enter another
stream, but then without having profited from individualized mental
experiences.
The challenge is to understand the brain as a whole as the "matrix" or
"mother" of the mind and the neocortex as the executive organ of human
consciousness. On this new cortex, there is -at birth- lots of "empty space" to

e filled in by our parents, peers and teachers. These influences allow the mind
to form an individualized society of actual occasions dominated by a single
actual occasion, namely selfhood, a first person perspective. All mental
occasions "happen" in the field of which this ego is the center. When
individualized (at the age of 12 when the "corpus callosum" is finished and
formal reasoning is possible), the mind starts to change the brain by way of
downward causation. Then, by ourselves, by realizing the "freedom" to "think
for ourselves" ... Usually, lots of changes have to be made to allow our brain to
be the proper conduit for who we are (in the C-world). The individualized mind,
by virtue of its subjective mode, introduces new actual occasions not present in
the "matrix" of the brain. Crisis, catastrophe and turbulence force the brain to
face these "new aspects" of how we shape ourselves. Each time, we force our
brain to act according to our conscious choices (just as our brain forces our
muscles with efferent enervation). This process only ends with physical death.
At every age, the brain is reorganized by the downward causation effectuated
by the mind, and the mind adapts to the upward causation stemming from the
brain. This is a functional interactionism, for during life, the mind is a function
of the brain (upward causation) and the brain is a function of the mind
(downward causation).
The crucial factor in downward causation is the emancipation of the mind by
open semiotic factors. Insofar as the mind is given no view or the wrong view,
it cannot by itself emerge as an individualized society of actual occasions, for it
cannot compensate for processes of efficient causation inherent in the brain.
Our mother needs to feed her child properly for it to develop a strong immunity
and a high intelligence (or ability to trigger creative advance). Although the
brain is also involved in final causation, this mainly leads to the integrity of the
physical. And so the mind is necessary to trigger change (downward causation
by way of final causation). Likewise, although the mind is also involved in
efficient causation, this mainly leads to the integrity of the particular "stream of
consciousness" of which a given mind is the momentary caretaker. And so the
brain is necessary to consolidate the executive functions (upward causation by
way of efficient causation). This mutual, functional interactionism between
body & mind is at work from the moment of conception, until the demise of the
physical body.
Under "open" semiotic factors is understood the correct view allowing for the
emergence of an individualized mind. This view is one teaching process instead
of substance, i.e. dynamic interdependence instead of static isolation. Insofar
as educational systems do not provide this, but nurture an essentialist view,
the mind is kept engrossed in the brain and its ability to develop a strong grip
on its final causation and so be very creative is crippled, resulting in more
suffering. The importance of a good education can therefore not be stressed

enough. This is however not like acquiring the antics of a social class, but
learning to emancipate from the forces that nurture us and this in a way
teaching the mind how to use its inner force to be creative (i.e. make use of its
ability to self-determinate novelty). Such depends, not on a university degree
or a high IQ or EQ, but on an awareness of how things truly are, i.e. empty of
inherent existence (void of substance) and universally interdependent.
The emergence of the mind from the brain does not necessarily imply the brain
"happens" first and is the sole efficient cause of the mind. As if the mind has to
be constructed ab ovo. The mind, as a separate, individualized mindstream has
its own causalities, both efficient & final. The moment the mind enters the
fertilized ovum, was indeed preceded by another moment of its own,
individualized stream. Apparently, entry into a new physical vehicle, in casu, a
very small and still undeveloped one, disables the mind of accessing these
previous memories. Although not spatial, any connection the mind makes with
a physical object, has an impact of its grip on the history of its own temporal
extensiveness. Becoming embodied again brings about a darkening, one
covering certain past memories and pushing them into the depths. They are
however not lost, and can be retrieved by adapted spiritual exercises like
meditation (yoga) and certain guided visualizations (qabalah). But anchoring
the mind in a gross physical vehicle is not meant to allow it to have an
overview of these previous instantiations of mind. So it seems the mind is a
kind of "tabula rasa", influenced by nature (body) and nurture (environment)
only. This reduction allows it to really identify with what happens to it while
interacting with the growing body, temporarily unencumbered by previous
histories. A similar process happens with dream-recall. Only by training the
mind to store in the body what happens to it in dreams is such recall as well as
the lucid dreaming possible. Like with altered states of consciousness, the
physical body acts as a valve, reducing the total available input to what is
necessary on the physical plane of reality, limiting what comes through the
"doors of perception" (Huxley). If this were not the case, a cacophony of
memories would ensue and building a "fresh" empirical ego would be
impossible.
The experience of great meditators does however shed another light. In the
East, with a collective mindset not a priori rejecting the possibility of previous
moments of consciousness before conception (not limited by a metaphysical
background viewing the soul as created at conception), the recovery of these
memories sometimes happens spontaneously and/or can be trained, as in the
case of the Buddha, who's awakening went hand in hand with him
remembering all his "previous lives", i.e. the memories of all the moments of
consciousness of his mindstream.

9.1 Solving the Mind/Body Problem ?
For monists like logical positivists, materialists, physicalists etc., there is no
mind/body problem, for there is no mind or it is irrelevant. The problem is
"solved" by eliminating or incapacitating the mind. This is merely a dogmatic
ad hoc solution, a way to more problems.
For dualists, accepting the ontological difference between both, any solution
will pose a fundamental problem, for how can two different kinds of stuff work
together without a "tertium comparationis" ? How to introduce the excluded
third ? This must be a kind of "mixture" of both "mental" and "physical" and so
the problem of how these two components of the mixture "work together"
returns. A new mixture can be proposed, etc. Here we have a regressus ad
infinitum. So if "solving" the problem means explaining how two different
substances work together, then we may safely regard it as unsolvable. This is
the nugget of truth physicalists have correctly identified.
In general, monists are right in claiming a single fundamental category suits
the unity of science best. Logically, monism also offers the most elegant form
for a possible ontology. But they are wrong in eliminating, reducing or crippling
the mind. Although it dispenses them from the need to explain how body &
mind communicate, it also impoverishes their explanation of the world, in
particular the exceptional nature -at least in this Solar system- of the human
phenomenon. The mind is to be considered as factual as the brain. Its distinct
features, namely intimacy, privacy, first person perspective, unity of conscious
experience, percipient participation etc. cannot be found in the brain and its
overt, public, third person perspective, manifold of neuronal events and
computational features. This is the nugget of truth mentalists have correctly
identified.
We seek logical elegance, lack of prejudices, no dogma's and a critical
openness & flexibility integrating, by way of argument, as many phenomena as
possible, including those disciplines existing at the periphery of the current
scientific paradigm (like astrology, magic & alchemy), as well as those
phenomena science cannot presently explain (like acupuncture, homoeopathy,
etc. & parapsychology, in particular telepathy & telekinesis, but also
poltergeist, out-of-the-body, near-death-experience and the like). If
metaphysics has to banish possibilities ab initio, then one better stops
speculating. Of course, accepting to critically study these phenomena with an
open mind is not the same as endorsing any multiplication of entities a priori.
To understand how Process Philosophy addresses the interaction between brain
& mind, three points have to be made clear : (a) fundamentally, all things are
the outcome of process, (b) body and mind are both "in process" and so not

ontologically different, but only ontically distinct, (c) all things, besides exerting
efficient causation, also have an "inside", capable of internal relatedness (final
causation). Accepting process as fundamental can be assisted by the paradox
of essentialism or substance metaphysics. Indeed, it is impossible to specify
exactly what a substance is without having recourse to process. Substances are
individualized by two kinds of properties, namely primary properties describing
substance as it is in and by itself and secondary properties, explaining the
impact of substance upon others as well as the response invoked from them.
The problem is one cannot explain what primary properties are over and above
what substances do in terms of their discernable effects. What remains when
we eliminate all processes, everything related to actions ? Is there a "thing" in
and by itself left over ? Or are all things merely the products of what happens ?
Process thought simplifies matters by a one-tier ontology. The designated
identities are the outcome of process and there is no mysterious "essence"
over and above these processes. While it is possible to conceive "unowned"
process (like in the phrase "it is getting warmer"), it is not possible to think
substance without relying on processes, to designate a thing detached from
process ...
Hence, both brain and mind are merely process and so both do not possess, as
ontological dualism proposes, an essence from their own side, independent
from what they do. In this way, Process Philosophy joins what the
Buddhadharma proposed a few millennia ago, namely the emptiness of all
phenomena and the ultimate logic making this clear.
Furthermore, the presence of final causation is crucial. Suppose it is rejected,
as in physicalism, then the "stuff" out of which the world is made is, in
Whitehead's words "vacuous". Then it becomes inconceivable how evolution
could bring about higher-level actualities, for "there is nothing to evolve,
because one set of external relations is a good as any other set of external
relations" (Whitehead, A.N. : Science and the Modern World, § 107). Final
causation brings in creativity, the ability of actual occasions to add the result of
their own self-determination & spontaneity to the sea of process, and so
creatively enter later occasions. Without it, there is only a set of external
structures, but never a hierarchy with dominant occasions or individualized
societies of actual occasions.
As most, if not all, recent scientific research has a materialist or physicalist
metaphysical research program working in the background (influencing the
"ceteris paribus" clause), consciousness is, at best, accepted but regarded as a
by-product of the brain (i.e. caused, generated, produced, made, constructed,
secreted, invented by the CNS, something merely supervenient). As nowhere in
the brain a "central control ganglion" has been found, indeed current

neurological research rather points to the model of multiple plastic neuronal
networks, the "binding problem" remains and clearly is the fundamental
practical problem facing physicalist neurology. Where in the brain is the "I
think", the unity of apperception, confirmed by a logical, transcendental and
phenomenological approach of the first person perspective, produced ? Why is
there unity rather than constant and overall variety ? This conscious experience
of unity is not found in the brain because it is not part of the brain. It is the
main feature of the individualized society "mind", instantiating a string of
moments, a stream of states of consciousness.
Like naive realism, materialism and physicalism repress the fact observation is
theory-laden. Subjectivity can not be eclipsed without eliminating the
possibility of knowledge itself. Eliminating subjectivity entails the end of
freedom, change and ethics. Is materialism not refuted by the subjective
energy invested by materialists in materialism (cf. the "contradictio in actu
exercito") ? The mere presence of cultural forms (the fact they are designated
or posited as such by the subject) refutes the theory (i.e. a cultural form itself)
saying only physical forms exist. Again the self-defeating streak of this kind of
reductionism.
9.2 A Triadic Model of What Works.
General process ontology posits bi-modal actual occasions with their three
functional domains as the ground of all possible phenomena, existing things,
objects, entities or items. Each actual occasion has a physical (efficient,
objective) and a mental (finative, subjective) mode. The arising of actual
occasions is caused by previous actual occasions, and this entry of past actual
occasions in what happens hic et nunc is by way of efficient causation. The
abiding of each actual occasion is its internal structure, causing choice, decision
or self-determination. When this happens, the actual occasion ceases, but this
perishing brings about an efficient influence on the next actual occasion, and
this influence has integrated the work of final causation.
Each actual occasion has three distinct operational domains, encompassing the
physical (matter) and the non-physical (information & consciousness) modes of
occasions. These domains explain the operation of three functionally different
societies of actual occasions, namely matter, information and consciousness.
The domain of "matter" calls for a the efficient causation entering each actual
occasion from past actual occasions, acting as its initial condition. The domain
of "information" is the totality of choices available to each actual occasion, i.e.
all weighed, possible knowledge this and no other actual occasion can choose
from. Finally, the domain of "consciousness" calls for an actual choice or
decision favouring the actual possibility with the highest probability in terms of

(a) the reinforcement of the experience of unity and (b) the greatest harmony
with other actual occasions.
Specific process ontology applies the scheme of general process ontology on
non-individualized compounds or aggregates of actual occasions and
individualized societies of actual occasions. In terms of the neurophilosophy of
process, three irreducible domains or operators are constantly at work in the
two individualized societies at hand, namely the brain and the mind. These are
derived from cybernetics, information-theory and artificial intelligence :
● hardware or matter : the mature, healthy, triune human brain is able, as a
physical object ruled by efficient causation, to process, compute and
execute complex algorhythms and integrate all kinds of neuronal activity -
the developed, individualized mind is able to be open to the efficient
causation resulting from previous moments of consciousness ;
● software or information : the inherent and acquired software (wiring) of
the brain, its memory & processing speed (in this "programming phase",
the first five years are crucial) - the individualized mind is an expertsystem
containing codes or knowledge to choose from when solving
problems ;
● userware or consciousness : the mature brain works according to its own
final causation, making choices to guarantee its organic functioning as a
manifold and affect necessary changes in its environment - individualized
consciousness or mind instantiates unified states of consciousness
(moment to moment intentional awareness) as a percipient participator
interacting meaningfully with its brain and the physical world.
9.3 How Brain-Mind Interaction Happens.
"Thus contemporary physical theory annuls the claims of mechanical
determinism. In a profound reversal of the classical physical principles, its laws
make your conscious choices causally effective in the physical world, while
failing to determine, even statistically, what those choices will be."
Stapp, 2007, p.VII
The neocortex is a plane of ca.11 m² filled with ca. 20 billion neurons (of a
total of ca. 100 billion neurons), forming ca. 240 trillion synapses, with lots of
association areas to be used for higher-order functions such as abstract
thought and melodic synthesis. We know the neocortex is also involved with
critical, creative and unitive modes of thought. Are these part of the "liaison
brain" (Popper & Eccles, 1981), the neural machinery responsible for the
interaction with consciousness, and its mental and intentional states ? It seems

unlikely consciousness is in liaison with single neurons (Barlow, 1972), because
these are too unstable (cf. the statistical, population-bound, "democratic"
dynamics of the neuron).

hemispheral interaction - sensory system- liaison brain
Popper & Eccles, 1983, p.375 - with reference to Popper's worlds :
world 1 = physical objects ; world 2 = conscious I - world 3 = mental objects ;
world 1 = matter ; world 2 = consciousness - world 3 = information
"In our present understanding of the mode of operation of neural machinery we
emphasize ensembles of neurons (many hundreds) acting in some collusive
patterned array. Only in such assemblages can there be reliability and
effectiveness (...) The modules of the cerebral cortex are such ensembles of
neurons. The module has to some degree a collective life on its own with as
many as 10.000 neurons of diverse types and with a functional arrangement of
feed-forward and feedback excitation and inhibition. (...) By definition there
would be restriction to the modules of the liaison brain, and only then when
they are in the correct level of activity. Each module may be likened to a radio
transmitter-receiver unit. (...) It can be conjectured that the self-conscious
mind scans this modular array, being able to receive from and give to only
those modules that have some degree of openness."
Popper & Eccles, 1981, pp.366-367.
Interactionists conjecture the mind is actively engaged in reading out from the
multitude of active centres at the higher order levels of the CNS, namely
special "liaison" areas of the neocortex, i.e. neurons characterized by a special
property (to be defined in terms of electro-magnetism or the superimposition
of probability-fields with no mass). According to conscious intention, the mind
selects and integrates its selection from moment to moment. This means the
mind has a superior interpretative and steering role upon the neural events.
Because of the "binding problem" (multiple regions of the brain are
simultaneously combined into a single experience), the unity of conscious
experience is not provided by the neural machinery, neither by the liaison
areas of the neocortex.
To affirm the irreducible nature of consciousness (C), its status as "logicofunctional
primitive", one needs to consider freedom, or the ability of an
individual to behave in a creative, purposeful, non-random way, which is not
determined by physical law, and, mutatis mutandis, without neurophysiological
constraints. Materialism is unable to explain freedom, downgrading its crucial
importance in sociology, politics, economics, law, ethics, etc. Freedom falls
outside the closed, finite "black box" of the physical categories of determination
used by physics. As mathematics, consciousness exists in its own "world",
"domain" or "realm", in this case, as a spatially non-extended and abstract
temporal field (mind-set or mind-map) able to influence, and this in an ongoing
way, major neurological processes.

The principle of the conservation of energy, a consequence of the homogeneity
of spacetime, implies any change requires an expenditure of energy. Causal
effect implies the event must make a difference every time it occurs. This
difference is the "material" factor relaying the effect. If matter acts on mind,
energy would disappear. If mind would act on matter, energy would be added.
An immaterial mind can only move matter by creating energy, i.e. adding
energy to the whole. Interactionists like Popper & Eccles (1981) were not
impressed by this line of argument, because their argument relied on quantummechanical
indeterminism to allow non-material events to act on matter. This
loophole, of a kind of "one-to-one" interaction is however uncertain.
"It is shown that the magnitude of the disturbance required is significantly
greater than allowed for under quantum-mechanical uncertainty. It is
concluded that violations of fundamental physical laws, such as energy
conservation, would occur were a non-physical mind able to influence brain and
behaviour."
Wilson, 1999, p.185.
Beck and Eccles (1992) recently proposed mental intentions act through a
quantum probability field, altering the probabilities and thus the material
outcome. In fact, it was Eddington (1935) who first speculated the mind may
influence the body by affecting quantum events within the brain, in particular a
causal influence on the probability of their outcome.
Recently, Mohrhoff (1999) questions whether Heisenberg's indeterminacy will
suffice and conjectures electromagnetism to be a more likely candidate
because such a field is a summary representation of effects on the motion of
particles.
"There is no reason whatever for having probabilities determined twice over,
once during their deterministic evolution by the physically determined vector
potential, and once at the end through a superimposed probability field
generated by the self."
Mohrhoff, 1999, p.182, my italics.
As quantum nonlocality manifests in very small and cold artificial worlds,
nobody considered it possible non-local interactions possible in the relatively
large and hot brain.
"The strange superpositions of quantum theory, that would allow simultaneous
'occurring' and 'not occurring' - with complex-number weigting factors- would,
accordingly, be considered to play no significant role."
Penrose, 1994, p.348.

In the 1970s, nanometer-sized cylindrical structures called "cytoskeletal
microtubules" were discovered in brain neurons. In 1994, the anesthesiologist
Hameroff proposed they could be involved in quantum effects.
"If it turns out that his is even partly correct, of if his proposal merely helps
others think about how quantum processes in the nervous system may be
related to consciousness, it opens the theoretical door for explaining how
nonlocal effects may manifest in consciousness. And if it turns out that
nonlocality does play a role in the workings of the brain, then something like
'quantum telepathy' would no longer be such a strange prospect."
Radin, 1997, p.319.
Earlier, Popper (1982) speculated about propensity fields (cf. his propensity
interpretation of the equation of Schrödinger, called in to solve the particle/
wave paradox) and considered these to be as real as particles, gravity or
electromagnetic fields, i.e. to be "kickable" (by changing experimental
arrangements) and "kick back" (by changing the outcome of what eventuates :
particle or wave). These fields, like the photon, have no mass and so there is
no possible violation of energy conservation.
If consciousness itself is a set of propensities (virtualities, potentialities or
possible meaning) existing as a "field" in a non-spatial complex "realm" or
Hilbert-space, then interactionism proposes mental states, in particular by way
of their final causation, calculate (intent) certain probabilities and codetermine,
through the ongoing "superimposition" of the likelihood of an
intended design & architecture, the overall parameters of the activity of the
"liaison brain" (causally open to non-material shifts in valuations, propensities
or probabilities). The non-material mind becomes physically effective by
modifying the electromagnetic interactions between constituents of the "liaison
brain", and this at the end of every vector.

mind & brain interacting
Popper & Eccles, 1983, p.360.
Eccles rejects the idea the interface between mind and brain is the field
potential generated by all neural events. In his modular view, specific
ensembles of neurons (modules with as many as 10.000 neurons), each act as
a radio transmitter/receiver unit. The mind's attention works on these cortical
modules with slight deviations. The mind scans the cortex for "open" modules
and modifies its behaviour by these slight deviations. If probability fields are
taken in, these deviations are then caused by recalculating the chances and
superimposing this probability field at the end of each vector eventuating a
physical potential in deterministic evolution.
"It is proposed that the self-conscious mind is actively engaged in searching for
brain events that are if its present interest, the operation of attention, but it
also is the integrating agent, building the unity of conscious experience from all
the diversity of the brain events. Even more importantly it is given the role of
actively modifying the brain events according to its interest or desire, and the
scanning operation by which it searches can be envisages as having an active
role in selection."
Popper & Eccles, 1983, p.373.
The second question, namely Where does the interaction happen ?, kept

Descartes busy for many years, and he found no satisfactory solution. One was
to conjecture the soul operated through the pineal gland, found in the limbic
system ! The soul supposedly gave this gland a tiny push, which was thought
to be magnified by a chain of physical causes and effects. The nerves were
small tubes in which "animal spirits" moved. They were physical in nature,
composed of highly "rarefied blood". Descartes choose this gland because it is
very light and mobile, hence a suitable sensitive instrument responsive to the
minute pushes of the soul. Besides the notion small deviations are necessary,
Descartes' solution failed because the pineal gland is occupied with another
task (namely with the production of hormones).
The mode of interaction proposed by Eccles is based on the idea a degree of
correspondence (not identity) exists between the experiences of the mind and
the events in the "liaison brain", the area of the brain actually interacting with
the mind.
The active role of consciousness (of subjectivity) is acknowledged. The mind
selects & integrates the modules of interest (attention) and integrates all
neuronal activity to provide for the unity of conscious experience. For Eccles,
the "liaison brain" is the dominant hemisphere of the neocortex, in particular
the linguistic areas, as well as a large area of the prefrontal cortex. Some
modules are "open" to the world of mind and it is through them the mind
influences the probability field determining their activity. A change in attention
will make some activities less probable and put others to the fore. Because
"closed" modules can be influenced by "open" ones, they may be opened by
means of impulse discharges along the association fibbers from the "open"
modules. Again, small changes may cause large shifts in the total activity of
the neuronal networks at hand (cf. chaostheory). As consciousness may also
direct its attention to parts of the "old cortex" (such as the limbic lobes, or
more deeper, the ganglia in the brainstem), conjecture the mind may directly
influence the three levels of the brain. The older the structure, the less likely
this influence will be unmixed with other, purely neuronal mechanisms.
From a panexperientialist view, the interaction between the brain and the mind
is a large-scale example of what happens when the final causation at work
within a single actual occasion enters the stream of efficient causation of
another actual occasion. The crucial factor is the assignment of a coefficient to
elements of a frequency distribution in order to represent their relative
importance, in this a series of possibilities defining a propensity-field. In large
statistical populations, this effects this favours the outcome of some, and this is
the "influence" sought. Although not infringing on the First Law of
Thermodynamics, is nevertheless plays a crucial role in what happens in the
brain.

Nobody is claiming the "solution" to mind/brain interaction has been found.
Although panexperientialist interactionism offers a wide range of ontic
possibilities, stays within the confines of a well-formed logical monism, an
immanent metaphysics and the fundamental concerns of science, in particular
regarding producing facts about physical (sensate) objects and formulating
empirico-formal propositions, it still has to answer what kind of processes drive
the distinct characteristics of the actual societies of occasions called "brain" and
"mind" ? In the West, neurology and the science of mind are only now starting
up. China, India and Tibet explored the mind in width & depth. Ancient Egypt
contributed enormously, but, as a cultural form, unfortunately died out.
9.4 The Endlessness of Brain and Mind.
Materialism envisions a bleak nature morte, a view of the universe ending in
the dissolution of its "disjecta membra". This "vacuous", disconnectedness of
things can already be found in the parallel trajectories of the primordial atoms
proposed by the Greek atomists. The same problem arises. Lucretius (99 - 55
BCE) speaks of a mysterious "clinamen", a minimal indeterminacy in the
motions of atoms.
"The atoms, as their own weight bears them down
Plumb through the void, at scarce determined times,
In scarce determined places, from their course
Decline a little- call it, so to speak,
Mere changed trend. For were it not their wont
Thus wise to swerve, down would they fall, each one,
Like drops of rain, through the unbottomed void ;
And then collisions ne'er could be nor blows
Among the primal elements ; and thus
Nature would never have created aught."
Lucretius : On the Nature of Things, Book II, Poem (Leonard).
This "swerve" causes the parallelisms (given by the weight of the atoms) to be
broken, triggering collisions of atoms and from there the formation of
aggregates and finally the whole of Nature. Contemporary physics also has this
problem : how to explain complexification, without hierarchy (or operational
distinctness) and the latter without a final causation, introducing a subjective
"mode" in the metaphysics of physical objects ? Why avoiding this
indispensable category of determination besides efficient causation ? The
physical, as an individualized society of actual occasions, is entered by efficient
causation (arises), confronts with internal knowledge and experience and
weighs possibilities (abides) and then perished, after having made efficient
causation more complex, richer, more creative (ceases). This novelty enters
the subsequent actual occasion, in this case, the physical society of occasions,

the sea of material process. This vast field interconnecting all actual physical
occasions happening in the universe at a given instant, is not a void filled with
pockets of energy, but a vast process instantiating physical objects. Insofar as
this process as a whole is concerned, both efficient & final causation are at
work in each instance of this ongoing symphony of material happenings. So
each "end" of an occasion (each perishing) enters the "beginning" of another.
The universe is an organic "plenum", for there is not a thing not touching
(entering) another thing. Because of final causation, this new beginning is not
only a quantitative integral of the efficient energy differentials, but also a
qualitative reorganization of the probabilities involved with each energy
differential at any given moment, making some outcomes more likely and thus,
over time, actual and so entering the sea of efficient causation ...
Before discussing the end of the brain and the mind, let us focus on the end of
each instance of process in the body and the end of each instantiation of a
state of consciousness. Although, due to the unity of conscious experience, we
have the impression our state of mind is an unbroken continuum, this is
actually not the case. The "I" designated a moment ago is not the same "I"
designated now. And although, due to memory and habitual processes (of
identification, disidentification and designating inherent existence of object &
subject), our identities do seem to possess stable structures, when we look
closer these are merely the result of rapidly overlaying discrete moments,
creating the illusion of continuity. Just as 24 frames per second generate the
illusion of continuous motion in a movie, the rapid succession of moments of
consciousness produce the same fabricated sense of a stable identity. Between
two consecutive moments of instantiated states, a "gap" or "interval" is
present. As only advanced introspection is able to reveal this, most of the time
this "void" is not observed.
Although sensate experience is a "stream" and not a sequence of static frames,
direct observation hic et nunc is ephemeral & anecdotal (individuum est
ineffabile). One cannot conceptually hold on to it, it comes, stays a few
moments and ceases. By fast repetition, the steady illusion of an identical
object is created. In fact, conscious sensation (experience, observation) and its
conceptualization (form) are fabricated. In conscious sensation, conceptual
frames and perceptions are simultaneous and fastened (so they cannot be
isolated).
Likewise, due to the organic integrity of the body, resulting from its efficient &
final causations, the life of our cells, tissues, organs & physiological processes
also seems stable and in "one piece", while -even on the most fundamental
level of our physical reality- physical operations are quantized and in every cell
of our body countless physical, chemical and biological changes happen all the
time. So both body and mind only seem stable, self-identical continua, while in

eality they are like continua of successive, ever-changing moments.
So both body & mind "end" and are "reborn" constantly. This happens so fast
nothing of it is actually realized. Physical death is only a privileged ending, one
severing the functional interaction between the body & its mind. For we
constantly die and are constantly reborn. The beginning of each moment
contains the efficient causation of the previous moment. This is its "matter".
Each moment, as an actual occasion, has an internal structure composed of a
set of data weighed as a function of possible outcomes. This is its
"information". Then a decision is made in terms of the most likely outcome.
This self-determination is its "consciousness". With this choice, the internal
structure of final causation perishes, but as this choice singles out one possible
outcome among a large number of possibilities, the transient structure of final
causation enters the next moment as its "matter" or efficient causation,
making this moment richer and more complex, allowing for novelty. Between
this perishing and the (re)emergence in the "concrescence" of new occasions, i.
e. between these two moments an interval occurs. This "gap" is not a mere
nothingness, but the link between these moments and the absolute continuum
of all phenomena, the primordial field, absolute vacuum or set of all
possibilities. This situation at the level of two actual occasions also holds true
for more complex individualized societies of actual occasions.
The end of the brain is the point the efficient causation of that given physical
object, having emerged from the (micro-level) universal energy field and
having abided for some time (a lifespan on the meso-level), enters the
individualized society of material actual occasions. The brain is "returned to the
elements", its component factors being diffused, recycled and made useful to
similar material societies of actual occasions, including minerals, plants and
animals. But the end of the brain is also the point a life-span of final causation
(of both brain & mind), creating novelty, a unique mental view (based on lived
knowledge) and a unity of conscious experience based on decision-making are
passed on to the physical domain. Of course not as individualized conscious
experience of selfhood, for this kind of inner structure was never the case for
the brain, a physical manifold, but only for the mind, a mental unity. The final
causation of matter results in an increased creative capacity of "elemental"
matter to embody, execute and compute information & consciousness more
efficiently. This fertilization of matter is, captured in a metaphor, the "spiritual"
survival of the material brain (cf. the Stoic "pneuma") ! The endlessness of the
brain is the recurrent process of recycling.
Does the mind have a beginning ? Has it an end ? When the efficient & final
causations of the brain end, the efficient causation of instances, durations,
moments of consciousness, the thrust of one instantiation of mind following

another instantiation of mind, no longer happens in interaction with the brain.
But this thrust is not dependent of this. Perhaps the interaction with the brain
slowed the mind down, making it adapt to the sluggish nature of inertia ? When
the functional relationship between both ends, mind as it were "steps out of the
vehicle" and follows the thrust of its own domain of actual occasions, its own
individualized mindstream. If this is the case, then there is no first moment of
mind and no last moment of mind. As on a line, both beginning and end stretch
into infinity, and only a series of moments on a line pertain.
The end of the mind's communication with its brain, is like an adult departing
from a parent or a grandparent. A lifespan of intimacy with the brain and its
body is "collected". It became part of the information giving form & order to
the inner structure of the mind. Could it be that having lost its physical body,
consciousness "projects" an ideal body (based on the gathered information) as
an imaginal body, with physical, emotional, volitional & mental features ? Is
this dream-body serving as vehicle for the disembodied mind ? This conjecture
leads to the "material" survival of the mind. As unity of conscious experience is
the core business of the mind, this survival implies an individualized stream of
consciousness, no longer a empirical ego, the mere "earthly" caretaker of
moments of volatile mind/brain interaction, but a spiritual self.
10. Suggestology.
Suggestion is a mental operation inducing changes in the body & the brain.
When this mental operation involves using physical aggregates to embody
suggested contents, a "placebo" is at hand. This takes the form of a healing
object or a substance to be consumed.
"Lord, I am not worthy to receive You under my roof, but only say the word
and my servant shall be healed."
Gospel of Mathew, 8:8.
To establish the efficacy of pharmacotherapy as a meaningful alternative, the
medical profession uses a 30% "placebo threshold" (ca. 30% of medical
interventions work only due to expectancy). How this happens is not further
explained. In fact, this 30% threshold may well be an average suggestibility
level one could optimalize by seeking individual criteria. Of course, this would
imply integrating the mind within medicine, leading to a medical profession
seeking to optimalize downward causation, before administering "hard"
chemical compounds. At present, this runs against the commercial interests of
the contemporary pharmacological industry and their "media" (money &
power).
Hypnotherapy, based on suggestion, may produces significant symptom

eduction or accelerate healing (well over 30% of cases). Simply subjective
expectations cannot account this. There is more going one than mere
susceptibility. The "placebo effect" can be seen "at work" via neuroimaging.
Mental objects and functions, properly induced, may cause changes in the
immune system and in neuronal states. These changes then take effect in the
whole body. Suggestion, one of the cornerstones of successful education, is
therefore the "locus typicus" of downward causation. Instead of neglecting
using the mind, suggestology should empower the medical profession. Another
example of how a too narrow metaphysical background (in this case
materialism & physicalism) limits the development of knowledge.
The Bulgarian psychotherapist Georgi Lozanov, defines "suggestology" as "a
science for developing different non-manipulative and non-hypnotic methods
for teaching/learning of foreign languages and other subjects for every agegroup
on the level of reserve (potential, unused) capacities of the brain/
mind." (www.lozanov.hit.bg). In the context of the present neurophilosophical
study, the word "suggestology" takes a different broader meaning, one
focusing on the power of suggestion as a tool to change physical and mental
processes by means of mind-to-mind and mind-to-brain manipulations. The
latter are an example of "downward causation", the ability of the mind to alter
the brain. Insofar as this knowledge of how to successfully suggest constructive
change is applied to learning and education, the word "suggestopedia" will be
used.
Mind-to-mind manipulation is two-tiered : either a mind implants a suggestive
command to the same mind (auto-suggestion) or another mind does so
(suggestion). Likewise, mind-to-brain manipulations either involve the same
person influencing his or her own brain or another doing it. These procedures
may be enhanced by biofeedback, monitoring when the best physiological
window of approach is available (GSR measures relaxation, HRV measures
coherence of the electromagnetic field produced by the heart, and EEG allows
to determine the presence of Beta, Alpha, Theta & Delta-waves, and train the
trance-entry & trance-abiding frequencies). Biofeedback also offers the
possibility to train certain physiological states, increasing the likelihood of the
presence of a set of physiological conditions empowering the impact of (auto)
suggestion (scripting).
The crux of the matter is the functional interaction between two distinct but not
different individualized societies of actual occasions : the brain and the mind.
Considered two-ways, states of mind influence the physical characteristics of
the body and the brain and biological conditions of the body influence states of
mind. To insist there can be no downward causation from the mind to the brain
is not the outcome of an analysis of the ontic distinctness of both societies, but

of their supposed ontological difference, a view backed by the closedness of the
material domain, satisfying the first law of thermodynamics, energyconservation.
Such a difference presupposes a ontological rift between brain
and mind.
Stemming from Descartes (and Plato), this outdated difference is a non-issue
in process thought. Firstly because there are no substances, for things are
what they do, and secondly because panexperientialism is a monism. Of course
historically speaking, Descartes' physics of push- and pull, nor Newton's
gravitational interactionism were sophisticated enough to explain the functional
interactionism between these two distinct occasions. Descartes decided for the
pineal gland because he was seeking a place so sensitive a small push could
alter its condition. This change in condition would then be the first cause of a
efficient, material chain. In this very sensitive area, so he assumed, interaction
could take place. This "intuition" of his did not backfire, for even today one
may ask how non-physical occasions may alter physical occasions, and look for
a condition smaller than allowed for under quantum-mechanical uncertainty ...
The first step in a broader conceptualization of the categories of fundamental
physical objects, came with the characterization of electricity & magnetism.
Indeed, since Maxwell the idea of "field" entered the conceptual apparatus of
physics. Place & momentum of the object "electromagnetic field" could be
calculated using four partial differential equations. With the notion of "field",
the classical (Newtonian) set of fundamental physical objects finally contained
more than merely pushing objects (Descartes) & interacting objects (Newton,
Leibniz), but also spatially diffused objects (Maxwell). But in the context of
Newtonianism, these objects were measured with certain standards, using an
absolute spatiotemporal frame and a continuity-hypothesis. An absolute
observer existed and Nature did not exhibit fundamental discontinuities (cf. the
role of the ether medium). They could still be visualized.
In the XXth century, the physics of the very large and the very small, rejecting
absolute space, absolute time and embracing a quantized Nature, added two
more fundamental physical objects : those travelling at very high speeds and
those extremely small. They call for a relativistic & probabilistic formalism. The
smallest material objects (subatomic particles, atoms) are probabilistic and the
fastest are spatiotemporally relative (whether they are particles or galaxies). In
his philosophy of physics, Popper expanded the notion of "probability" to
"propensity", and conjectured the existence of non-physical propensity-fields
(m = 0) able to kick in physical rearrangements between material occurrences.
These fields explain how final causation (information & consciousness, i.e.
available data, probability & a decision) enters the ocean of efficient causation
by deciding and thus superimposing the propensity-field corresponding to this
conscious choice on what follows.

What distinguishes making noise from sounding music ? The first is a mere
"vacuous" repetition of the same, unable to introduce hierarchy, meaningful
interactions between hierarchies and all the other subtle and very subtle
features between occasions in process. Contrary to noise, music is the flow of
well-formed sound, allowing, by careful choice and very subtle modulation, an
endless variety of timbres, expressions, styles, etc. Every note condenses a
conscious choice, breathing it to the next, and so directly influencing the subtle
& very subtle expression of the whole. The joint creativity of all players,
performs the symphony of the infinite sphere of all occasions.
10.1 The Power of Suggestion.
In a very general way, psychology defines "suggestion" as the process of
inducing a thought, feeling, need, state of mind or action in a receptive person
and this without using persuasion and without giving rise to reflection in the
recipient. A suggestion is successful if and only if after induction the desired
effect has been realized in the recipient. Defining suggestion as a process
makes it possible to analyze it in terms of successive moments or instances. As
several types of suggestions are at hand, we should first establish a common
ground. Let this be the waking state of mind.
Waking suggestion is the process of induction in the waking state in the
absence of causing a hypnotic state or a deep trance. These suggestions are
given in precisely the same way as "hypnotic suggestions", i.e. suggestions
given when the person is in a state of hypnosis, and may also produce strong
effects. Although many theories about increasing the effectiveness of
suggestion are available, a few common points emerge :
● Coupling suggestion with emotion drives them much deeper and adds power
to them. This implies one has to know what specific emotions to use for each
subject.
● Wording suggestions in the active present increases their potential.
● Custom-made suggestions are far more effective than a run-of-the-mill
script. Again, one has to know what to customize in order to be effective.
● Repeating suggestions has a cumulative effect.
If suggestions are given without the person noticing them and/or without
having told they would be given, they are subliminal. If they occur in the
specific context of hypnosis (from the Greek word "hypnos", or "sleep" + "osis"
or "condition"), then they are hypnotic suggestions. With hypnosis, the
subject is brought in a wakeful state of diminished peripheral awareness but
focused attention and heightened suggestibility. This state is usually induced
by a procedure known as a hypnotic induction, which is commonly composed of

a series of instructions and suggestions. Used in the context of healing, this
becomes hypnotherapy. The hypnotic state is not to be identified with trance
per se, for the latter denotes a variety of processes, involving ecstasy & altered
states of mind, occurring involuntarily or not. The word "trance" is from the
Latin verb "transire", or "to cross, pass over". The homonym "entrance" as a
verb and noun points to trance as a threshold, a conduit, a portal and/or a
channel. As hypnosis also involves a transition from waking to hypnotic state, it
also contains elements of trance. But a full-blown trance (or deep trance) is
more like a form of rapture, confronting the mind with another kind of reality
altogether (as in Shamanism & mysticism).
From a neurophilosophical point of view, let us define a successful suggestion
as one addressing, soliciting and bringing about the concert of the three
aspects of the one mind. Intending to work with them is addressing their
existence. Interacting with each in a proper way is soliciting them. Aligning
them triggers their unison. What I would like to call the "Three Minds
Suggestion" addresses the verbal, the sentient and the guarding aspect of the
mind.
To understand what is meant, let us associate these three functional aspects of
the one mind with their executive physical areas, namely the brain, the heart
and the intestines. The presence of independent neurons in the heart and in
the intestines has recently been attested. The heart has a "little brain", with a
two-way communication between the heart and the brain, influencing each
other. The same seems to be true between the immune system and the gut,
pointing to three "brains" : one located in the head, one in the heart area
(heart & Plexus Solaris) and one in the gut (navel area). This division is in
harmony with the anatomical features of the Autonomous Nervous System
(ANS), functioning outside the control of conscious will.
Three distinct clusterings of neurons can be identified : cranial (upper),
thoracolumbar (middle) and sacral (lower or caudal). The middle component
makes up the bulk of the sympathetic nervous system, whereas the cranial and
sacral component is parasympathetic, with axons projecting in nerves arising
from either extreme of the CNS. The tenth cranial nerve, the vagus, contains
the largest parasympathetic efferent neuronal outflow from the brain, as well
as a sizeable number of afferent neurons, connected to the sensors of the
internal organs. This "great wanderer" courses through the thorax into the
abdomen, innervating many tissues throughout the body.
Taoism clearly makes this distinction, poetically referring to these aspects of
mind as "Elixir Fields" (Lower, Middle and Higher) and the "Three
Treasures" (Body, Mind & Spirit). Indeed, the traditional way Taoists
investigate Ch'i (or lifeforce) in the human system, is to explain the difference

etween Body Ch'i, Mind Ch'i and Spirit Ch'i, the Three Treasures (Jing, Ch'i &
Shen).
• Body Ch'i is "jing", productive energy. It is the most subtle aspect of the
physical system, equivalent to neurotransmitters, hormones, DNA, sperm and
egg. The body is local, material and operates through physiological interactions.
• Mind Ch'i is simply called "ch'i" or lifeforce and refers to the psychological
system. Mind Ch'i is somewhat local, immaterial and works through memory,
emotions, thoughts, intuition & creativity.
• Spirit Ch'i is "shen", spiritual energy, is transcendent, non-local & boundless.
Being perfect, it is completely healthy, now and forever. It is used to help heal
the mind and the body. It merges with the Tao.
Each of these Treasures is associated with a physical "Elixir Field". In Chinese,
"Tan T'ien" means "Elixir Field". It is a place where the energies of our own
body, of the Earth, nature & the universe come together. These fields interact
with the neuronal clusterings mentioned above (the cranial, thoracolumbar &
sacral).
• the Lower Elixir Field (Earth Treasure) : situated between the navel, the
"kidney center point" or "gate of life" (in the spine between the second and
third lumbar) and the prostate gland (top of cervix between the ovaries), this
Elixir Field is the center of the physical body and its strength. It is also called
"medicine field", "ocean of Ch'i", "sea of energy", "cauldron" or "navel center".
Associated with the "jing", the productive energy of the physical system, and
the Body Ch'i, it serves as the source of the lifeforce or "ch'i", related to the
Mind Ch'i.
• the Middle Elixir Field (Life Treasure) : situated around the heart area and the
Plexus Solaris, this field has as main task to collect, store, calm and refine the
lifeforce ("ch'i") mainly resulting from the transformation of refined productive
energy ("jing"), but also from food & air. This heart Elixir Field is the residence
of consciousness. In Chinese, the concepts "mind" and "heart" are not
differentiated. The concept "xin" (pronounced "shin") embraces both and so we
may say it is the mind of the heart or "Heart-Mind". The Chinese characters for
"thinking", "thought", "intent", "virtue", "listen" and "love" include the
character for "heart". This reminds us of the all-embracing influence of the
heart in Ancient Egyptian life & afterlife. The Life Treasure Elixir heals affective
and mental disorders. To work with this Elixir Field may well be the central key
of spiritual growth, for when the Mind Ch'i is clear, the spirit ("shen") is
revealed and a total integration happens, creating balance and radiation ("Jing
Shen").
• the Higher Elixir Field (Heaven Treasure) : situated between the brows, this
"Tan T'ien" collects, stores, calms and refines the Mind Ch'i or "ch'i" rising from

the Middle Elixir Field. Here Mind Ch'i is transformed into spiritual energy
("shen") and then integrated in the primordial, universal Ch'i of the Tao itself.
The mind is emptied of concepts (the monkey mind is made dormant, ending
all word- and picture-thoughts, and the duality of subject & object is gone.
So far Taoism. Translating, designate three aspects of mind to be associated
with the cranial, thoracolumbar & sacral areas in the body characterized by
major, independent neuronal activity : the central nervous system (CNS) or
brain, the heart and the intestines (cf. The Window of the Good Heart, 2009).
BRAIN
"Shen"
waking mind
monkey mind
from word
thoughts to
observation
HEART
"Ch'i"
conscious mind
intentional mind
integrating
observation, gutfeeling
and intent
THE ONE MIND ("Yi")
INTESTINES
"Jing"
gut-mind
instinctual mind
from instinctual to
iconic feeling
• The specific task of the head-brain consists in computing conceptual thought,
designating labels to inner and outer phenomena. By doing so the fundamental
impermanence of events is halted and concealed by the illusion of ipseity, ownpower
or selfhood, attributing inherent, independent existence to sensate and
mental objects. The root cause of ignorance and of all our afflictive states is
therefore to be found in this head-brain and the co-relative states of mind
computed (processed) by it, i.e. word-thought (and in a lesser degree picturethought).
This is called the "monkey-mind" because it jumps from object to
object, grasping these with the ignorant superimposition of inherent,
substantial existence. Never satisfied and very active, it cannot be satiated. To
render it dormant, it must be keep busy doing an exhausting task.
The pivotal construction computed by the monkey-mind of the head-brain is
the sense to inherently possess an empirical ego, an "I" identifying with
sensate states (I see, I hear, I touch, I smell, I taste), volitional states (I do, I
don't do, I remain indifferent), affective states (I feel good, bad, neutral) and
mental states (I think this-or-that). This empirical ego is reified into a monolith
at the center of consciousness, but is not consciousness itself. The end of the
monkey-mind turns the waking mind into a watchtower, merely observing
something is there, nothing more, not generating judgments, appreciations,

condemnations, laudations, etc. Adding nothing and eliminating nothing, a
mere interconnected stream of actual occasions is observed. This is
wakefulness.
A successful suggestion is impossible as long as this monkey-mind, jumping
from this-to-that, is not silenced and the role of the upper, conceptual mind not
reduced to that of a mere observer.
• The specific task of the gut-brain is acquiring information about the
immediate, mediate and general environment. It is a kind of wordless "radar"
brain, extracting information involving the overall security and survival
capacities of the system. It does not operate with symbols, but with signals
and (simple) icons. Silencing the monkey-mind bring about a calmness, an
absence of word-thoughts & picture-thoughts. This is like an open space
created to successfully implant the suggestion. But is the area secure ? As long
as the gut-brain does not issue an "ok" signal, openness is not coupled with
inner receptivity. The filters cannot be on high alert. A relaxed mode (a rest
and digest response) is necessary. So the radar screen of the gut must not
detect any dangerous unidentified object. This relaxation is generated as a
function of the trust the suggester has in his or her abilities. The instinctive
mind, measuring hierarchy, automatically responds to self-reliance, authority &
good management. Without the aura of professionalism, the gut-mind cannot
be tricked. In autosuggestion, the question is more of creating a suitable
environment. This relaxes the gut-mind and turns higher receptivity back on.
A successful suggestion is impossible if the gut-brain feels insecure, forced to
defend itself against what is perceived as a possible threat.
• The specific task of the heart-brain involves integrating & harmonizing the
messages received by the head-brain and the gut-brain. It accepts them,
compares them and then balances them. Here real sentience or consciousness
appears (I am aware of myself). This is felt rather than conceptually known
(trying to do so generates the monkey-ego). The field of consciousness if felt
as a wordless kind of prehension of the totality of one's existence, defining
one's overall wellbeing, happiness, joy and potential to love and be loved.
Conscious choice emerges out of this field, intimately linking it with conscience
& intention.
The heart-brain has two operational levels : a subtle level based on attraction,
repulsion and neutrality (used to deal with head & gut) and a very subtle level
of superconscious states of mind (envolved in the direct experience of the
process-nature of all phenomena, the so-called "Clear Light" of the mind).
"... for what the natural light shows to be true can be in no degree doubtful ..."

Descartes : Meditations, III.9, my italics.
The heart-brain has two dynamic states : a coherent state, allowing it to
embrace the totality of the field of consciousness, integrating and balancing out
all objects appearing in this mirror of consciousness, and an incoherent state,
reflecting conflicts between the three brains and an absence of alignment,
causing stress.
A successful suggestion is impossible if the heart-mind is not coherent (allembracing),
pulled as it were between concepts (brain) and gut-feelings
(intestines).
So the Three Minds Suggestion must first prove the content of the suggestion
to be no threat. This can be done by showing it eliminates obvious harms, like
suffering, danger or enemies. This disarms the gut-mind, no longer blocking
higher sensitivity. After having first tricked the monkey-mind into doing some
silencing work, making the head-mind merely observant, the suggestion is
then repeated. This allows the brain to mindfully witness what is being
suggested without adding anything to it (and thus altering it). Finally, a third
repetition is directed to the heart, allowing it to integrate the induction. This is
done by coupling the suggestion with happiness, well-being and peace.
10.2 Spiritual Paths of Suggestion ?
Let us broadly define "spirituality" as "living with the Divine spirit", the most
subtle aspect of human consciousness. This life stretches from living in the
absolute, to profound & everyday mystical experiences, over deep religious
experiences, to common spirito-communal feelings & the repeated awe felt in
the face of the wonders of Nature.
In most organized spiritual paths, i.e. in world religions like Hinduism, Judaism,
Buddhism, Christianity & Islam, this existence with "the Divine spirit" results
from salvation, bringing about the positive state of "being saved", at least
implying one is preserved from harm. Organized religions, spiritual
communities, lodges etc. each develop their own ideology & traditions. The five
world religions were founded by mystics, and then made "sacred" and
eternalized by their companions & followers. Not the seers of India, nor
Abraham, Jacob & Moses, Gautama, Jesus or Muhammad wrote down the
revelation they got ! This happened after they stopped having direct physical
influence, i.e. by others !
Studying and comparing the religious superstructures built upon the spiritual
experiences of these founding mystics, one indeed finds a "nugget of gold"
they all share : a longing for peace ! Indeed, overall differences and conflicts

animate the interactions between them, often causing terrible, devastating and
merciless wars. Given the static nature of the ideological framework invented
to organize the mass of believers, contemporary "interfaith dialogues" seldomly
touch fundamental issues, circumventing them to focus on matters of social &
economical organization, trying, at grass root level, to keep the obvious
conflicts at bay. An organized interfaith debate is absent. Moral issues replace
the fundamental point, namely the nature of the Divine. As humanism proves,
morality has no need for a revealed Deity. The role of religious systems as
moral safeguards is over. Lots of good people do not adhere to the God of
Abraham. Lots of good people do not adhere to the Divine, in whatever form.
Thinking this over, leads to the question of the necessity of the proposed model
of the Divine ? This remains undebated. For discussing dogmatic differences
only lead to conflicts ... The role of clearly understanding the true rapport
between humanity and the Divine is subjugated to the historical intactness of
the "magister fidei", whatever it says.
An obvious example : How can a discussion between Christianity & Islam on
basic tenets be possible ? For Christianity (put aside the hermeneutical
problems regarding the authenticity of this tenet), the Divine, "Son of God"
status of Jesus of Nazareth is the most important salvic issue (cf. Christology &
Christocentrism in orthodoxy). If Jesus Christ is not God-the-Son, then He
cannot have saved us, which He did. In Islam, the "no second" doctrine is
implied by its first pillar of submission, the "shahadah" : "there is no God but
God". Logic is clear : either God has a Son or God has no son. Either Jesus
Christ is just an exceptional human being (a "prophet" as Islam claims), or
Jesus Christ is more than just a very good human being, He is "God" in the
same essential way as the Father and the Holy Spirit are "God" (cf. Trinitarism
accepted by all branches of Christianity). It can't be the case both ways. If Godthe-Father
has Jesus Christ as His Only Son, then "God-the-Father" is not the
"Allâh" of the Koran. Not only would to claim so be illogical, but even
unarguable, for a radically different use of the words "God-the-Father" and
"Allâh" emerges, as well as a different salvic intent, the core-business of
religious organizations. Let us add a Hindu to this debate. His religion multiplies
the possible theophanies of the One Deity ("Brahman"), introducing a dazzling
henotheism. Bring the issue before a Buddhist, and the very nature of the
object, the Deity, becomes the issue, no longer how this is viewed (singular or
plural, on the basis of this-or-that sacred "revealed" text.
Can one discuss all of this without infuriating dogmatic thinkers ? At the end of
the day, what is the truth of the matter ? This question philosophy pursues.
But here religious organisations return the believer to him or herself. Perhaps
this is how it should have remained from the start ...

To better grasp the issue, study (a) the emergence of traditions in general and
(b) the way specific religious traditions are generated. A sketch.
Given are :
The Emergence of a Tradition
● sensations s in time & space happening to a subject x with mindgrid mg ;
● a singular, differential sensation s of a particular fact f by x or s(x)f ;
● a string of differential sensations P of facts f, f', f"... f n over time (.dt) by
x or P(x)f.dt = s(x)f t1 , s(x)f ' t2, s(x)f" t3 ... s(x)f n tn+1
● an ungoing process of sensations over time (.dt), shaping a perceptionbank
B concerning P(x)f.dt or BP(x)f (1 ... n) .dt.
Let concept C be a mental construct.
(1) Each s(x)f is an elemental building block of C :
In s(x)f, f is not written as f(x), for no fact can be totally subjectified. A fact is
always about something (extra-mental). The more symmetrical & free the
multiple & varied intersubjective discourses are, the better a consensual
interpretation of facts ensues (intra-subjective). A fact is always theory-laden.
No fact can be totally deobjectified or desubjectified (cf. Clearings, 2006).
(2) Hence, s(x)f depends on fact f and the mindgrid mg of x or s(x)f = mg(x)f
which also applies to (a) a string of sensations with co-relative mindgrids : P(x)
f.dt = mg (x1 )f, mg' (x2 )f', ... mgn (xn+1) f n and (b), over time, a perceptionbank
: BP(x)f (1 ... n) .dt.
(3) The generalization C arrived at by a particular subject x on the basis of the
given perception-bank BP(x)f (1 ... n) .dt is a general notion combined over
time. As it is not logically possible to justify when the jump from the particular
to the universal is to be made lawfully, the logical genesis of the concept
remains a priori incomplete. Comparison (i.e. convention) alone explains why
singular sensations become strings. The only know direct singular instances,
nothing more. Hence, even valid conceptual knowledge is provisional, relative,
fallible, historical, impermanent and transient. What can we do more than
consider it, for the time being, as valid and so certain to a certain degree and
for all practice purposes ... ? (cf. Clearings, 2006).

(4) The original concept C is communicated to other subjects and confronted
with other people's sensations of facts. This is the open, intersubjective
community of sign-interpreters and symbol-generators. Through dialogue &
argumentation a string of consensual, intersubjective concepts C
(1 ... n)
regarding BP(x)f (1 ... n) .dt arises. These weave into the history of science and
philosophy and all known informational (mental) objects. The movement from
C to C', C" ... C n is the evolution of a concept. If the process of sensation
stops, the evolution is halted and gradually the original meaning of the original
C withers. The concept is polluted and finally totally petrified & sclerotized.
(5) Over a period of time, the process of ungoing sensations coupled with quasi
permanent intersubjective confrontations define a constellation of consensual
general notions C (1 ... n) forming a tradition. These are institutionalized
thought-forms and excellent expert-systems. But the ultimate tradition is not
found in the world or in spirito-social organizations, despite how beneficial
these may be to a lot. Each individual being unique, the land of truth of each
sentient being is pathless.
The Emergence of a Religious Dogma
The basic mysticological rule is consistent with the direct experience of radical
otherness, purifying, actionalizing (integrating) and totalizing this "life with the
Divine spirit". Some of the features of this direct spiritual experience are
universal, irrespective of their superstructuring into a religious ideology.
a human subject < >> the Divine (!)
< or :
(1) in 4 nominal dimensions of space-time aspiring to transcend (cf. "ascendat
oratio") ;
(2) only an initiatoric procedure exists without an adjacent probable ;
On the one hand there is a spiritual longing and a traditional "method"
accepted as a valid way to communicate with the Divine.
>> or :
(1) more than 4 dimensions of space-time answering the call (cf. "descendat
gratia")
(2) the subjective answer has objective validity ;
On the other hand there is a supernatural event (a higher-order nexus of actual
occasions) identified as "Divine".

or :
(1) direct, immediate, individual experience
(2) purifying, actionalizing, totalizing, but in essence ineffable & paradoxal
! : this rule is coherent
The set of rules invented by the theologers :
(1) a human subject = founder < >> the Divine (!)
Here we have the case of a mystic founding a new religion.
(2) the founder(s) = the sacred symbol (?)
(3) believers < the sacred symbol >> the Divine (??)
? : this rule is questionable but acceptable
?? : this rule is questionable & unacceptable, for incoherent
Ideally, the authentic elocutions & actions of a founding mystic (1) become the
sacred symbols of the tradition initiated by the first direct witnesses or
companions of the founder (2). These symbols encompass a model of the
world, a theory on man, ethics & the afterlife and a salvic road, defined as the
"right path". This superstructuring is also and always spirito-political, i.e.
meant to organize the mass of believers then and there. Finally, this led to
indoctrination, suppresion of free study and hallucinating "our Lord" instead of
inviting "my Lord" (cf. Ibn al-'Arabi). Mostly, and this within a couple of
centuries after the founder's death, a large number of texts, "traditions" and
sectarian beliefs see the light. At some point, some texts, and "traditions" are
canonized, and a real "sacred" tradition ensues. A lot of this may be purely
legendary & mythical. Canonizing certain texts leads to banishing heretical
texts as wrong choices. The war of the words ensues. Apparently the West has
shed enough blood over words. Conflicts are solved by constant compromize &
slowly changing conventions. Historically, the "sacred" traditional testimony is
always questionable because quickly after a founder's physical death corruption
occures, redundancy & conflicts rises, schisms are proclaimed & battles
unleached. The exact details of what happens can not be traced. Especially the
"religions of the book" (Judaism, Christianity & Islam), promoting a revealed
tradition (one set in place for ever and ever by the God of Abraham), face the
hermeneutical problem founding fathers like Jesus and Muhammed wrote not a
single letter of their sacred text, the pivot in any revealed religion.
Traditions are collective phenomena, whereas spirituality is personal. Religious
organizations are public, while authentic encounter with the Divine spirit are
private and hidden. Salvation is within, not without. No doubt, this direct

experience can be shared, as monasticism evidences, but a community does
not replace mystic experience, the extraordinary direct encounter with radical
otherness in the deepest and most subtle confines of the spirit of
consciousness. Touching the most intimate core of a conscious unity of
experience, the awareness of a differential-point-in-process, the Divine
becomes a datum of experience.
Studying the cognitive manipulations of mystics, we discover a common
procedure at work in their theological superstructures, one in which suggestion
is amply present. In the monotheisms, this mystical ideology, it must be said,
often conflicted with the fundamental theologies based on the correct exegesis
of the "sacred" texts. The latter stressed the difference between common man
and God, whereas the mystics bridged the gap. In monotheism, it happened
that mystics testifying to have united with the essence of the Divine, were
persecuted and/or executed, their work condemned (cf. Jan of Ruusbroec). But
it also occurred they could freely express themselves (cf. Beatrice of Nazareth).
In the Three Minds Suggestion used in mystical traditions, i.e. the operational
ideologies dealing with the direct experience of the Divine, the threat is first
identified : fallen nature, original sin, temptation, suffering, cyclic existence,
negative karma, the devil, death etc. From this core danger one seeks to be
saved, at least protected against. The gut-brain is addressed. By neatly
defining what is the greatest survival-threat, the proposed salvic procedure
assumes a higher iconic status, one radiating more trust. To eliminate the
threat, the procedure, ritual or gesture invokes a sacred symbol, a sacred
word, a sacred form (icon) and/or a special signal.
Inventing a sacred symbol (designating it using a basis of designation) is a
head-brain procedure, involving the fusion of a word-thought and an imagethought.
The monkey-brain is silenced by introducing a ritual gesture
embodying the meaning of the sacred symbol. This is strongly impregnated
upon the mindstream (initiation), maintained (through daily, monthly & yearly
repetitions), and given an itinerary (rites of passage). Running the imperative
logic of the ritual based on "revealed text" and "symbolic images", exhausts
the money-brain, bores it to sleep, making the conceptual mind merely
observant. At this point (after the law), the "grace" of the relatedness of the
heart (very much connected with the limbic system and the right hemisphere)
is brought into play, for freedom from suffering is the hope of salvation.
This relatedness is thanks to a Deity or Deities, a teacher (like the Buddha), a
convenant with the Sole God, a Saviour, a series of prophets or a personal
mystic "interphase" with the Divine, one's own spirito-surreal "psychic
mechanism" or "spirit-automatism". Traditional Christian & Muslim theologies

project the ultimate relatedness with the Divine in the afterlife, while Hinduism
& Buddhism do not exclude a this-life spiritual realization, liberation or
awakening (Judaism does not either, but this Jubilee of Jubilees begins with the
coming of the Messiah).
These suggestological features of mystical & religious experiences, explain why
religious language is a very powerful suggestive tool, as well as a treasurehouse
of suggestive scripts. Understanding the semantic fields operated by
each religion allows one to grasp how the mystics used this language to induce
a direct experience of the Divine. How they worked with the three aspects of
the mind to bring about the "one mind".
How can suggestion help the spiritual emancipation of the individual ? Is there
a specific surreal "psychic mechanism" for mystical & religious experiences ?
Can this be assisted by suggestions ? Which script is the most likely to help ?
Of all traditional world religions, Buddhism and Jainism are truly open to free
study. They have no revealed texts and no Divine founder. A Buddha is not a
Deity. The "Deities" mentioned in the Buddhadharma are not to be confused
with the Western Deities or with the Sole Deity, existing substantially (cf. On
the Deity, 2009). They are merely higher meditational states of the Buddhamind.
For a Buddhist, the remark the Buddhadharma is a perfected treasurehouse
of salvic suggestions has interest. Saying the "technology" ("skillful
means" or "upâya"), used in meditation, recitations, rituals & ceremonies, is
like a neatly elaborated protocol of autosuggestions is not shocking. Buddhists
accept higher states of consciousness to be neurologically correlated. They
know these can be identified, monitored & trained. They know wrong views
(especially religious ones) obscurate ultimate truth.
"As the wise test gold by burning, cutting and rubbing it (on a piece of
touchstone), so are You to accept my words after examining them and not
merely out of regard for me."
Buddha •âkyamuni, Jñânasara-samuccaya, 31, my italics.
Readers interested in studying how a science of Buddhism may see the light,
are referred to : www.bodhi.sofiatopia.org.
Mindful of Willem of Ockham's refusal to explain God using Greek universals,
ask whether a wrong view may hamper access to the Divine ? Will spiritual
suggestion work irrespective of religious superstructure & ideology ? Can for
example a static God be properly worshipped ? How can God entertain any
relationship with His Creation if this is only a "relatio rationis", not a real or

mutual bond ? If, from the point of view of the world, God is only an object,
then no experience of God is possible. The world only contributes to the glory
of God, for God is not affected by what happens in the world.
Whitehead rejects this notion.
"So long as the temporal world is conceived as a self-sufficient completion of
the creative act, explicable by its derivation from an ultimate principle which is
at once eminently real and the umoved mover, from this conclusion there is no
escape : the best that we can say of the turmoil is, 'For so he giveth his
beloved - sleep.' This is the message of religions of the Buddhistic type, and in
some sense it is true."
Whithead, A.N. : Process and Reality, 1929, § 519.
Buddhism too rejects the Greek essentialist view of the Divine. Such a view
puts people to sleep. All they are told to do is to be totally passive in the face
of God, unable to contribute anything to Him. An encounter "face to Face" is
impossible, except to obliterate the creature. God is a Caesar of sorts. An
Olympic entity removed from the world. Like Pharaoh, when You meet His Eye,
you die. Identify this as the wrong view infesting monotheism since its
theologies incorporated Greek substantialism. Again Ockham was right. To
multiply the unnecessary complicates the elegance and economy of thought.
Process Philosophy has both a theist and a naturalist wing. The former see God
as a major player in the world, accounting for its order, creativity, intelligibility
and teleology. The latter explain these in a nature-immanent way, viewing the
world as a self-sufficient whole. Whitehead, who belonged to the first group,
rejects the unilateral God, embracing a non-substantialist reciprocity between
God and the world. For him God, functioning within Nature, guides things into
"the creative advance into novelty". For Hartshorne (1987 - 2000), God is a
world-separated Being participating experientially in everything happening,
resonating with it in "experiential participation" ...
Although the word "Divine" could also have been chosen, an impersonal
prejudice would have been implied. The God of Process Philosophy is both
impersonal and personal. Sharing many features of the semantic field of the
Supreme Being as found in many religions, He differs radically on one crucial
point : this God is not a "Substance of substances", but a Divine Process. This
God is a He and a She, only for convenience sake addressed as "He", "Him"
and "His".
Basic Categories of Process Ontology

All of
Reality
Nature
spatio
temporal
not
spatio
temporal
actual world
God
as Process
eternal
objects
creativity
real, concrete
actual entities
the One abstract
actual entity
infinite
possibilities
not actual
merely potential
actual
world
formative
elements
Besides real, concrete spatiotemporal actual entities, i.e. physical compounds
or physical & non-physical societies of actual occasions, Nature also
encompasses three abstract formative elements escaping space & time :
creativity, eternal objects & God. Creativity is formless, eternal objects are
pure possibilities. These are not actual, but merely potential. God however, is
actual and escapes the spatiotemporal order. He is an exception.
"God is the principle of concretion ; namely, he is that actual entity from which
every temporal concrescence receives that initial aim from which its selfcausation
starts. That aim determines the initial gradations of relevance of
eternal objects for conceptual feelings ; and constitutes the autonomous
subject in its primary phase of feeling with its initial conceptual valuations, and
with its initial physical purposes."
Whitehead, A.N. : Proces & Reality, § 374.
God is a non-spatiotemporal actual entity giving relevance to the realm of pure
possibility in the becoming of the actual world. God, both potential & actual, is
the meeting ground of the actual world & pure possibilities. Together, the
realm of abstract possibilities and the actual world are all of reality or Nature.
"I suggest the that the answer to the question : 'Why does God initiate
processes of collapse ?' is this : This function of the collapse is to simplify. If
there was no collapse, each and every interaction would have made the
universe immensely more complicated, and this trend toward increasing
complexity would have continue unchecked."
Malin, Sh. : "Whitehead and the Collapse of Quantum States.", in : Eastman & Keeton,
2003, p.82.
God is related to the realm of actualities in two ways :
(1) The Primordial Nature of God.

"Viewed as primordial, he is the unlimited conceptual realization of the absolute
wealth of potentiality. In this aspect, he is not before all creation, but with all
creation."
Whitehead, A.N. : Proces & Reality, § 521.
Among the formative elements, God is an actual entity ; the eternal objects &
creativity are not. He belongs to the actual world, they remain merely
potential, formative. God is the anterior ground guaranteeing a fraction of all
these possibilities enter into the factual becoming of the spatiotemporal world.
Without God, nothing of what is possible, can become some actual, concrete
thing, change and create (add to reality). The universe, its order and creativity
are the result of a certain valuation of possibilities. However, God is not the
universe, nor its order (derived from eternal objects) or the creativity at work
in actual entities (their final causation entering subsequent efficient causation).
All actual occasions, belong to the actual world and are therefore concrete.
Among actual occasions, God is the one exception, for He is an abstract actual
entity, while creativity & eternal objects are non-actual, formative elements
and all other actual entities are concrete.
● concrete actual entities (the actual world) : all what exists in the world of
facts & events, all concrete actual occasions, except God ;
● abstract actual entity (the abstract) : God as the One is the only abstract
actual entity, "the organ of novelty, aiming at intensification", the Artist
making a beautiful world more likely ;
● potential eternal objects (the potential Realm of Possibilities) : selfsame,
"pure" forms outside the stream of actual entities, organizing them ;
● creativity : the formless "matrix" of all things, the principle of the
continuous becoming of novel unity and creative advance out of
multiplicity, the work of final causation entering subsequent occasions.
Primordially, God is the instance grounding the permanence and continuous
novelty characterizing the universe. This primordial nature of God is completely
separated from the actual world. For although an actual entity, God's activity is
"abstract", namely in the esthetic (artistic) process of merely valuating
possibilities, which are no fictions. So God is engaged in the factual becoming
of the actual entities, but He should not be conceived as a concrete actual
entity, a fact among the facts. His is the sole abstract actual entity.
God's primordial nature is transcendent and does not touch the concrete world.
This is God as the Lord of All Possibilities. It offers all events the possibility to
constitute themselves. If not, nothing would happen. Possibilities, although

highly abstract, are no fictions, and enter concrete entities (cf. Popper's
propensity-fields). Although there is no imaginary heavenly (Platonic) museum
displaying the statue of David before Michelangelo fashioned it, the latter did
not invent the material, the possibility allowing him to do so. So the fact of this
formless creativity receiving definite form is attributed to God as Principle of
Definiteness. By way of conceptual valuation, God imposes harmony on all
endless possibilities, for actuality implies choice & limitation. But as all order is
contingent, lots of things always remain possible. Whitehead never speaks of
God as the "Creator of the Universe" (too suggestive of the total dependence of
the world). The "ideal harmony" is only realized as an abstract virtually, and
God is the actual entity bringing this beauty into actuality, turning potential
harmony into actual esthetic value. But clashes occur all the time.
Taking into account everything given in the field of existence of all actual
events, God's highest purpose for each is for it to contribute to the realization
of the purpose of the whole, namely the unity of harmony-in-diversity.
God does not decide, but lures, i.e. makes beauty more likely. There is no
efficient causality at work here, but a teleological pull inviting creative advance.
Given the circumstances, a tender pressure is present to achieve the highest
possible harmony. God is the necessary condition, but not the sufficient
condition for events. Classical imperial omnipotence is thus eliminated. But also
absolute omniscience. God knows all actual events as actual and all possible
(future) events as possible. He does not know all future events as actual. This
is a category mistake. God cannot hamper creativity itself. At least in
philosophy, giving metaphysical complements to God is relinquished.
God's purpose for each and every event, given all determining conditions, is
contributing to the realization of the purpose of the whole universe, the
harmony-in-diversity. God is the unique abstract actual entity making it
possible for the multiplicity of events to end up in harmony. This aspect of God
is permanent, eternal and not linked to time or space. It is a permanent
property of reality, resulting in a uni-verse. Call this aspect "Godhead".
(2) The Consequent Nature of God.
Besides being an abstract Godhead, God is also a Divine Consciousness
prehending all events. This is His consequent nature. Call this aspect "Lord".
"Love neither rules, nor is it unmoved ; also it is a little oblivious as to morals.
It does not look to the future, for it finds its own reward in the immediate
present."
Whitehead, A.N. : Proces & Reality, §§ 520 - 521.

God's "consequent nature" is God's concrete, super-conscious presence in the
universe, actually being near all possible events and valorizing them to bring
out harmony and the purpose of the whole. God, with infinite care, is a
tenderness loosing nothing that can and wants to be saved. Because He is not
the universe, not creativity and not concrete, God has not the potential to
"intervene" and "set things right" as an Imperator could. But His superconsciousness
is everywhere all the time, able to lure new possibilities into
actuality, i.e. indirectly promoting certain causal efficiencies effectuating unity
and benefitting the whole. God's experience of the world changes. It always
grows and can never be given as a closed, finite whole. God is loyal and will
never forsake any event.
These two aspects of God, called "primordial" & "consequent", are not two
parts or elements, but two ways of dealing with the world. Primordially, God is
always offering possibilities and realizing unity and order, and this in all
possible worlds. Consequentially, God takes the self-creation of all actual
events in this concrete universe into account, considering what they realize of
what is made possible. These two ways, initiating & responding, permanent &
alternating reflect God's bi-polar approach of the actual world, and of every
actual occasion happening in it ...
Although Buddhism is generally regarded as "atheist" or "non-theist", this
merely points to the absence of an inherently existing Supreme Being or
Beings, not to the rejection of the Divine, a fact easily missed. God as an
eternalized supersubstance is rejected, not the existence of a Supreme Being.
For Mahâyâna, all Buddhas are Supreme Beings and they all share a common
ground Buddhist Tantra allows us to identify with God (giving the Vajrayâna a
"monotheist" streak). Indeed, the God of Process Philosophy and Vajrayâna's
Âdi-Buddha share core features. Both represent a class of exceptional, unique
& dynamic phenomena. God being the sole abstract actual entity, whereas the
Âdi-Buddha is the only Buddha to represents the experiential content of the
"Dharmakâya", the realm of awakened suchness. This primordial Buddha is
also called "Samantabhadra", "He Who Is All-Pervadingly Good", "He Whose
Beneficence is Everywhere" or "Vajradhara", "the Dharma-Holder". This
ultimate Buddha of Buddhas represents the wisdom of suchness taught &
directly experienced by all Buddhas, i.e. the universal living insight into the
unity of sameness & difference, the experiential unity of ultimate (genuine)
truth (reality) and conventional (apparent) truth (reality).
The God of process is another way to present the three Bodies of the Âdi-
Buddha.
The Truth Body of the Âdi-Buddha, the "Dharmakâya" is a formless,

undifferentiated, nondual field of creativity, out of which all possibilities may
arise. But in itself this Body is unmoved and has no motivational factors to
allow the Form Bodies to arise. The latter are "spontaneous" emergences.
Likewise, the creative field and God are not causally related. God does not
create this field, nor is this field defined by what God wants. Since
beginningless time, the Truth Body is given, just as the unlimited field of
creativity.
The Form Bodies, in particular the Enjoyment Body ("Sambhogakâya") are
ideal forms emerging out of the Truth Body for the sake of compassionate
activity. God makes certain definite forms possible by valuating the endless
field of creativity using the key of unity & beauty. In Process Philosophy,
compassion is subsumed under beauty, for how can ugliness and disorder be
compassionate ? The Form Bodies are the two ways the Âdi-Buddha relates to
ordinary, apparent events ("samsâra") : the Enjoyment Body is the ideal
"form" with which the endless possibilities are given definiteness (God as
primordial), while the Emanation Body is the ideal "event" bringing this form
down to the plane of physicality and concrete, "luring" Divine consciousness
(God as consequent).
It goes without saying differences between both concepts remain. They do
belong to entirely different semantic fields. But these correspondences are
mentioned to make clear the fundamental conflict between Buddhism and
monotheism is not the presence of a Supreme Being, but Divine essentialism, i.
e. turning God into an unmoved Mover, a "Substance of substances" ...
10.3 Aqua Magica : Healing with Dyed Water.
"I will please the Lord in the land of the living."
Psalm 114:9.
In the early XIIIth century, "placebo" was the name given to the Rite of
Vespers of the Office of the Dead. It was so called from the opening of the first
antiphon, taken from Psalm 114. These prayers intended to please them.
Indeed, the future indicative "I shall please" of "placere" ("to please") is
"placebo".
Likewise, healers try to please the patient by restoring health. Usually, a direct
causal relationship has been established between, on the one hand, medical
methods and their application and, on the other hand, their effect on the
positive, healing result. If this relationship is unknown, the word "placebo" is
used. The "placebo-effect" (as a concept commonplace in medicine since 1784)
is the tendency of any medical treatment, even an inert or ineffective one, to
exhibit results simply because the recipient believes it will work. So this is a

dummy medicine, one containing no active ingredients, an inert treatment. The
antipode of a placebo is a "nocebo" ("I will harm") from the Latin "nocere" ("to
harm").
In a materialist frame of mind, placebo's are identified as self-deception. They
are supposed to have no "objective" effect. However, this position has become
untenable. Placebo's work even if the patient is unaware he or she is given
one. They work in severe cases (lack of insulin, cancer tumours). They can
even produce the same side-effects "normal" medicines have, provided the
patient is aware of these. When the placebo is given by a person in authority
firmly convinced of his or her power to heal, the condition of its possible effect
has been met. Moreover, this effect can be increased by manipulating format.
Very big, very small, colourful or bitter pills enhance the effect. Injections too
are very powerful placebo's, especially painful ones. Personal expectations to
be healed are not always a contributing factor (while being fearful is). But the
confidence radiated by the healer seems determining. For materialism, the
placebo is a kind of fraud precisely because it implies downward causation.
Those honest enough to accept its existence are forced into incoherent
statements, like describing it as a way the brain "manipulates itself". This is
nonsensical, for the effect is triggered by the recipient's mental state. The
process initiated by the brain to heal itself is a normal healing response, not
the placebo effect ! The key issue here is the fact mere suggestion can work.
Let is consider the "art of the placebo", producing measurable physiological
responses solely through the use of their verbal competencies. This art actually
invites the placebo and tries to optimalize it. This happens by accomplishing
two tasks : (a) by suggestive induction, the natural healing capacity of the
body is triggered and (b) by repetition, a higher-order competence is put in
place.
The first task addresses the immune system. It goes hand in hand with a
relaxation response and a coherent electromagnetic heart-field. When the
human system is in a coherent mode, increased synchronization happens
between the two branches of the ANS, and entrainment between heart
rhythms, blood pressure oscillations and respiration is evidenced. These
oscillatory subsystems all vibrate at the resonant frequency, which, in humans
and many animals, is approximately 0.1 Hz or oscillations in a ten-second cycle.
"Coherence confers a number of benefits to the system in terms of both
physiological and psychological functioning. At the physiological level, there is
increased efficiency in fluid exchange, filtration and absorption between the
capillaries and tissues ; increased ability of the cardiovascular system to adapt
to circulatory demands ; and increased temporal synchronization of cells
throughout the body. This results in increased system-wide energy efficiency

and conservation of metabolic energy. These observations support the link
between positive emotions and increased physiological efficiency that may
partially explain the growing number of documented correlations between
positive emotions, improved health and increased longevity."
McCarty, R. : The Energetic Heart : Bioelectromagnetic Interactions Within and Between
People, Institute of HeartMath - Boulder, 2003, p.5.
A coherent mode is a smooth, sine-like pattern in the heart rhythms and a
narrow-band, high-amplitude peak in the low frequency range of the HRV
(heart rate variability) power spectrum, at a frequency of about 0.1 Hz. A
coherent mode reduces the activity of the sympathetic branch of the ANS. This
branch speeds heart rate, constricts blood vessels and releases stress
hormones like adrenaline, noradrenalin and cortisol. The production of cortisol
reduces DHEA production, an essential "vitality" hormone produced by the
adrenal glands, reducing aging, stimulating the immune system, lowering the
cholesterol levels and promoting bone and muscle deposition.
"A healthy reserve of assets results in vitality, adaptability, resiliency,
creativity, and a steady improvement in a healthy quality of life -
psychologically and physically. (...) It is not hard to see (...) that people who
are typically angry, hostile, and aggressive tend to have increased rates of
heart disease and premature death later in life."
Childre & Martin, 1999, pp.94-95.
But when the heart is operating in a disordered mode (low coherence), an
incoherent electromagnetic signal is broadcasted throughout the body and out
into our milieu.
Repetitio est mater studiorum.
Latin Proverb
"If rewards are withheld or provided immediately following an action, all
subsequent behavior can be modified and directed via association or through
the pairing of various stimuli (e.g., a bell followed by food) with certain natural
responses (e.g. hunger). Even psychotic, criminal, or other type of behavior
can be either created or extinguished in this manner. As a form of therapy, this
has been referred to a behavior modification."
Joseph, 1992, p.1
The second task is the result of repetition. This builds new neuronal pathways
and activates underused networks, strengthening them as they respond to the
new demands. This improved competence is not only reflected in self-healing,
for this art of pleasing can address many issues, ranging from bad health to all
possible mental afflictions. It may also assist spiritual emancipation. The many

cyclic processes witnessed in spiritual disciplines, involving countless
repetitions, generates a "daemon" or "spiritual entity", one assisting the mind
with finding ways to reduce suffering. The frontal explanation given to this
("Shekinah", "jivâtman", "Buddha-nature", "Christ within", "blessing of Allâh"
etc.) is of lesser importance than the intimate relationship established between
waking consciousness and this "inner voice", suggesting ways to health,
happiness and spiritual emancipation.
"As more and more information is assimilated and learned, more and more
cells become associated and interlinked, thus enabling mental processing to
become more complex and elaborate. (...) By repetition and practice it
becomes easier to perform a certain action until it finally becomes like a reflex
as it takes very little to trigger a response. Indeed, this is how some habits are
formed. Pratice makes perfect."
Joseph, 1992, pp.264-265.
Another aspect of the science & art of suggestion, in particular related to
placebo, is the use of a material substrate to boost the process of suggestive
induction. From the healing water altars & stelae in Ancient Egypt, the "magic"
of Nordic, Greek, Hebrew, Arab, Indian, Tibetan & Chinese talismanology, the
salvic "power" of the Christian Eucharist, to the small colourful sugar pills of
our medical doctors, suggestions work better when they are associated with a
material substrate kept near the body or assimilated by it. The former method
brings attention regularly back to this object and what it represents, thereby
reinforcing the embodied intent. The latter realizes the most intimate
relationship possible, for by consumption the intent is actually "taken in" by the
aching body.
So the many methods of "superstition", while having no causal efficiency, may
at times possess causal finality. They may influence the mind and its selfdetermining
potential. And let us remember : the only thing really needed for
suggestion to work is not the expectancy of the recipient, not his or her degree
of gullibility, susceptibility or lack of education, nor his or her belief in the salvic
power of this-or-that person or ritual, but the felt authentic belief of the one
who administers in what is said ("the incantation"), done ("the ritual activity")
and/or given ("the talisman"). A doctor who fails to trigger a placebo effect on
his patients better becomes a pathologist ...
Developing ways to empower contemporary incantations, rituals & talismans is
the consequence of attributing effective power to downward causation. For if
one can fool oneself into health, happiness and spiritual blossoming, why take
pills or seek out priests, rabbis, imams, medical doctors or psychotherapists ?

Epilogue : Taking Our Own Power Seriously.
"Therein is the secret of cheerfulness, of depending on no help from without
and needing to crave from no man the boon of tranquility. We have to stand
upright ourselves, not be set up."
Marcus Aurelius : Meditations, book 3, 5.
We have been disenfranchised. The tools to call in our own spiritual bloom,
psycho-mental health or good death have been made dormant. So-called
"specialists" have taken over. When we want God to love us we seek out
priests, rabbis or imams. If we seek enlightenment, we run after arhats,
bodhisattvas or tulku lamas. When we are sick, we go to the medical doctor
and expect some "on the spot" treatment to eliminate "the cause" quickly.
Likewise, when we are spiteful, hateful, worried, depressed, sad, fearful or
angry, we seek out psychological council or psychotherapy. We have learned to
stay under the wings of mother- and father figures our whole lives. We have
been pampered into leaving others take care. Jiddu Krishnamurti was right
saying it is no measure of health to be well adjusted to a profoundly sick
society.
To this XXth century materialist science has added the disempowering &
nonsensical belief we are only a body ruled by conditions & determinations we
cannot influence, trapped in the "net" of physical existence by blind chance and
deterministic physical process. We are told our conscious life does not really
exist and if it does, it cannot alter the "destiny" encoded in our genes, nor the
conditioning of our nurture. It all goes from the body to the mind. We
ourselves can do nothing. Just as in the good old days of the religious crackpots,
we are made to believe only outer help can save us and make us happy
and healthy ; satisfying the gods, belonging to a certain chosen group,
consuming Christ, reiterating prayers, etc. If we exist at all, we are supposed
to do little more than follow the advice of those intelligent enough to
understand the efficient causalities and so capable of assuaging us. Thanks to
blind capitalism, our physical and mental condition is bought from economical
agents claiming to possess the keys to all kinds of material success. By
becoming rich, we impoverish. By only trying to make ourselves happy, we end
up crying more.
This sordid picture is slowly changing. The near future will tell whether we are
already too late or not. But even in the case of a catastrophic emergency,
problems need to be addressed. People are turning to alternative views, more
focused on "energy, balance & flow" rather than material substances,

manipulations & interventions. A return to a neo-humanistic spirituality is on its
way. It becomes clear materialism is a dead end, like jumping on one leg
instead of walking. Physicalism is left, for one eye one sees no depth.
Meditation and self-help are becoming increasingly important.
The Academia should not lag behind because of a monolithic paradigm,
indoctrinate by materialism, physicalism, scientism & reductionism. Lack of free
study must be eliminated. Science & philosophy are not the handmaiden of
world capitalism. Future costs of wrong decisions are seldomly accurately
calculated and usually run extremely high. When the blind lead the blind, all fall
into the abyss. Luckily, the historical record shows humanity is able to face its
own ignorance and correct it. Even a virulant sceptic like the late Carl Sagan of
Cornell University, debunking alien abductions, channelers, faith healers and
most other New Age claims, found himself able to accept new evidence and so
at least foster the serious study of difficult evidence or peripheral events.
"At the time of writing there are three claims in the ESP field which, in my
opinion, deserve serious study : (1) that by thought alone humans can (barely)
affect random number generators in computers ; (2) that people under mild
sensory deprivation can receive thoughts or images 'projected' at them ; and
(3) that young children sometimes report the details of a previous life, which
upon checking turn out to be accurate and which they could not have known
about in any other way than reincarnation."
Sagan, C. : The Demon Haunted World, Random House - New York, 1995, p.302.
What does it mean to take ourselves seriously ?
The organic whole of actual occasions, the universal sea of process, extended
from the extremely small to the humongous, is both physical and non-physical.
Both domains have distinct properties, consisting of actual occasions defined in
efficient & final terms. The efficient terms can be identified, following the
classical interpretation of physical formalism, as the quantum mechanical
collapse, turning potentiality into actuality. But before this collapse, physicality
and non-physicality form a potential whole.
The non-physical encompasses two domains, information (the world of
embodied & disembodied mental, abstract, theoretical objects, Popper's World
2) and consciousness (the world of the percipient participator endowed with
conscious choice and so self-determination, Popper's World 3). The physical
(the world of matter, Popper's World 1) is the domain of objects with mass &
momentum. By acknowledging these domains, the non-physical is not made
part or reduced to matter. Hence, the question of the functional role of the nonphysical
on the valuation of possible physical outcome, can be posed. This is
not only accepting the importance of the non-physical (as some physicalists

willingly do), but also stressing downward causation is as important as upward
causation. Downward causation is not adding or taking away physical energy
(cf. the First Law of Thermodynamics), but merely rearranging physical
patterns by way of propensity-fields, who -like photons- have zero mass. This
involves decisions & choices influencing the final outcome of certain processes
predominantly determined by efficient causation. Especially in highly integrated
and complex individualized societies of actual occasions (like the three brains
of the human body), where the Butterfly effect is ongoing (cf. Descartes'
search for a "sensitive area") and statistical processes abound, can -ex
hypothesi- the influence of propensity fields be strong.
The first step in regaining ground for humankind is observing the impact of the
mind on the body. The inalienable first person perspective or "reality-for-me" is
a real, irreducible and private sense of identity and the seat of intentionality,
understood as the confrontation with otherness, but also as a vital inner "prise
de conscience". This impact views volition as a nondetermined cause : the
superimposition of propensity-fields generated by the mind does not violate
physical conservation laws, but co-determines the final momentum of matter &
information and this hand in hand with the deterministic evolution of the
physically determined vector. This leads to freedom & responsibility, for only
because the "I" have (relative) meaning, can "my" body be made accountable
for past deeds.
The creative presence of human consciousness on this planet has added to
reality and has allowed countless cultural forms to be added to the natural
structure of our Solar system. This consciousness is a kind of physical force on
its own. It made possible the reflective & reflexive meaning arrived at when the
historical process of the ongoingness of being is understood, and wisdom is
aspired. Creativity is adding new events to the universal process. This is also
an ongoing perishing, for because of their complexity, many societies
experience friction, turbulence & conflict. Because the efficient causality of
certain processes are not understood and so mismanaged, ecological,
economical, social & political catastrophes are unleashed. These wrong
valuations have very costly cumulative effects, as climate change shows.
So by accepting the exceptional nature of the human being, one couples
freedom (and downward causation) with responsibility (and personhood). The
human needing liberation from the chains of organized religions. This was the
final outcome of the Age of Enlightenment. Today, we must free ourselves from
the chains of materialist, physicalist science, promoting an untrue, decadent
caricature of man. This alternative views does not reject evolution (for man's
body emerged from ape), but merely acknowledges the irreducible functional
distinctness of the mental, of consciousness, of intent, of free choice. Replacing
the churches with the science of matter did not entitle materialist science to

mimic the church in terms of rejecting stuff ex cathedra. But it did.
Science of matter and science of mind must walk hand in hand. This brings
about the greatest scientific revolution of all times. Hear Ye !
Suggested reading
Please consult : www.neuro.sofiatopia.org/brainbiblio.htm
Chapter 6
Sensations
formal sketch of a critical esthetics
"For a philosopher, it is unworthy to say that 'the good and the beautiful are one' ; if he
adds to this 'also the true', then one should thrash him * . Truth is not beautiful. We have art
so that we do not to succumb because of truth."
Nietzsche, F. : Gesammelte Werke IV, München, 1972, p.832, my translation - * prügeln.
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Introduction
Definitions
I : Transcendental Esthetics.
II : Theoretical Esthetics :
01. Beauty as the pleasant.
02. Beauty as satisfaction.
03. Beauty as taste.
04. Excellence, exemplarity & sublimity.
05. The esthetic process.

06. Transcendental harmonization.
07. Instinctual disharmonization or reversal.
08. The Fine Arts : material & imaginal dimensions.
09. The own-form of creative thought.
10. Directly observing sublimity.
III : Applied Esthetics.
11. Factors of creativity.
12. An esthetics of music.
13. Objective art.
14. Subjective art.
15. Social art.
16. Personal art.
17. Revolutionary art.
18. Psycho-dynamic art.
19. Total art.
20. Magisterial art.
Suggested Reading
Introduction
"Aesthesis" is derived from the Greek word "aisthétikos", or sensate observation.
"Aisthésis", or "sensation", "feeling" or "taste" has also a verbal form, namely
"aisthanomei", meaning "to observe", "to feel", "to have taste for". In general philosophy,
esthetics has the beautiful as object and studies why sensate objects are deemed
"beautiful". And in the retinue of this : How to validate an esthetic judgement ? What can I
hope ?

the Scribe of Saqqara (Louvre)
IVth or Vth Dynasty (ca.2600 - 2348 BCE)
Grosso modo, the history of esthetics has following periods :
● Ancient Egyptian period : as early as 2.600 BCE, the "canon" of Ancient Egyptian
civilization (ca. 3000 - 30 BCE) ruled all aspects of upper class life, including writing,
art, architecture, sapience & religion. Three millennia long, it was the measure they
always returned to. In this canon, φ = 1 + √5 /2 ≈ 1.618 033 989 and proportions of
triangles were recurrent. Beauty was the actual presence or horizon ("Akh") of the
divine (in the temple), and the divine was (also) a sacred glyph, word or number ;
● Greek period : for Plato (428 - 347 BCE), the arts, considered -except for "inspired"
poetry- as mere crafts, imitate life, whereas Aristoteles (384 - 322 BCE), equates
beauty with order, proportion, symmetry & size. For Plotinus (ca. 205 - 270), beauty
is not defined by symmetry & size, but by a formative principle allowing parts of an
object to form a unity. In the latter, beauty thrones. Beauty is the inner reality of the
soul, and beauty is good. Its formative principle is rooted in "the One", situated
outside the being of the infinite ideas of the world of originals and defined as a nonbeing
on the other side of being, i.e. wholly transcendent ;
● Christian period : the Late Hellenistic Greek "Fathers of the Church" devised a
Christocentric & Trinitarian theology, a Christian variation on the neo-Platonic theme,

in which the world of ideas is the transcendent Mind of God and beauty was deemed a
mere imitation of the revelation of what God had, has & will have on His Mind
(according to the believers) ;
● Modern period : with Kant (1724 - 1804), the line is drawn between "perception" and
"sensation", between, on the one hand, -so must we think- the perception of
objective, factual stimuli by the receptor-surfaces of our physical sensory organs, and,
on the other hand, the sensation or conscious designation of these coded stimuli.
Moreover, beauty is more than pleasantness & satisfaction, it is an example ;
● Postmodern period : after the romantic introduction of irrationality and its
recuperation by the techno-materialist monolith worshipped by the nations,
deconstruction hit at the heart of the "grand tales" of realist or idealist foundational
onto-conceptuality, introducing an "open space" or "margin", running parallel with the
narrow, fossilized designation of reason as "presence". Esthetics integrates the
explosion of alternative ways to seek harmony and disharmonization ;
● Hypermodern period : redefinition is the inevitable outcome of any prolonged mental
exercise, especially in philosophy, the way of wisdom. The sapiental path is
theoretical & practical. The theory of philosophy is a normative & descriptive study of
the way of wisdom. The practice of philosophy is the pragmatism of the philosophical
life, both psychological & economical. Esthetics, together with epistemology & ethics,
is a normative discipline, occupying itself not with what is but with what ought to be.
Critical esthetics is in tune with the neurophilosophy of sensation. Perception is three-fold.
Its efficient neurological cause is called "transduction" ("to lead across"). This is the logic by
which a receptor cell, exposed to chemical (smell, taste), mechanical (touch, hearing) or
electro-magnetic (sight) environmental stimuli, causes an electrical response. Next, by
afferent relay, this coded information travels to the CNS, and is projected (via the
thalamus) into the primary sensory area. Because these perceptional data are introduced
through sensory pathways to which consciousness has no direct access, perception is,
paradoxically, non-sensational. We are not conscious of what the senses perceive, but only
of what is sensate by way of them.
All sensory perceptions are relayed to the thalamus, integrating & spatiotemporalizing them
as stimuli coded in a format the neocortex is able to read. These are projected into the
primary sensory cortex to be immediately recognized by the verbal association area and the
attention association area as object-knowledge.
Although the pair perception/sensation plays a fundamental role in epistemology (and
science), it is not without importance in esthetics. The need to distinguish between the
input of the senses (perception) and the irreducible interpretation of the conceptual mind
(sensation) is crucial here.
We cannot accept sensate information at face value, but must distinguish between the
supposed raw sense-data -we are bound to affirm- and the elaborate appearance of
sensate objects in simple to complex conceptual frameworks. The facts observed are
always a product of coded "raw" materials and elaborate interpretations. Hence, facts are
hybrids, possessing both a theory-immanent and, so we must think, a theory-transcendent

facet (cf. Chapter 2).
Although the conceptual mind is unable to eliminate interpretation to make sensation
absolute, it can introduce elaborate comparisons, try to integrate information from as many
angels as possible and seek intersubjective confirmation. Insofar as an intersubjective
consensus is at hand and sensations are repeated over and over again, the intersubjective
margin may be reduced, although never completely eliminated (the scientific language
game, conceptual & discursive, has no privileged access to naked perception).
In esthetics, the theme of illusion, of things not appearing as they truly exist from their own
side, is already given at the start, namely in terms of objects of pleasure. The affect of
pleasure can be transferred to different objects. What causes pleasure for me does not
necessarily cause pleasure for You. The pleasant is individual and so pointless to discuss.
Only by the coincidence of pleasures can a common illusion be formed, opening the
possibility of palaces of pleasure and sensuous gratifications.
De gustibus et coloribus non disputandum est.
Also concepts, backing satisfactions, dichotomize what is a mere idea of the Real or the
Ideal. And when moving unto these ontological extremes, conceptual thought is deluded by
the fata morgana taking form under the spell of either an objective, extra-mental,
independent reality "out there" or the idealization of subjective states.
In this exercise, exquisite craft, prowess in craftsmanship, excellence & exemplarity touch
the beautiful devoid of subjectivity, either in terms of the way the artist used the esthetic
features and/or as the result of using one of the forms of harmonization. This critical
esthetics cannot transcend duality, although it can lay bare the asymptotic progressions
working towards the sublime.
The three normative disciplines, epistemology, ethics & esthetics have three parts :
(1) transcendental logic : lays bare the principles needed to be able to think truth,
goodness & beauty ;
(2) theoretical esthetics : the study of the norms of excellence & exemplary harmony, and
the way they touch esthetic judgement ;
(3) applied esthetics : the study of the conditions or maxims of creativity & the practice of
harmonization.
Before starting, let me define the most common terms used.
Definitions
GENERAL
subject of experience : or object-possessor is the consciousness attributing meaning to the
sensate, affective, mental or volitional objects with which it is endowed ;

object of experience : facts tested and discussed by the community of relevant signinterpreters
denoting sensate, affective, mental or volitional objects, deemed to "exist" hic
et nunc (direct) or posited as coherent referents of a scientific paradigm (indirect) ;
sensate object : conscious experiences derived from perception and its sensory system and
receptor organs.
inner object : the conscious experience of objects derived from cognition, affection &
volition ;
scientific paradigm : fallible system of empirico-formal propositions of fact assumed to be
true by the current community of scientists or summum bonum of relative, conventional
truth ;
relative truth : ensemble of statements about sensate & mental reality as possessed by
ordinary (nominal) states & stations of consciousness, but dispossessed of absolute
certainty regarding the final truth about the nature of the appearances or phenomena ;
absolute truth : the existence of every thing as it is ;
system : the totality of parts organized in an orderly fashion ;
movement : a change in the physical position and/or momentum of a system in the
exclusive presence of external causes (cf. "S-R" or Stimulus-Response, with absence of
internal causes) ;
coordinations of movement : combinations of movement of a system in the presence of
external and internal causes (cf. "S-I-R" or Stimulus-Internal-Reponse, characterized by the
presence of a conscious agent and/or a meaningful, userware choice) ;
internal causes : energy belonging to the interiority of a system, engendering changes
initiated by the intent of the conscious agent of the system, either mental, affectional &
volitional ;
external causes : energy belonging to the exteriority, environment or "Lebenswelt" of a
system, caused by sensate objects ;
action : a change brought about or prevented by a conscious, intentional, intelligent,
affective and volitional (behavioural) system with minimal impact on the world ; the
absence of action (inaction), being the zero-action ;
free will : the director of intentional action in the absence of all possible coercion,
determination or causality to undertake something or to do nothing ;
ESTHETICS
esthetics : (theoretical) the unveiling of the conditions of harmony ruling the making of
beauty and (applied) the study of creativity and the production of excellent, exemplary and
sublime states of matter ;
beauty : is what belongs to excellent sensate states of matter & mental objects, causing

these to be an example of an own-form of harmony ;
esthetic : relating to the general characteristic of art or artists ;
art : the creating & positioning of beautiful objects ;
fine arts : specific set of production-forms of beauty ;
work of art : the final point in a process of excellent manipulation of sensate states of
matter, positing the continuity of exemplarity and the direct outcome of esthetical will by
excellence, example & sublimity ;
excellent work of art : exquisite examples of esthetically meaningful craftmanlike
manipulations of sensate states of matter ;
exemplary work of art : sensate states which are excellent & fitting examples of the
consistent use of one or more forms of harmonization ;
sublime work of art : the sensate states of matter are excellent, exemplary and for ever
pregnant of an inexpressible, unbounded wholeness ;
ESTHETIC OBJECT
esthetic object : sensate states of matter or mental objects possessing esthetic features ;
esthetic features : sum total of all sensate & evocative esthetical features ;
esthetic experience : the process of the conscious experience of an esthetic object ;
sensate esthetic features : sum total of all material, formal and kinetic denotative
characteristics of an esthetic object ;
evocative esthetic features : sum total of all connotative meanings suggested by the
sensate esthetic features ;
esthetic meaning : the way exquisite sensate states are specifically presented, expressed,
manifested, created, realized, actualized ;
ESTHETIC SUBJECT
esthetic subject : sensate, mental, affective, volition states aroused by beauty in the
conscious subject of experience, or each subject experiencing beauty ;
esthetic attitude : the habit of being attentfull to esthetic features ;
esthetic judgement : positing, by way of concepts, the excellent & exemplary nature of a
work of art, the fact of beauty ;
artist : the esthetical subject creating beautiful sensate objects ;
creativity : capacity of an artist to fashion new states of matter, infused with new forms &

meanings, or the appearance of freedom in & despite necessity ;
esthetic milieu : conventional information stored in the collective data bank (or collective
memory), acting as a source of information, turning beauty into a cultural form (education
& socialization) ;
CORE ESTHETICS
harmonization : affective, volitional & cognitive process whereby the esthetic object & the
artist confront and balance out ;
forms of harmonization : sets of logical primitives & operations involved in the process of
harmonization and derived from the duality between object & subject of esthetics ;
disharmonization : process whereby, within an anti-order, conflicts, tensions & the
expression of ugliness are consciously cultivated, increasing reversal, disharmony &
destruction.
Book Naught
Transcendental Esthetics
0. No creativity without a transcendental object, i.e. states of sensate matter
or sensate objects, and a transcendental subject, i.e. a consciousness bringing
about excellence of craft worthy of imitation (exemplary).
00. The minimum necessity for a possible esthetics ? Sensate states of matter
or mental objects accommodating craftsmanship and harmonization.
000. Creativity adds to reality (freedom) and is always more than the sum of
its parts.
1. By the creation and expression of beautiful sensate objects, the
transcendental subject of esthetics introduces freedom.
1.1 No transcendental subject without free will (slipping through the uncertainty-margins of
nature) and its power of choice.
1.2 Esthetic judgements invite the assent of all to an excellent work of art exemplifying a
universal rule with such sublimity that conceptual reason exhaust its finitude.
2. The transcendental object of esthetics is either an appearance to
consciousness of particles & forces, or sensation, caused by changes brought
about on the surface of the receptor organs of the sensory system, or
perceptions. Or, the object is mental.

2.1 The sensate world is the beginning & end of esthetics.
2.1.1 Esthetic objects are either sensate or mental, but mental objects are part of esthetics
if and only if they have sensate and/or evocative esthetic features.
2.1.2 Mere mental features of mental esthetic objects (devoid of sensate and/or evocative
esthetic features) are not studied by esthetics, focused on sensate objects.
2.1.3 Mental features like symmetry, reciprocity, elegance, simplicity, consistency or
coherence constitute the beauty of logic.
2.2 In epistemology, "realism" & "idealism" are the leading ideas. In ethics, "intent",
"duty", "conscience" & "calling" are necessary. The regulative idea of esthetics is "the
world".
2.3 The sensate world is an appearance.
2.3.1 Against nihilism : the world appears because sensory perceptions are ongoing. In the
dreamworld and dreamless sleep, the sensate world vanishes.
2.3.2 Against dogmatism (realism/idealism) : the world appears because perceptions are
always & irreversibly fabricated into conscious sensations.
3. Eliminate freedom, and esthetics is a physics of the pleasurable without
beauty. Eliminate sensation, and beauty is confined to mental objects.
3.1 Esthetics celebrates sensate matter so beautiful it exceeds finitude.
3.2 The subject of experience has either sensate or mental objects in consciousness.
Sensate objects, so must we assume, are caused by perceptions fabricated into conscious
sensations. Mental objects are caused by volitions, feelings & cognitions.
3.3 Contrary to truth & goodness, beauty has no compelling or imperative necessity, but is
an invitation to resonate with the excellent, the worthy of imitation and the sublime.
3.4 Besides the beautiful mental objects of logic, the beauty of mental objects also involves
an esthetics of cognition (the constant balancing-out of object & subject in the production
of relative truth), an esthetics of ethics (the exercise of a balanced choice to do the good)
and an esthetics of affection (harmony as training in non-afflictive emotions).
Book 1
Theoretical Esthetics
4. From the side of the esthetic object, sensate & evocative esthetic features
imply a direct, conscious experience. Beauty is the presence of a particular
property or properties in some or all objects of experience. From the side of the
esthetic subject, beauty is a particular esthetic attitude of the subject of
experience taken with regard to some or all objects of experience.
4.1 In critical esthetics, sensation & evocation are the stuff of beauty. Mere mental beauty,

i.e. devoid of sensate and/or evocative esthetic features, is an object of logic.
4.2 For an esthetic judgement to be possible, thoughts need to be infused in states of
matter, constituting an impermanent glyph, a kind of petrified, mummified, fixated thought.
4.2.1 In an absolute sense, permanent glyphs can nowhere be found, although the
architecture of the world has its natural constants (series of irrational numbers round-off by
convention).
4.2.2 Glyphs are meaningful representations of sensate and/or mental objects incised in
matter. When nearly-permanent media are found, certain glyphs are carved deep into
matter. These are "signs", transmitted to the next generation.
4.2.3 Human glyphs are signs and tools. Signs make a decisive association between, on
the one hand, mental objects and, on the other hand, sounds and/or gestures (verbal &
non-verbal language). Tools are complex glyphs instrumental in a functional interaction
with the environment.
4.2.4 Signs are signals, icons & symbols. Signals herald survival, icons belongingness
(affects) and symbols cognition & volition.
4.3 Objective esthetics, based on a realist ontology of the essence (substance or nature) of
beauty, is one-sided (does not integrate the subjectivity of the receptor) and focuses on
material & formal features, with the danger of academism and formalism.
4.4 Subjective esthetics, based on an idealist ontology of the adequatio of mind and reality,
is one-sided (does not integrate the objectivity of perceptions), identifying beauty with a
state of consciousness. Here egocentrism & solipsism lurk.
4.5 Critical esthetics has three developmental stages : esthetics as physical science deals
with the sensation of the pleasant, esthetics as an objective or subjective ontology
introduces the idea of the beautiful to underpin satisfaction, while esthetics as taste brings
in excellence & harmony, pointing to sublimity.
4.5.1 The esthetic of the pleasant studies the emotional arousal caused by esthetic objects.
Strong signals & emotional images hook our desire for pleasurable experiences. Without
moderation seek this for its own sake and emotional addiction ensues.
4.5.2 The esthetic of satisfaction studies how the pleasure derived from an emotionally
charged icon may be boosted by introducing exaggerated concepts about how this object
really is or how it should be ultimately conceived.
4.5.3 The esthetic of taste lays bare the exquisiteness of the craftsmanship and the
excellence of the composition of the revealed esthetic features, i.e. the way they are used.
If this excellence is a harmony, exemplarity may be the case.
4.5.4 Excellent examples integrating disharmony are sublime.
01. Beauty as the pleasant.
5. Esthetics as physical science conceives beauty as "pleasant", i.e. what is
pleasing to the senses. This is a personal, relative, direct, sensuous
appreciation of the perceptions received by our receptor organs.
5.1 To discuss the pleasant, bound up with personal interest, is futile (individuum est
ineffabile). The worth of the agreeable, lovely, delightful & enjoyable consists in personal

gratification. Everyone has his own pleasures and can share them with others.
5.1.1 The art of pleasure studies the sensuality of smell, taste, touch, hearing and sight,
bringing them together in a synesthesia of pleasure.
5.1.2 When beauty-as-pleasure is intersubjective, a interpersonal illusion is consciously
created, a trade-off of pleasure for more pleasure resulting in less.
5.1.3 The moment the pleasurable experience stops being orgiastic, the return to sobriety
is initiated.
5.1.4 The marginal increase of pleasure of repeated pleasurable experiences decreases.
5.1.5 The art of pleasure is the increase of the duration of the orgiastic by increasing what
happens before and after it, and this until the experience of pleasure is omnipresent.
5.1.6 Beyond the rule of immediate gratifications (or hedonism pur sang), the art of
pleasure invites one to think satisfaction, taste and sublimity.
5.1.7 As pleasure seeks satisfaction, satisfaction seeks taste.
5.2 The pleasantness of the esthetic object, like any other sensate or mental object, is the
outcome of emotional coloring (thalamus, limbic system) and fabrication (neocortex).
5.2.1 All afferent sensory pathways come together in the mammalian thalamus, where
they are modulated, integrated & translated before being projected in the human cerebrum.
The emotional brain colors these inputs before & after they have entered the neocortex.
5.2.2 In the neocortex, a complex network of cortical area's process the inputs provided by
the five primary sensory areas. Recognition and naming of sensate objects is linked with
tool-making and verbalization (cf. the angular gyrus). Positioning of the object in space &
time and focusing attention are processed in other association areas.
5.3 The pleasant idolizes the esthetic features of sensate objects.
5.3.1 Different cultures idolize different features.
5.3.2 Classical pleasurable features are examples of objective art, imitating the
architectonic key of nature.
6. The beauty of the pleasant consists in sensation and to part from it or to
remember to have done so, is cause of unhappiness.
6.1 Resting entirely upon sensation, the pleasant involves the ante-rational coloration of
perception.
6.1.1 Ante-rationality encompasses mythical, pre-rational & proto-rational thought
operating in mythical (non-verbal), pre-conceptual & concrete conceptual modes of thought
(cf. Chapter 2).
6.1.2 Insofar as ante-rationality has easier access to the limbic system (via the non-verbal
hemisphere ?), its operation is more limbic than cortical, more based on direct relatedness
than on conceptual discrimination. Hence, to seek pleasure, conceptual thoughts are
unnecessary.
6.1.3 Pleasantness is largely an automatic response to the stimuli provided by affect icons
of affection.
6.2 Processing the internal workings of feelings (affects), helps finding the icon of personal
emotions, singling out or selecting this-or-that pleasantness in a given sensate object.
6.3 As long as the delightful sensate object is present, pleasure is aroused and sustained
by the affective stream of consciousness. To then miss this pleasure may cause

dissatisfaction.
6.3.1 Pleasure dismisses conceptualization. But when pleasure only seeks itself,
mindlessness & tastelessness ensue.
6.3.2 Experience pleasurable sensate objects without mentation, witnessing their
conditioned & transient nature.
02. Beauty as satisfaction.
7. Esthetics as ontology grasps beauty as "satisfaction", making the beautiful
depend on a conceptual reflection upon the esthetic object or the esthetic
subject.
7.1 An ontology of beauty binds enjoyable, lovely sensate objects to concepts able, for a
while, to resurrect the joy & the love of the enjoyable & the lovely as some "pure"
satisfaction of either their "true reality" or their "real ideality".
7.1.1 The "true reality" of an esthetic object, is the quantity, quality, relation & modality
the object is deemed possessed with. This is the ontology of esthetic realism.
7.1.2 The "real ideality" of an esthetic subject, is the perfect conceptualization of beauty
offered by our esthetic attitude, as it were the eternalization of the "pleasantness" of what
was a mere sensation. This is the ontology of esthetic idealism.
7.1.3 Devoid of foundationalism, critical esthetics has no need to move to these extremes
and always seeks the middle ground.
7.2 The "ideal reality" as well as the "real ideality" of esthetics (the transcendent Real-Ideal
of beauty) is necessarily sublime, i.e. non-conceptual & beyond the dual, conceptualizing
mind.
7.2.1 Insofar esthetics is a rational discipline, it cannot transgress the borders of an
immanent metaphysics.
7.2.2 If craftsmanship & excellence are defined in the formal & critical modes of thought,
exemplarity, based on harmony, makes use of creative concepts which can not be tested
but only argued.
7.2.3 Craftsmanship & excellence are the scientific aims of critical esthetics, while
exemplarity is metaphysical.
7.2.4 The sublime is the transcendent signifier allowing esthetics to touch the ultimate
nature of phenomena.
7.2.5 Because epistemology has no transcendent signifier, thought, and by extension
science, can have their own space based on the groundless ground of knowledge (cf.
Chapter 2). In ethics, "calling" is the transcendent signifier allowing fairness to become
rightness (cf. Chapter 3).
7.3 The move from transient to eternalizing concepts is ruled out by logic. The "point at
infinity" (or limit-concept) must not be "filled in" and ontologised. The Real & the Ideal do
not serve as hypokeimenon.
7.3.1 Critical esthetics focuses on sensate objects. Most of the time, it operates in the
formal & critical modes of thought. Exquisite & excellent works of art are rare.

7.3.2 Exemplary art is surprisingly unique, truly rarissime.
7.3.3 Sublime art is Divine and so ineffable.
7.4 Satisfaction imagines the evocative esthetic features.
7.4.1 Conceptualizing this brings about conceptualizing that. One image gets associated
with another. Conceptualization inevitably constructs connotations overlaying sensation
itself.
7.4.2 Connotations based on sensate features are mental objects. Thanks to imagination,
mental objects can be visualized.
8. If the beautiful is only pleasure & satisfaction, the esthetic judgement of
craftsmanship is part of Art Studies.
8.1 The focus of Art Studies is on the artistic phenomenon, laying bare the nature of the
arts (objective esthetics) and their effects (subjective esthetics).
8.1.1 Besides the nature of the arts, objective esthetics investigates the systematic
relationships between the fine arts and the interactions between art & no-art.
8.1.2 Subjective esthetics tries to understand esthetic experience, esthetic affectivity,
esthetic conceptuality & esthetic motivation in the light of a "special" property of the
esthetic attitude, like absence of personal interest.
8.2 Critical esthetics, as the normative philosophy of the beautiful, adds excellence &
exemplary harmony, touching sublimity.
9. Art Studies necessitates a specific inquiry for each art. As object, the
physical constitution, the phenomenal actuality, the semantics and the
interrelation with the other forms of art are grasped as the material object of
the art. Subjectively, the value of the work of art, the quality of its reception
and the evolution in the quality of taste are aimed at.
03. Beauty as taste.
"I may assert in the case of every representation that the synthesis of a pleasure with the
representation (as a cognition) is at least possible. Of what I call agreeable I assert that it
actually causes pleasure in me. But what we have in mind in the case of the beautiful is a
necessary reference on its part to delight. However, this necessity is of a special kind. It is
not a theoretical objective necessity-such as would let us cognize a priori that every one
will feel this delight in the object that is called beautiful by me. Nor yet is it a practical
necessity, in which case, thanks to concepts of a pure rational will in which free agents are
supplied with a rule, this delight is the necessary consequence of an objective law, and
simply means that one ought absolutely (without ulterior object) to act in a certain way.

Rather, being such a necessity as is thought in an aesthetic judgement, it can only be
termed exemplary. In other words it is a necessity of the assent of all to a judgement
regarded as exemplifying a universal rule incapable of formulation. Since an aesthetic
judgement is not an objective or cognitive judgement, this necessity is not derivable from
definite concepts, and so is not apodeictic. Much less is it inferable from universality of
experience (of a thoroughgoing agreement of judgements about the beauty of a certain
object). For, apart from the fact that experience would hardly furnish evidences sufficiently
numerous for this purpose, empirical judgements do not afford any foundation for a
concept of the necessity of these judgements."
Kant : Critique of Judgement, Book 1, Fourth Moment, § 18 (transl. Meredith).
10. As a normative discipline, esthetics uncovers the norms ruling "taste" or
the excellence of sensate states of matter and the exemplary harmonizations
every esthetic subject ought to acknowledge.
10.1 Sensate states of matter are either natural or artificial. Natural beauty unveils the
beauty of the kingdoms of nature and offers insights into the esthetics of the cosmos.
Artificial beauty is a cultural object revealing excellence & exemplary form.
10.2 Critical esthetics avoids to root, objectively as well as subjectively, the beautiful in a
sufficient ground outside thought.
10.2.1 The norm of excellence is not based on esthetical features (their quantity, quality,
relation or modality). It depends on the intensity of the conscious esthetic meaning infused
in these features, i.e. their use.
10.2.2 The transcendental categories of this esthetics are derived from the condition of
sensate states of matter in terms of exemplary status, pointing to the spirit of sublimity.
10.2.3 Sensate objects and mental objects are not devoid of conceptual interpretation (this
avoids the eternalism of the object). Conceptual interpretation of reality without sensation
is impossible (this avoids the eternalism of the subject).
10.3 Esthetic objects are called beautiful because the esthetic judgement designating them
is, as far as possible, independent of pleasure, satisfaction or dissatisfaction, although
pleasure & satisfaction may well be present.
10.3.1 Esthetic judgement is based on the way esthetic features are used (excellence) and
how harmony is applied (exemplarity).
10.3.2 The esthetic judgement calls for the assent of all esthetic subjects to a judgement
of taste regarded as exemplifying a definite rule of harmony.
10.4 Excellent sensate matter does more than maintain a high standard in material, formal
and/or kinetic denotations (i.e. craft & craftsmanship), but stimulates the senses in concert
because of the meaningful way the given esthetic features are expressed.
10.5 Exemplary art affords an example of the application of the principle of harmony,
inviting all esthetic subjects to enjoy what they ought to accept as beautiful because of
excellence surpassed by exemplary harmony.
10.6 Critical esthetics points at but cannot penetrate the sublime, unfolding a unique
evolutionary process of spiritualizing matter.
04. Excellence, exemplarity & sublimity.

11. The norms ruling excellence cover sensate & evocative esthetic features,
expressive enough to be received by others.
11.1 Sensate esthetic features are denotations based on sensation. Evocative esthetic
features are affective, volitional, cognitive & conscious connotations based on denotations.
11.2 Art is not to be present in the mind or the workplace of the artist only. Art is creating
& exposing, impression & expression. Work of arts belong to the esthetic process and are
moments of the ongoing stream of communication between its actors.
11.3 Sensate esthetic features include motoric & formal features. Motoric features define
the momentum of the object, while form denotes composition (based on size, proportion,
balance, etc.).
11.4 Judgement of skill or craftsmanship is based on how each available esthetic features
is executed and integrated to form a functional whole.
11.5 An exquisite, functional whole is not a priori excellent, while excellent art is always
exquisite.
12. The esthetic judgement of excellence is not based on the esthetic features
themselves, integrated as they are in an organic whole, but on their total or
partial esthetic meaning.
12.1 Consciousness is the userware operating the evolutionary software encoded in the
hardware of the body. If matter is capacity and information is data, then userware is the
meaningful use of both as well as the inner reflection changing code & machine (cf.
autopoiesis).
12.2 Excellence is not the outcome of a mere presentation of sensate esthetic features (as
in exquisite skill), but of esthetic meaning, i.e. of the way exquisite sensate states are
specifically presented, expressed, manifested, created, realized, actualized.
12.2.1 For example. Not harshness, coldness or softness (of a work of art) are objectified,
but how harsh harshness, how cold coldness and how soft softness is.
12.2.2 To express this intensity of the predicate, more is needed than exquisite esthetic
features. Without this conscious capacity to create freedom in sensate states of matter,
pleasure is all what is left.
12.2.3 Turning free creativity into symbols, excellence points to qualities beyond the
conditions imposed by sensation. A higher-order form is at work.
12.2.4 Consciousness, immaterial & nameless, infuses meaning in glyphs, or typical
modifications of sensate states of matter.
12.2.5 Excellence is a potent symbiosis of signs resonating with their beholder. This focus,
presence & meaningful interdependence of the each esthetic feature with all others, adds a
meta-level to the esthetic experience of excellence.
12.2.6 Craft, excellence, exemplarity & sublimity are the levels of esthetic appreciation.
12.3 In any esthetic judgement, partial and total judgement are to be distinguished. The
beauty of the parts does not make the beauty of the whole, rather, the whole is sensate
before the parts.

13. Esthetic features cover : (a) local events, (b) regional categories and (c)
the total categorial system.
13.1 Local events are specific esthetic features. For example, in the orchestra, the sudden
sound of the Flauto piccolo during tutti piano, in ballet, an unexpected jump like the Grand
Jeté, in painting, a lovely executed hand, or in literature, a remarkable passage in the text,
etc.
13.2 Regional categories are sections of a work of art. For example, the string, woodwind,
brass or percussion sections, and the excellence of their esthetic features.
13.3 The total system refers to the work of art as a whole. The conductor's score is an
analogy (however, in music, being acoustic, the work of art exists only when it is played).
13.4 Critical esthetic judgements distinguish between these layers of esthetic features.
Thus, ugly local features may functionally assist excellent regional expressiveness and
global balance.
14. As esthetic features are based on interdependent sensations, they
functionally exist as long as they interact with other features.
14.1 The sensate nature of the stuff of esthetics turns it into a differential activity related
to the infinitesimal increment in the variables of sensation.
14.1.1 Each sense has a threshold beyond which the inability to register with more subtlety
(with a finer pixel) fabricates the illusion of a discrete process to be continuous.
14.1.2 For example. A movie runs at twenty-four frames per second, making a discrete
sequence of individual frames appear as a natural and unfabricated continuous sensate
object. Slowing down would make the individual frames of the film visible, causing the fata
morgana of appearances to breakdown.
14.1.3 Sensation is the appearance of phenomena fabricated by our senses on the basis of
perception.
14.1.4 Naked perception, share by all animals, is what happens when sensory stimuli are
transduced into bio-electric impulses. Natural perception is what we share with the other
mammals (cf. Chapter 4).
14.1.5 The mind of duality (of object & subject) cannot eliminate interpretation without
eliminating itself. Because of our mental fabrications, sensation is all what is left of
perception.
14.1.6 Science nor philosophy perceive, they sensate.
14.2 For excellence, all what matters, is the way these differential changes in exquisite
esthetic features are an expression of consciousness. One does not seek beauty (as in
pleasure & satisfaction), but shows how beautiful beauty is (as in excellence).
15. The esthetic judgement of example is based on a spectrum of possible
abstract forms of harmony, ranging from the entirely subjective to the entirely

objective.
15.1 The abstract forms, rooted in transcendental esthetics, are necessary but formal. The
transcendental object is a sensate object, the subject an expressive artist. All
harmonizations necessarily involve this pair.
15.2 Positing, comparing, denying, uniting & transcending are the five models of harmony.
15.2.1 Positioning : affirming the object without the subject or affirming the subject
without the object.
15.2.2 Comparing : considering the object more than the subject or considering the
subject more than the object.
15.2.3 Denying : rejecting the object or rejecting the subject.
15.2.4 Uniting : identifying object with subject and subject with object.
15.2.5 Transcending : zeroing out of all harmonization, without object or subject.
I
prenominal
II
nominal
III
metanominal
anterationality
rationality
metarationality
Critical Esthetics
1 the pleasant
2 the pleasant
3 the satisfying
barrier between instinct and reason
4 the exquisite
5 the excellent
barrier between rationality and intuition
6 the exemplar
7 the sublime
INSTINCT
signal
icon
REASON
symbol
INTUITION
Gestalt
INTUITION
full-empty
16. Sublime works of art testify of the natural, nondual light of the mind.
05. The esthetic process.

17. In the esthetic process, the four actors are : the environment (the esthetic
milieu), the sender (the artist), the message (the work of art) and the receiver
(the public).
17.1 The characteristics of the cycle of communication can be applied to the esthetic
process.
17.2 Each actor, like the neuron, is stimulated by a source and in turn becomes a source of
stimuli :
1. environment or esthetic milieu : collective, conventional information or code is stored
in the collective data bank (or collective memory), acting as a source of information
concerning the cultural form (education & socialization) ;
2. sender or artist : the stimuli of the environment are received by the info-receptor of
an individual sender, who integrates the information and (tries to) author an original,
individualized response, which is a variation on the theme of the collective code ;
3. message or work of art : the actual response of the sender is a message which is a
symptom of the response and the source of symbolic activity sent to a receiver ;
4. receiver or the public : the symbols received are integrated by the receiver who has
access to the collective code and who integrates the received symbols in the
repertoire of the data bank of the collective, communicating the integrated symbols of
the message.
17.3 Each of the actors is a system. The esthetic milieu, the artist and the public are open
systems, the work of art is a closed system.
17.4 In esthetics, closed systems are meaningful signs standing on their own, being
symptoms of a creative intent.
17.5 The esthetic process is characterized by the following types of information : direct &
primary, direct & secondary, indirect & primary, indirect & secondary.
17.5.1 Works of art are direct & primary : a symphony, a painting, a novel, etc.

17.5.2 Plans, sketches, opinions regarding a work of art are direct & secondary.
17.5.3 Socio-economical structures making certain works of art preferential are indirect &
primary.
17.5.4 Opinions about socio-economical structures challenging or altering preferences are
indirect & secondary.
17.6 The esthetic process is characterized by the following types of meaningful
information : codes of communication and media of communication.
17.6.1 The codes of information imply the esthetic milieu, the artist & the public. The
milieu contains collective codes, conventions (national, regional or social styles). The artist
personally adapts to these collective codes, with intensive or extensive originality. The
public, possessing the codes of the milieu and acquiring personal codes, integrates the
latter in the former. This acquired taste may be eclectic, specific, superficial or informed.
17.6.2 The media of communication imply the same actors. The esthetic milieu has
institutionalized media of production and transmission. The artist has personal variants of
these and the public makes use of the institutions, adapts to new media and integrates the
latter in the basket of available media.
17.7 Three problems emerge : a problem of structure, a problem of transmission and a
problem of reception.
17.7.1 Structure : the artist makes use of all available information, never makes use of
non-artistic codes or has a mixed structure.
17.7.2 Transmission : the artist represents his work of art in a clear-cut, representational
way, never uses representation, or has a mixed transmission.
17.7.3 Reception : the public receives the message as intended by the artist, never
receives the message or has a mixed reception.
17.8 The complexity of the esthetic process is enhanced by three constant factors of
change : feedback, interference & internal temporal dynamics.
17.8.1 Feedback can be autogenous (from the work of art back to the artist), interferential
(from the public to the artist) & restructuring (from the esthetic milieu to the public).
17.8.2 Interferences are either blockages or derailments. Blockages are quantitative (less
creativity, less diffusion, less public) and/or qualitative (less information, less diffusion of
information, less interest in information by the public). Derailments are distortions in the
esthetic circuit from the side of the artist (epigonism, exotism, formalism), the esthetic
milieu (traditionalism, performatism) and/or the public (conservatism, entertainment
oriented).
17.8.3 Internal temporal dynamics of artist & public involve the evolution of the esthetic
milieu to which they belong. Internal temporal dynamics of this milieu is defined by socioeconomical,
political, cultural, ideological and artistic developments.
17.9 The esthetic process as a whole is influenced by three movements interacting
simultaneously.
17.9.1 Linear movements from the esthetic milieu to the artist, from the artist to the work
of art, from the work of art to the public and from the public to the milieu.
17.9.2 Internal movements within each actor (from output to input and from input to
output).
17.9.3 Dialectical movements between certain systems by feedback, interference and the
temporal evolution of historical events.

06. Transcendental harmonization.
18. Harmonization pertains to exemplary art.
18.1 Harmony is a relatively continuous balance between the artist and the work of art.
18.2 Forms of harmony are archetypal ways of balancing object & subject of esthetics.
18.3 Absence of balance is not a form of harmony. Balance can be weird, awkward, odd,
strange, bizarre, absurd, grotesque, bombastic, exaggerated etc.
18.4 By enantiomorphism, disharmonization is reversal of balance (cf. Diabolus est Deus
inversus).
19. Given object & subject of the esthetic, harmonizations are transcendental
because they represent the forms, models, archetypes or "pure ideas" of
harmony necessary for a work of art to strike a creative exemplary balance
between both. They belong to the esthetic subject and define an esthetic
milieu, its interests, media & style.
19.1 The forms of harmony are transcendental in terms of the creative balance between
object & subject of esthetics.
19.2 To measure excellence, a meta-level of sensation is introduced (namely, the intensity
of the esthetic predicate). Being worthy of imitation implies a meta-level of cognition. This
defines the forms of harmony enabling the comparison & integration of creativity &
beautiful sensate objects, of freedom & works of art.
19.3 The transcendental forms designate the exemplary status of sensate objects.
19.4 In esthetics, the transcendental proof only pertains to harmony, not to excellence or
sublimity. To describe the experience of harmony, we must have these forms at work a
priori, constituting the possibility of archetypal examples.
19.5 Although we must have forms of harmony to designate examples, the exemplary
ought to be imitated.
19.5.1 The esthetic judgement of example is not necessary, but invites every other to
concur.
19.5.2 Example moves beyond excellence, implying harmony.
20. An esthetic judgement of example is not a dictate, a law or a must, for
esthetic necessity cannot be deduced. These judgements ought to be valued
and contain a prescriptive, not an imperative command.
20.1 Excellence can be determined with precision, but harmony is not a formal necessity,
rather an invitation to judge likewise.
20.2 An imperative command is universal, immediate and part of a finite, well-defined
pattern or strategy it must deploy & execute.

20.3 A prescriptive command is the description of something worth to be imitated.
20.4 Because an esthetic judgement is not imperative, all one can do is hope it finds the
goodwill of all other possible esthetic subjects.
21. The sectio aurea or sectio Divina, present in the works of art of Ancient
Egypt, Greece & Rome, in Platonic solids, Fibonacci numbers & the Mandelbrot
fractals (when they are self-referent by relationships between parts based on
φ), seems preferred by Nature to geometrize growth, elegance & energy
conservation.
21.1 The Golden Number is arrived at when the sum of two quantities is to the larger
quantity as the larger is to the smaller ("a + b" is to "a" as "a" is to "b" or "a + b / a = a /
b"), giving an irrational number φ = 1 + √5 /2 ≈ 1.618 033 989.
21.2 Crucial in Classical Architecture, this "Divine Proportion" is also found in complex
biological processes.
21.3 The "beauty of Nature" is expressed by the excellent & exemplary sensate objects
adorning its four kingdoms : the mineral, the vegetal, the animal and the human.
21.4 In Ancient Egypt, Greece & Rome, as well as in the East, the natural realm took the
shape of ongoing natural conflicts between the elements of Earth, Water, Fire & Air. This
system became part of Qabalah & Hermeticism (cf. the system of correspondences of the
Western Mystery Tradition).
21.5 Only humans create artificial beauty.
21.6 In logic, elegance and symmetry are part of the formal criteria of a valid hypothesis.
21.7 In physics, chemistry, biology & psychology, symmetries are at work : matter versus
anti-matter, group theory in quantum chemistry & spectroscopy, physiological bi-polarity,
conscious versus unconscious, etc.
22. Excellence, being empirical, is derived from a minute, comparative
observation of the ways of sensate objects, but exemplary works of art are
identified by their formal features.
07. Instinctual disharmonization or reversal.
23. Disharmonization involves a vertical and horizontal dialectic leading to an
increase in entropy (a decrease in complexification and a reduction to more
probable states of consciousness, information and matter).
23.1 Vertical disharmonization is the conflict or dialectic between, on the one hand, the
human and, on the other hand, the mammalian & reptilian characteristics encoded in the

software of our body.
● the reptilian brain : brain stem (midbrain, pons, medulla), midbrain, hypothalamus ;
● the mammalian brain : thalamus, hippocampus, amygdala ;
● the human brain : neocortex of cerebral hemispheres of cerebrum, angular gyrus.
23.1.1 Mammalian belongingness is expressed by special signs, called "icons". They involve
visual & spatial semantics, addressing emotions as a motivating & mobilizing source of
empathy and memory, uniting relatedness and nurturance (thalamus).
23.1.2 Reptilian wakefulness, sense of territory, instinct of survival & reproductive urge are
executed by the brainstem, midbrain and hypothalamus, the controller of the Autonomous
Nervous System (and the fight or flight response).
23.1.3 The signal-language of reptiles is based on pheromonal, auditive & visual signals.
23.1.4 Both signals & icons are emblems of the instincts, whereas symbols point to a
conceptual process. Proto-rationality, with its concrete concepts, belongs to the instincts
but reaches out to the rational.
23.2 Horizontal disharmonization is the tension between, on the one hand, the thinking ego
and, on the other hand, ante-rationality & irrationality.
23.2.1 The thinking, empirical ego, cognizes sensate objects based on perceptions of outer
events & its own mental objects.
23.2.2 Sensation or experience always involves conceptual interpretation, a fabrication or a
construction, never the direct datum of perception as such. Elaborate conceptualizations of
sensations are likewise a higher order register of abstraction.
23.2.3 Although sensate & mental objects are the only things known, we act as if we
conceptualize perceptions as well as the nature of mind. This cannot be the case, for duality
never grasps unity.
23.2.4 Hemispheric lateralization of the neocortex executes an unbalanced preference for
verbal, conceptual thinking, at the expense of other non-verbal approaches & symbols
(mediated by the dominated hemisphere and via the latter, by the limbic system).
23.2.5 The dominant hemisphere computes verbal symbols.
23.2.6 Disharmonization may be a reequilibration-phase leading to higher order.
23.2.7 In any case, disharmonization is the expression of the repressed Shadow-nature
spoiling (polluting) conscious meaning.
24. In esthetics, reversal is the tool of disharmonization. With it, one tries to
reverse genuine communication into strategy, harmony into conflict and
symmetry into "follow-the-leader" reflexes.
25. If in a work of art, disharmonization rules supreme, then afflictive affects
dominate. Devoid of harmony, excellence in destruction may be achieved. This
is not an example and never sublime.
25.1 Through the media "money, sex & power", manipulation is initiated in the form of

instrumental & strategic communication.
25.2 Parody degrades the great works of art.
25.3 Virulent (organized) destruction is a fascist system, evoking the kitsch beauty of the
artificial "Beast".
25.4 Blind annihilation is madness as art and art as madness.
25.5 Excessive and obsessive disharmonization, in direct conflict with the law of life (φ)
and, by absence of a critical self-consciousness, depletes itself.
26. The Back Box method is a psychosynthetic technique evoking the Shadow,
confronting & integrating its imago within the confines of a private "open
space" without "spill-over".
26.1 A dadaist seeks to discover his or her psychic mechanism, which also means
confronting, naming, accepting and integrating the repressed contents of consciousness (cf.
depth-psychology).
26.1.1 Confrontation means to take the time to deliberately evoke negative qualities and
not back away from their appearance.
26.1.2 Naming is attributing clear-cut meaning & personal character to the Shadow.
26.1.3 Acceptance is allowing this imago of the Shadow to exist without rejection nor
identification.
26.1.4 Integration is choosing for the right chaos-element in the right place at the right
time.
26.2 Clearly, this Back Box method has dangers and needs to be confined by expert skill in
psychosynthesis.
26.3 "Spill-over" is what happens when Shadow-contents escapes the closed, secret
context in which they are evoked, contaminating areas in which negativity & chaos are an
inefficient nuisance.
27. Artistic disharmonization is the allowance of a margin of entropy within
harmony and can, in human practice, not be avoided.
27.1 Every harmonization has minor, negligible imperfections.
27.2 Artistic disharmonization is the deliberate introduction of chaos in the linear
mechanism of a given form of harmonization.
27.2.1 Chaos is a complex, aperiodic, irregular, not completely predictable, not entirely
erratic, a little determinable, non-linear movements of natural & artificial systems, i.e. a
phase-stream dependent of small changes in the initial conditions, leading to the
exploration of a very large number of dynamical possibilities.
27.2.2 As soon as three independent variables are present, non-linearity is a fact (cf.
Chaos, 1996).
27.3 The way artistic disharmonization is an integral part of a harmonic key, is a measure
of the sublimity of an exemplary work of art.
27.3.1 Sublimity points to the unbounded wholeness of a work of art and the dissolution of

divisions between harmony & disharmony and between the work of art and its observer.
27.3.2 Although directly experienced, sublimity cannot be conceptually explained or
rationally authenticated.
27.3.3 Sublimity is the object of a transcendent metaphysics, expressing itself in poetry.
08. The Fine Arts : material & imaginal dimensions.
28. The Fine Arts target a specific format of artwork and do so with historical
continuity regarding the achievement of craftsmanship, excellence & example.
28.1 The Fine Arts designate a limited number of art disciplines, defined by the purity of
their form, i.e. uncontaminated by considerations outside their actual dimensions.
28.2 More academical than applied, these disciplines do not refer to the quality of the work
of art, but to the exact, academic performance of how to create certain works of art.
28.3 Because they create, preserve & transmit a specific discipline, the Fine Arts belong to
the own-form of civilization.
28.4 Of all the Fine Arts, music is the most complex.
Fine Arts
Actual
Dimension
Imaginal
Dimension
drawing length, breadth perspective
photography length, breadth perspective
painting
sculpture
poetry
literature
audiovisual arts
length, breadth
thickness
length, breadth
height
semantics, syntax
pragmatics
semantics, syntax
pragmatics
length, breadth
time, sound
perspective
surface tension
rhythm
interiority
presence
dance, ballet length, breadth, height, time style

theatre, drama
fashion
opera
music
place, time
persona, word
length, breadth
height, time
place, time
persona, music
pitch, length
dynamics, color
harmony, counterpoint
play
look
"Gesamtspiel"
composition
29. The Fine Arts are classified in accordance with their actual and imaginal
dimensions.
29.1 A dimension is a measure of observation.
29.2 An actual dimension is a measures of the "stuff" presented.
29.3 An imaginal dimension connotates evocative esthetic features on the basis of denoted
sensate esthetic features.
29.4 Imaginal dimensions do not add sensation to the work of art, but do suggest the
presence of qualities exceeding the "stuff" actualized or presented.
09. The own-form of creative thought.
"We ourselves posses beauty when we are true to our own being ; our ugliness is in going
over to another order ; our self-knowledge, that is to say, is our beauty ; in self-ignorance
we are ugly."
Plotinus : Enneads, V.9.13.
30. Excellence unveils how mind plays matter, but does not reflect the higher
own-Self of the artist, rather the empirical ego of the craft.
30.1 To measure the intensity of predicates, mental objects are necessary and designated
by the empirical ego, acting as the focal centre of a circular, nominal consciousness (the
mind of Homo normalis). This waking state prompts conceptualization.
30.2 As a concept, "excellence" calls for the critical mode of conceptual thought.
30.3 Excellence presupposes craftsmanship, the possession of exquisite esthetic features.
30.4 Ante-rationality does not preclude excellent craftsmanship, but develops no abstract
considerations about beauty as such.
30.5 For the empirical ego, the harmonic key is not an issue. It comes by introducing the
second focus of consciousness, the own-Self, rather a "soul", or a "someone", than mere
sentient animated flesh, or a "something".

30.5.1 As a concept, "exemplarity" calls for the creative mode of conceptual thought.
30.5.2 In sublimity, with the integration of disharmony in harmony (building a kind of
super-harmony), excellence (matter) & exemplarity (form) are one.
30.6 Creative thought affirms the presence of a broader, panoramic view, and replaces the
critical "I think" with the ontic "I am".
30.7 The soul of the artist is the throne of his or her harmonizations.
Esthetics Object
sublimity
exemplarity
excellence
craftsmanship
craft
integration of
disharmony
pure application
of harmonic keys
presentation of
esthetic meaning
prowess in execution of
craft
exquisite sensate
esthetic features
Mode of
Thought
Function
nondual originative
creative comparative
critical delimitative
formal theoretical
anterational
contextual
31. Exemplary art is exceptional, unique, highly individual, etc. These works of
art assume the sparks of the inner light of the artist, his or her own-Self. This
alchemy is the most precious secret of the artist, an ineffable, inner, intimate
state of consciousness.
32. Critical esthetics calls for four conceptual modes of thought :
32.1 Proto-rationality, bringing ante-rationality to a close, operates a concrete concept
unable to escape context.
32.2 Formal thought studies sensate objects of art, their quantity, quality, modality &
relation. It articulates propositions regarding their esthetic features.
32.3 Critical thought, to identify excellence, studies the specifics of the way esthetic
features are presented, the characteristic esthetic meaning sensate objects come to
express, calling for meta-levels of meaning, tensions between parts and between part and
whole, etc.
32.4 Creative thought identifies the harmonic key of the own-Self of the artist. Aided by
critical thought, comparative solutions are found to the problems posed by the tensions

etween artist and work of art. A harmonization is a standardized solution of these tensions.
33. Harmonization always occurs against the background of a realist or an
idealist ontology, and is therefore an object of immanent metaphysics
designated in the mode of creative thought.
10. Directly observing sublimity.
34. Because sensation is a sullying fabrication, sublime works of art manifest
with sublime clarity.
34.1 Sensation is always confused and curtailed.
34.1.1 From its own side, sensation -implying concepts, labels and names- is not clear-cut.
34.1.2 Perception takes place using population coding, implementing a threshold for
combined action-potentials of the neurons. Very weak stimuli usually never trigger an
axonal discharge, whereas the totality of afferent data is filtered by both hypothalamus &
thalamus.
34.1.3 As soon as, in the nondual mode of cognition, non-conceptual wisdom emerges, the
approximation of sensation with perception (or CI tending towards 1) clarifies, by
comparison, the extent of nominal sensate confusion.
34.2 In the formal, critical & creative conceptual modes of thought S = P.CI with CI ≠ 0
pertains and illusion is inevitable and spread throughout.
34.2.1 Some coarse, optical illusions can be detected and their nefast influence eliminated,
but without stopping them from appearing.
34.2.2 Conceptual illusion is subtle & universal and cannot be identified. If so, it would not
be universal. It results from the habitual framework of interpretation of the mind,
designating objects by giving them names covering the base of designation.
34.2.3 Conceptually, to identify the base of designation is to invoke another designation
and another base, and this ad infinitum.
34.2.4 Example. If a flower is designated, then the word "flower" is the designation and
the physical object pointed at called "flower" is the base of designation. To ostentatiously
identify this "physical object over there", one may again invoke concepts as "roots",
"stem", "leaves", "flower butt" etc. Whatever the description, it has again to be defined by
further designations, ending this regression ad hoc, as in "electrons", "neutrons", ...
"quarks" etc. In fact, nothing concrete is found, for after final or ultimate analysis, the socalled
"forces" and "particles" constituting the "flower" just appear out, vanish in &
reappear out of the universal, virtual zero-point-field studied by quantummechanics. Like
all other sensate objects, what we conventionally call "flower", is in fact an aggregate of
impermanent displays of energy-fields.
34.2.5 Appearing solid, concrete and substantial (existing from their own side), sensate
objects are in fact fleeting, impermanent and unsubstantial (existing conditionally, i.e. in
constant interaction with all other changing things).

34.3 Nondual thought involves the natural light of the mind, at work before conceptual
consciousness and conceptualizations.
34.3.1 Insofar as consciousness is defined in terms of the duality between object & subject
(as in conceptual thought), nondual consciousness is a contradictio in terminis.
34.3.2 Nondual awareness, i.e. the natural light of the mind, is a direct experience of
wholeness, but not a consciousness. This natural light ultimately exists before and after any
possible state of mind and can only be found when immediately introduced to it.
34.4 When an artist displays natural light, sublime realizations result. In these, everything
is permeated with the open potentiality present in the mind of the sublime artist.
34.5 Thinking this natural light is the object of a transcendent metaphysics, rooted in an
arguable philosophy of infinity and inspired poetry.
34.5.1 A philosophy of infinity studies three transfinite numbers : Aleph 0 , Aleph 1 and
Omega.
34.5.2 Of all arts, poetry excels uniquely in sealing the Divine as direct experience.
35. Sublime art is an infusion of infinity into finitude, permeating it throughout.
35.1 Critical thought discovers the limit-concepts of the Real and the Ideal, and makes
their different lines of entry (the one monologal and the other dialogal) intersect in the
focus imaginarius of the noumenal Real-Ideal.
35.2 Creative thought posits the "I am" of the own-Self, and confronts consciousness with
a panorama of Self-ideas allowing Self-consciousness to be designated as a lesser infinity
(cf. Aleph 0 differing from Aleph 1 ).
35.3 Nondual thought annihilates the ontological basis of the own-Self, directly introducing
the lumen naturale of the mind. Here, cosmic awareness emerges.
36. For an instance, sublime art stops interpretation, helping the gap between
two consecutive conceptual thoughts to become apparent.
36.1 Conceptual thoughts arise, abide & vanish. To directly witness their point of
emergence is being equipped to experience their end. The so-called gap is what
immediately happens next before any new thought arises.
36.2 Here, the natural, spontaneously arising awareness of mind, has always been united
with the essence of the absolute basis, empty of inherent existence, but full of displays of
all kinds.
36.2.1 Besides the natural state of mind united with the limitless wholeness of the absolute
basis, every thing is interdependent, i.e. empty of enduring substance, but full of changes
brought about depending on others.
36.2.2 The conceptual mind apprehends the inner light of mind as the "blank" between two
consecutive moments of conceptual designation. After many trial-and-errors, the blank
becomes a mental object reflecting the natural light and accommodating the direct
experience of this natural light permeating every concept.
36.2.3 Because of the noise within the nominal conceptual mind, the fine tone of the

natural light is very difficult to isolate and hear.
36.3 Perplexed, the conceptual mind halts in the face of sublimity.
36.3.1 The tense cycles of conceptuality can be broken down by concepts, although this
effort is preliminary and necessary to make the mind supple, alert & concentrated.
36.3.2 Sublime works of art directly introduce the natural state of mind and are grand
symbols of compassion (helping others to be happy).
37. By integrating disharmony into their harmonization, sublime works of art
exceed the exemplary.
37.1 Although order leads to craft, craftsmanship, excellence & exemplarity, if nonduality is
not the case, it cannot lead to sublimity.
37.2 Nondual thought is beyond affirmation & denial and so beyond the distinction between
order & chaos.
37.3 The integration of chaos into order and of order into chaos is the touchstone of the
sublime.
Book 2
Applied Esthetics
In esthetics, the distinction between "theoretical" and "applied" separates, on the one hand,
the esthetic milieu & the public from, on the other hand, the creative experiences of the
artist with the work of art.
In a critical theory of beauty, the appreciation of sensate objects in terms of an esthetic
judgement based on norms of excellence & example pertains. Theoretically, the forms of
harmonization are only a series of logical options necessary to take beauty beyond
excellent craftsmanship. These harmonics are not the outcome of a logical deduction (as is
the case in epistemology and ethics). This explains why esthetic judgements are not
necessary. Of all three normative disciplines, esthetics is the most concrete and hence the
less imperative. Nevertheless, within each form of harmonization, the imperative command
is again at work, albeit as a non-Fregean representation of one of the harmonic options
available in the logical spectrum between object & subject of esthetics.
The application of esthetic maxims must allow for the production of works of art. Working
against the background of an immanent metaphysics, this "ars inveniendi" is the creative,
harmonizing aspect of rationality. Its core is not excellence, but exemplarity.
The rule of outstanding harmony involves various harmonic keys, the use of which brings
archetypal harmony to bare in a work of art. How have esthetic features and their intensity
(esthetic meaning) been made part of this unique Self-idea of the artist ? How does this
seed-idea present in every piece, point to an harmonic ideal ?

Because harmonization is part of the esthetic process, both the esthetic milieu & the public,
possibly with the art critic at the helm, co-influence how, in a work of art, the "harmonic
key" is applied or "realized", often without the artist noticing. However, while interacting
with its environment, exemplary art supersedes this by positing (designating) formidable
examples of an original own-form of harmonization. Because they are worth of imitation,
these forms of harmonization represent meta-esthetic modules or typical expert
information about a limited set of ways to harmonize the happenings & events occurring
between esthetic object & esthetic subject. Because they cover the actual production of
beauty, they are more applied than theoretical.
Even more so unique is sublimity. Integrating disharmony into harmony, transforming it
into meta-harmony, is the last step necessary to eliminate the duality of the esthetic mind
and move into the open, free, nameless space of creativity & wisdom.
Based on the transcendental conditions of esthetics, namely sensate objects versus
creativity, the harmonic octagon consists of eight forms of harmonization. Hence, these
fundamental keys involve the reality of beautiful sensate objects (O) and the ideality of the
esthetic artist (S). Although in tune with the transcendental conditions, this octagon is not
the result of a deduction. More keys, or variations on keys, may therefore always be added,
although at a certain moment semantic overlapping occurs, suggestive of a finite set of
possible harmonization.
Both objective and subjective art affirm their object. In social art and personal art, the
scope of this object is corrected. Negating the real & ideal conditions imposed by works of
art and their artists, as in revolutionary art & psycho-dynamic art, ends the presentational
keys.
To deny the transcendental dyad, for revolution or "dada", calls for a meta-level,
consciously introducing & integrating disharmony into the harmonic key.
Esthetic Object Harmony Esthetic Subject
O
objective art
O > S
social art
no O
revolutionary art
positional keys
positing
comparing
transforming keys
denying
S
subjective art
S > O
personal art
no S
psycho-dynamic art

O ≈ S
holistic art
O = S = Ø
magisterial art
unifying keys
uniting
transcending
S ≈ O
holistic art
S = O = Ø
magisterial art
Positional keys focus on a nominal representation of object & subject. This is classical
harmonization. Transforming keys move beyond the duality of the original positioning and
try to eliminate or fundamentally alter the conditions of classical harmonization.
11. Factors of creativity.
38. The pragmatics of esthetics involves the creative person, the creative
product, the creative process & the creative environment.
38.1 A great creative personality, manifesting at an early age, has certain characteristics
defined by psychometric testing : independent attitude & social behaviour, dominant,
introvert, open to stimuli, extended interests, acceptation of Self, intuition, flexibility,
balance & indifferent to social norms.
38.2 For Taylor (1972), the creative product is expressive, technical, inventive, innovative
or emergentive.
38.2.1 Expressive : spontaneity, where originality & quality are less important (cf. the
drawings of children).
38.2.2 Technical : calls for skill and high levels of proficiency.
38.2.3 Inventive : reveals ingenuity with materials, solving old problems in a new way.
38.2.4 Innovative : elaborations on basic principles through alternative approaches.
38.2.5 Emergentive : the emergence of an entirely new principle or assumption.
38.3 For Dewey (1953), the creative process has five stages : (a) sensing a difficulty, (b)
localizing and defining the problem, (c) suggesting solutions, (d) considering their
consequences & (e) accepting the solution. Wallas (1926) proposed a fourfold : (a)
preparations, (b) incubation, (c) illumination & (d) verification. De Bono (1970, 1972)
introduced the idea of changing the "field" of the problem by means of lateral thinking.
38.4 Arieti (1976) introduced "socio-cultural creativogenic factors", like availability of
cultural means, openness to cultural stimuli, free access to cultural media, exposure to
different, contrasting stimuli, tolerance for divergent view-points, interaction with important
persons, promotion & reward, etc. According to him, these factors explain the high level of
creativity in the Jewish community.
38.5 Creative training programmes like brainstorming and "synectics" generate a large
number of ideas, postpone evaluation and allow as many new ideas as possible to emerge.
To make the strange familiar is then the way to acquire new insights.

39. In each of the Fine Arts, the general principles of creativity need to be
adapted in terms of person, product, process & environment.
12. An esthetics of music.
"The musical work, like all works of art, consists in a identifiable whole (in the twofold sens
of 'coherent' and 'apt to be distinguished from similar products by specific features'),
differentiated from works of the static, visual arts by the fact that its reproductions are no
imitations of an original model, but re-realizations with full artistic value."
Broeckx, 1979, p.134.
40. An esthetics of music assists consciousness to discover the beauty of
music, its excellence, exemplary own-form & sublimity.
41. Art Studies on music focus on objective and subjective factors.
41.1 Objectively, What is music ? Out what does it consist ? How does it appear ? What is
its meaning ? What is its place vis-à-vis the other fine arts ? Also, subjectively, What is the
value of music ? How does its sensation work ? How does music evolve ?
41.2 Subjectively, (a) the value of music, depends on its technical and musicopsychological
form, (b) the quality of its reception depends on the sensory system and (c)
its evolution depends on the genesis of musical creativity & receptivity.
42. Music is the set of abstract acoustic states of matter produced by a sound
source, causing mood & momentum.
42.1 As a phenomenon, music appears as (a) a spatiotemporal succession of ordered
acoustic phenomena, (b) a succession of ordered acoustic qualities with the synesthetics of
somatosensory & visual associations, (c) a dynamical morphology of sound and (d) an
acoustic message (or non-verbal language).
42.2 The meaning of music is giving with (a) the pleasurable & satisfying acoustic
experience, (b) an acoustic thought form (a musical theory), (c) the expression of the
infinite by the finite and (d) a non-verbal form of communication shared by all humans.
42.3 To situate music, it can be (a) described as the art of abstract time or the set of
semantic open and irreducible acoustic phenomena or (b) evaluated as emotional, vitalistic,
intellectual, spiritual, etc.
42.4 To the listener, music is a constantly moving continuum of air pressures, triggering
specific emotional states. Mood & momentum are the two sides of sound.

43. Acoustic states of matter are isomorphic with (a) other sensate
impressions of the outer world and (b) the non-discursive, non-narrative
affective process.
43.1 Empty space sounds like music chords in wide position.
43.2 While the ear is the receptor organ for fine air pressure transduction, the physical
body as a whole acts as a soundboard.
43.3 By mood-association, emotional states associated with certain features are
transferred to acoustic states.
43.4 Close to the signal & the icon, music is not symbolic.
43.5 Conceptual connotations are not part of the stuff of music, whereas the evocative
power of music is evident.
"I am convinced that however perceptive the composer, he cannot imagine the
consequences, immediate or ultimate, of what he has written, and that his perception is not
necessarily more acute than that of the analyst (as I see him)."
Boulez, 1971, p.18.
44. Unlike literature, music has no capacity to discuss itself.
44.1 Although programmatic music may try to depict reality (cf. the Cuckoo theme in
Beethoven's 6th symphony), music judges not and has no story to tell. Beyond mood &
momentum, music is not concrete.
44.1.1 Mood-association is processed by the limbic system and its iconic software.
44.1.2 Momentum is mainly mediated by reptilian and cerebellar software.
44.1.3 The conscious experience of music is processed by the non-verbal hemisphere of
the neo-cortex.
44.2 Music is non-conceptual and has no ideological function of its own (is always
interdependent and in communication with the environment).
44.3 Truth & goodness are not explained by music.
45. In an absolute sense, a single tone produced by a single instrument has 6
measurements : pitch, duration, color, dynamics, harmonic vector &
counterpoint.
45.1 Pitch is the frequency of a tone, sounding treble or bass.
45.2 Duration is the length of a tone, co-defining rhythm.
45.3 Color is caused by the overtones produced by the instrument playing.
45.4 Dynamics is the strength or accent of a tone, its volume.
45.5 The harmonic vector is the vertical relationship of a tone with all other tones sounding
simultaneously, as well as the relationship of these with the harmonic vertical following
them.
45.6 Counterpoint is the horizontal relationship of a tone with the tone preceding it and the
tone following it.

45.7 At any given moment of the score, for each and every tone in the piece, these six
dimensions always work together.
46. In an relative sense, acoustic phenomena are either presentative sensate
esthetic features or evocative esthetic features. The former are material,
kinetic and formal. The latter are connotations spontaneously associated with
these.
47. Regarding material esthetic features, classical and a-typical characteristics
are distinguished.
47.1 Classical esthetic features imitate the Golden Section, such as consonance (the
agreement of sounds produced simultaneously, as a note with its third, fifth & eighth),
melody, third chords, medium dynamics, monophony, medium tessitura & sinus-waves.
47.2 A-typical esthetic features actualize a painful extreme foreign to the spirit of the
esthetic experience. They are never prolonged, but occur to give sound to the vulgar, such
as dissonancy, single tones, clusters, extreme dynamics, polyphony, extreme tessitura and
the see-saw wave.
47.3 Despite the importance of φ in the construction of the ear, the basic stuff of music also
calls for the possiblity of its negation. This division is consistent with the bi-polarity of our
emotions.
48. Noise, unlike sound, is the absence of communication, the breakdown of
the esthetic process.
13. Objective art : tragic.
49. Objective art serves physical reality. This art is the descriptive
representation of a closed, secure, certain object, deemed to denote real,
sensate objects.
As a copy of natural or artificial reality, representation eliminates the subjective perspective
of the artist, and attempts to fixate the closed continuum of a recognizable sensate object
as a work of art. The latter is given an permanent, separated, defined, continuous and solid
nature. As a naturalist, this artist-observer perceives without interpretation (cf. hyperrealism)
and so the work is the sign of a concrete or artificial reality. Genuine harmony
involves observing sensate objects as they are, i.e. φ-based architectures & momenta.
Because of these restrictions, this harmonization is predictable, consequent and one-sided,
positing a closed continuum. It cannot deny the necessary conditions of its generation, and
worships the finality of the regular form, deemed unchangeable & inevitable. Stochastic

elements are rejected and anything in conflict with "reality" is considered accessible (S = P)
and eternalized.
Objective art is tragic. The superior force of reality determines what happens, not the
creative intent of the artist, and the fixating, rigid conditions cause their own downfall,
allying objective art with the comical.
In music, objective reality is represented by meaningful acoustic phenomena pouring into
sound features of a reality deemed eternal, unchanging and fundamental.
The Italian Renaissance composer Giovanni Pierluigi da Palestrina (1525 - 1594), was the
most prominent member of the Roman School, spanning the Late Renaissance and Early
Baroque Eras. Although working at several churches, composers belonging to this school
worked for the Vatican and the Papal Chapel. Stylistically, their music contrasts with the
Venetian School, which was more progressive.
With smooth, clear, polyphonic harmonies, the music of Palestrina tries to be an acoustic
representation of Divine reality. His chords, voice-leading and strict "Palestrina"
counterpoint immediately evoke the heights of spiritual joy, ecstasy, jubilation and glory
felt in the direct presence of the Divine. Move a single note and this delicate transparency is
mitigated. Harmonic movement is undulating and all tension is perfectly resolved while
difficult intervals are avoided.
Likewise, we find Johann Sebastian Bach (1685 - 1750) finalizing the grand edifice of
polyphonic scholasticism, this great monolith with its strong emphasis on counterpoint,
formal compositions and a diatonal harmony using regular modulations and progressions.
Although a Protestant, Bach's main concern was a proper musical representation of Divine
reality, a quest based on his faith and knowledge of Holy Scripture. His unfinished The Art
of the Fugue (1745) was his musical testament.
"... I sub-titled Parsifal 'A Sacred Festival for the Theatre' (Bühnenweihfestspiel). So I must
now try to find a stage to consecrate to it, and that can only be my remote Festival Theatre
at Bayreuth. Parsifal shall be given there and only there, to the end of time ; it shall never
be offered as an amusement to the audience of any other theatre."
Wagner : Letter to King Ludwig II of Bavaria, 28 IX 1880.
The German Romantic composer Richard Wagner (1813 - 1883) (a) revolutionized harmony
by integrating chromatics, (b) used unresolved tensions & multi-tonal structures, (c)
altered the orchestra, (d) invented new instruments and (e) built a new opera house at
Bayreuth with an annual Music Festival. These grand achievements bring to the fore his
desire to manifest his core myth, the salvation of the soul of the Germans.
Here, objective reality is not a social reality, but a mythological, imaginal, fictional &
phantasmagoric world, constructed around the themes of light versus darkness, the Führerprinciple
(the Germanic Hero in the guise of Tannhauser, Siegfried, Parsifal, ...) and the
special destiny of Germany in human history. The latter is a "sacred" history able to really
change the world outside myth ! This harmonization is objective, because every "Leitmotiv"
is an acoustic form of a person, situation or process in the imaginal world of the Germanic
soul, deemed fit to cause change or to be represented in objective history by altering the
mind of the public of the "Gesamtspiel".

"By the summer of 1876, during the time of the first Festspiele, I said farewell to Wagner in
my heart. I suffer no ambiguity ; and since Wagner had moved to Germany, he had
condescended step by step to everything I despise - even to anti-Semitism . . . It was
indeed high time to say farewell : soon after, I received the proof. Richard Wagner,
apparently most triumphant, but in truth a decaying and despairing decadent, suddenly
sank down, helpless and broken, before the Christian cross . . . Did no German have eyes
in his head or pity in his conscience for this horrid spectacle ? Was I the only one whom it
pained ? Enough ; this unexpected event struck me like lightning and gave me clarity about
the place I had left - and also that shudder which everybody feels after he has
unconsciously passed through a tremendous danger."
Nietzsche, F. : Nietzsche Contra Wagner, How I Broke Away From Wagner, 1888.
14. Subjective art : dramatic.
50. Subjective art serves the idealized subjectivity of the acting, feeling &
thinking conscious artist. Art is the unique grand tale of creativity of the artist,
ennobling the spontaneity of every moment of his or her art.
If objective art tries to represent reality-as-such, i.e. propose an ontology of the real,
subjective art puts an idealized subjectivity to the fore, i.e. an ontology of the ideal subject.
Subjective harmonization calls for the monad of subjectivity, posting it with the "evidence"
of the theatrical, the dramatical, the romantic and the immediate. The subject of the artist
is idealized.
Important is not how reality seems to exists from its own side, but how the artist
experiences the context in which he or she creates. Here, the work of art does not copy the
world (objective and/or onto-mythological), but only the dramatic expressions of the artist
trying in vain to recreate objectivity in terms of the "ideal" of subjectivity, translated as the
personal, the existential, the direct and the unique role of the subject in everything
esthetic, in particular esthetic meaning.
The esthetic subject is dramatic, personal & intersubjective, but not in a social way. The
artist is a solitary creator, a Romantic genius to be distinguished from the rest of humanity.
A kind of heroism is present, with overtones bringing in a nauseating sentimentality.
In music, subjective ideality is represented by a highly intimate, sensitive, delicate and
personal application of the esthetic features.
In Palestrina's music, the choice of the artist is restricted to the "canon" representing the
Divine proportion, the gate to the Divine. Subjective harmonization, calling for a less
restricted use of the diatonal system, a more daring voice-leading & a more supple
counterpoint, as in the Venetian School, is excluded.
"The difference brought about by the greater speed, greater compactness, and greater
vividness of the drama, with its impersonality, its coöperative nature, its appeal to the
group rather than to the individual, create the fundamental technique which distinguished

the drama from the novel."
Baker, 1983, p.14.
Although in Wagner's work, the subjective key is strongly present - the man himself wanted
to be a hero of sorts- his overall esthetic intention lay elsewhere. His personal, intimate life
is not at stake (the Wesendonck Lieder performed in 1862 are an exception), but only the
objective salvation of the Germanic soul through the direct power of presence of his mythic
"Gesamtspiel".
The idealized subjectivity of Ludwig von Beethoven (1770 - 1827), turned him, not unlike
Napoleon Bonaparte, into a Romantic hero par excellence, a kind of Hegelian "Geist"
incarnate. When Mozart heard the young Ludwig play for him, he got but one message :
"Listen ! I am Beethoven !". And he who could imitate everything, knew what he was
talking about.
If intimate harmonic & melodic subtleties characterize Schubert (cf. infra), Beethoven's
music is carried by overdramatization. The "Beethoven decrescendo" (swift alterations
between forte to piano or from piano to pianissimo), syncopated rhythms, repeated monothematics
and sectional orchestration all point to dramatic repetition and the heroic quest of
the artist, always seeking to better express the unending creative confrontations with one's
most interior own-Self. The fact Beethoven could no longer properly hear after the 3th
Symphony, sheds light on the dramatic urge to create despite the odds, serving the
revelations of one's true person & eternal soul. From the very beginning until the last String
Quartets, harmonic, melodic & compositional experiment persists.
Beethoven repeatedly underlines his wanting to move away from the pre-Romantics. This
message cannot be made clear enough, and the feelings & sentiments of the creative artist
come first. With extensive recapitulation & reorganization of materials on a scale never
seen, each of his Symphonies are remarkable autobiographic architectures, reaching zenith
with the 9th.
"... I made Beethoven's acquaintance at Teplitz. His talent amazed me ; but unfortunately
his is a completely untamed personality, who indeed is not mistaken in finding the world
detestable, but who certainly does not make it more enjoyable, either for himself or for
other people, by saying so."
Goethe : Letter to Friedrich Zelter, 2 VI 1812.
Beethoven, ashamed to be deaf, was a solitary, "idealized" genius. Defying the conventions
of editors, "correcting" his harmonizations, he made numerous corrections to quasi
everything he wrote, merging the sensate, formal & kinetic vectors of the art, way beyond
pre-Romantic "balancing".
Although Beethoven's music pleased the public, keen to experience the "exotic", it was not
socially well accepted and posed problems. After a time, some doubted whether his
harmonies were intended or the result of deafness. All of this added to the "revolutionary"
aura surrounding the man. Beethoven became the ideal Romantic role-model : a Self
reflected in all Romantics after him. His 9th Symphony, the sublime presence of an intense
creative outpouring through this God-driven eternal soul, realizing sensate sublimity
exclusively as a subjective, mental object.
Other examples are Peter Tjaikovski (1840 - 1893), Gustav Mahler (1860 - 1911) & Richard

Strauss (1864 - 1949).
15. Social art : expressive.
51. By stressing the psycho-social context in which the artist lives & creates,
social art escapes the one-sidedness of realism. A socio-cultural phenomenon,
art serves a social reality.
Leaving the simple harmonizations behind, one may choose to either make the object or
the subject more specific. In the former case, objective reality becomes a social reality, in
the latter, a personal, idiosyncratic "Lebenswelt".
The "reality" of the artist is still objective, but takes the form of an intersubjective network.
This is viewed in terms of an "idealization" of the object, namely a perfect social reality.
Only in the subtle tensions between "I" and "not-I", can the "I" fully develop its intimate
egology. The "Rousseauen" ideal of an original state of perfection given to man, is a
ontology of the good society, in which liberty, equality and fraternity are permanently
realized. Spiritual (Hegel) & material (Marx) approaches of this "goodness" prevail, but the
core always involves the expression of human life in group.
The esthetic object is primordial and appears in a socio-cultural context. As an organ of this
context, art worth of imitation educates its public to more civility. The "intellectual" &
"individual" are excluded. Music educates its listeners, builds them up to become more able
to be socially productive.
In music, social art is the vision of a composer serving society.
A few self-evident examples : Joseph Haydn (1732 - 1809), summarizing pre-Revolutionary
Europe, Jacques Offenbach (1819 - 1880), amusing "the pigs of Europe" (Wagner), the
popular Felix Mendelssohn (1809 - 1847) and Dimitri Sjostakovitsj (1906 - 1975), forced to
portray, in agony, the realism of the USSR.
16. Personal art : impressive.
52. Personal art escapes the one-sidedness of idealism by reintroducing the
intimacy & personal "Lebenswelt" of every creative process. Art is a pathetic
impression of the fleeting moment, an emotional phenomenon.
Choosing to make the subjective more specific and less "idealized", personal art turns away
from the extreme of subjectivism (the idealization of the subject) by introducing intimacy
and the micro-social conditions or personal environments. The immediate context of

experience is what counts, and great sensitivity is called to materialize the subtle shades &
nuances of any given sensate reality as apprehended by the artist.
Emphasis is on feelings and "pathos". These immediate emotional impressions are not
clean-clear, but interrelated & confused. A cryptic, closed and impermanent climate arises.
This impressive style is indeed based on first impressions.
In music, highly personal choices are made. Especially melody, being the most personal of
the dimensions of music, is important.
With Franz Schubert (1797 - 1823), apparently unaware of his own genius, and relying on a
close circle of friends to survive (cf. the "Sangspiele"), the intimate nature of the personal
harmonization is strongly felt. A subtle approach of diatonic modulation is coupled with the
direct, simple personal presence brought about by the song, of which he wrote more than
600. In music, the human voice is indeed the most intimate manifestation of personal
intimacy as well as the most perfect musical instrument.
For Schubert, the melodic line is primordial. It is articulate, balanced & complex. The
accompanying voices rapidly change key and drive momentum. Often, they refuse a clearcut
harmonic structure. In one melodic phrase, many modulations may occur, allowing for
very typical & refined melody. Even in his 9 Symphonies, his "chamber music" approach to
composition persists. After his death, at 31, interest in Schubert was on the rise. He died as
an unrecognized Romantic hero.
By contrast, his contemporary and ideal, Beethoven, was the famous Romantic hero par
excellence, and this during his own lifetime as well long after. Although Schubert wrote to
his idol and both lived in Vienna, Beethoven apparently decided never to meet Schubert or
to answer his letter. Perhaps he did, and the letter was lost.
Other examples are Frédéric Chopin (1810 - 1849), Franz Liszt (1811 - 1886), the creator
of the symphonic poem, and Claude Debussy (1862 - 1918), the father of impressionism,
inventing a new approach to harmony (cf. the None Chord) to redefine melody and
orchestration.
17. Revolutionary art : existential.
53. Revolutionary art rejects what is at hand and calls for a new reality, one to
be turned over in turn, etc. Art is an abstract representation of constant
renewal.
In the tensions between artist & work of art, the quaternio of harmonic keys (objective,
subjective, social, personal), defines the basic exemplary points of balance. By denial,
revolutionary & psycho-dynamic art both reject these basic conditions, introducing "higher"
conditions.
Revolutionary art, seeking to introduce a new reality, goes against the accepted objective

standard of relationships.
In music, revolutionary keys overturn the musical system as a whole. Rhythm, harmony,
counterpoint and orchestration are all affected.
"(...) I promised, as I say, in print to make known to a certain Theorist of prima practica
that in harmony there was another to be considered, unknown to him, and which I named
seconda ..."
Claudio Monteverdi : Letter to an unknown address, Venice, 22 X 1633.
A few examples : Flemish Polyphonists like Josquin des Prez (1450/5 - 1521) & Orlandus
Lassus (1532 - 1594), as well as Renaissance composer Claudio Monteverdi (1567 - 1643),
revolutionized European music and set the standard. In the same way, Igor Stravinsky
(1882 - 1971) and the dodecaphonic music of Arnold Schönberg (1874 - 1951) introduced
the radical new sounds of the XXth century.
In The Rite of Spring (1913), the use of difficult "primitive" rhythms is coupled with
complex harmonies, extraordinary orchestrations of unheard coloration and melodies
serving momentum.
"... the evolution of no art is so greatly encumbered by its teachers as is that of music. For
no one guards his property more jealously than the one who knows that, strictly speaking,
it does not belong to him. The harder it is to prove ownership, the greater the effort to do
so."
Schönberg, 1983, p.7.
Introducing atonality, Schönberg eliminated the "natural" harmonic progressions of one
tone to the next. These happen in tune with a sophisticated harmonic theory, already
considerably enriched by Wagnerian chromatics (as the works of Brahms, Bruckner, Liszt, &
Mahler testify). Making each tone absolute, opened a completely new sonoric world and
influenced well-tempered harmonic theory. This move away from tonal harmony also lead
to alleatoric music & twelve-tone counterpoint, etc.
"When key-consciousness vanished completely and music became 'atonal', technical unity
could no longer emerge from a solid harmonic groundwork. Quite logically, the attention
was focused on the motif-relationships. Whereas they had formerly been a super-structure
erected above the harmonic groundwork, they now became responsible for the consistency
of the whole edifice."
K•enek, 1940, pp.vii - viii.
18. Psycho-dynamic art : essentialist.
"SURREALISM. Pure psychic automatism by means of which one proposes to express, either
verbally, by writing or by any other means, the real functioning of thought. Dictation of
thought in the absence of all control exerted by reason, beyond every esthetic or moral
preoccupation."

Breton, A. : Manifeste du surréalisme, 1924.
54. Psycho-dynamic art rejects the habitual waking state of the artist and
delves into the mind to discover its unique psycho-dynamic mechanism of
letting necessity (measure, determination) & freedom (uncertainty) touch.
Psycho-dynamic art confronts consciousness from within. The empirical ego is deemed only
a fraction of the psyche, and what is called "consciousness" is likened to a candle flame in a
large dark room. Thought, affect & volition are functions of a consciousness limited from
without by sensate reality and from within by unconscious activity. The psychic mechanism
is the via Regia to an expansion of consciousness by integrating the various levels of the
unconscious, i.e. making them conscious.
Historically, the rise of surrealism & dadaism paralleled the radical rejection of traditional
values and beliefs. As the power of the great religions waned, new visions of spiritual
emancipation were conjured using a mix of poetry, art, mysticism and the occult. The idea
of a personal God was rejected for a mystical force at the heart of every psychic
mechanism : objective chance (cf. Chapter 7).
Objective chance is not a common coincidence or chance event. It differentiates itself from
the latter precisely because it is the geometric place of these chance events, a
meetingpoint or point of contact between necessity (of nature) and freedom, between
natural & human necessity. Objective chance is a natural bond between the psychic
mechanism and the universal automatism, between the personal (un)conscious & the
collective unconscious.
For Breton, this wonder is the totality of phenomena manifesting the invasion of the
marvellous in life. It shows chance events are not "random", but explicate expressions of a
deeper, implicate reality, elucidating the connectivity between the psyche and the cosmos.
In the 1930s, depth-psychologist Jung and physist Pauli developed a similar theory on
"synchronicity". When archetypal representations enter consciousness, their "psychoid"
structure splits in two : a conscious experience (inner) and a synchronistic event (outer).
This comes close to objective chance events.
"But it cannot be predicted in advance when the hit will come. Could we do so, we would be
dealing with a law, and this would contradict the entire nature of the phenomenon. It has,
as said, the improbable character of a 'lucky hit' or accident that occurs with a more than
merely probable frequency and is as a rule dependent on a certain state of affectivity."
Jung, C.G. : On Synchronicity, in : Collected Works, Vol.8 (pp. 969 - 977). Here Jung discusses the
results of the parapsychological experiments of Rhine.
In esthetics, a transformed subjectivity enthrones itself as the essence of the artist, his or
her own-Self. Soul matters, nothing else. The artist is true to his own psychic mechanism,
equipping him to produce art as marvellous points of contact between the artist and the
world (nature and culture). Objective chance is the stuff of magical realism, the existence
of unexpected & meaningful series of quasi impossible events.
In music, psycho-dynamic art evokes objective chance, mobilizing all six dimensions of
music. Very high or low pitch are not avoided. Rhythms are complex. Color & dynamics of
each note are considered. Both harmony & counterpoint are fused as to address a variety of
moods & momenta. The composer unlocking the psychic mechanism is a kind of sonic

wizard, a "master of sound".
Richard Wagner, like many other great composers, certainly integrated the psycho-dynamic
key in his work, but the serious, concrete stature of his Germano-mythic motifs remained
dominant and left nothing to chance. Moreover, although creative genius is always the
outcome of discovering the psychic mechanism, psycho-dynamical harmonization is not
necessarily the sole key used by creative artists.
The essentialist key has no objective expectations and knows how to wait.
In the music of Alexander Scriabin (1872 - 1915), the combination of mysticism & music
was so strong, other harmonizations pale. Building chords upon chords allowed him
unexpected fusions, especially with quickly changing dynamics and coloration. Seeing
sounds as colors, the theosophist he was, tried to cause illumination in those who listened
to his works. Applying sound as a way to convey higher vibrations, he reached for a
spiritual manifestation brought about by his music.
Another example is Olivier Messiaen (1908 - 1992).
19. Total art : lyrical.
55. Total art seeks to dynamically balance object & subject of esthetics, quasi
perfectly equilibrating them, prompting an "eternal" cycle. Art is a delicate
balance between necessity (tragedy) and freedom (drama).
Revolution & dada aim to transform object & subject. But there is still a subtle preference
at work : in revolutionary art, by creating a new object, and in psycho-dynamic art, by
emancipating the subject. By negating the object, a new object emerges, is solidified in
glyphs and negated, etc. By negating the subject, a better subject emerges, is mummified
by conceptual consciousness and negated, etc. These dialectical cycles pertain to
transformation.
The last two harmonizations try to undo the tensions. Either object & subject of the esthetic
are conceived as part of a totalizing & dynamic dual-union or a definitive negation
eliminating both is sought.
"I never lie down to sleep without reflecting that (young as I am) I may perhaps not see
another day - yet none of those who know me can say that I am morose or melancholy in
society - and I thank my Creator every day for this happiness and wish from the bottom of
my heart that all my fellow men might share it ..."
Wolfgang Mozart : Letter to his father, 4 IV 1787.
The esthetic phenomenon as a whole is the object of total art. In every esthetic judgement,
object & subject are present. All options are investigated in an "epic" kind of way. The artist
creates with spontaneous fluency and each work of art allows the public to encounter again
& again the soul or own-Self of the artist.

Lyricism found a balance between tragedy and drama, between the reality of sensate
objects and the creative power of the artist in tune with his or her core of being. It always
detains a sense of open space, a field of "all possibilities". It has not need for translations to
be understood, for the esthetic process is transparant.
A comprehensive approach to music happens in the Baroque Opus of Georg Philip Telemann
(1681 - 1767). This gigantic oeuvre evidences great fecundity, originality, continuity &
genius. Outstanding concern for balance & dynamism and the merging of all aspects of
music prevail. Because of his refined harmony, unusual orchestration & daring voiceleading,
clarity & fluidity are persistent.
The best example of a composer who's melodic, "Operatic" power is predominant in
everything he wrote, is Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart (1756 - 1791). Moreover, his
compositions are very balanced, extremely varied and also clean-clear. Great care is taken
to give every section its share. Mozart's music can be identified after hearing only a few
notes, for the "seed-cell" of the complete work is present in neary every bar.
Another example is György Ligeti (1923 - 2006).
20. Magisterial art : comical.
56. Magisterial art integrates all former harmonic keys, sublimely contaminates
their contexts, futilizes all styles, transforms every sensate object into beauty,
invites the smile. Art is the perplexing manifestation of transcendent (infinite)
purity into the fabric of the immanent & finite.
With the definitive negation, the multiple tensions between esthetic object and esthetic
subject end. This analysis eliminates both of the two necessary elements constituting the
esthetic phenomenon apprehended by a conceptual consciousness.
Ergo, a non-conceptual, transcendent ground is penetrated.
Sensate objects are designated as functional & efficient fabrications, productions or displays
of the full momentum of an interdependent becoming without eternal substance (i.e. empty
of permanent identity or eternalized existence). But, sensate facts refer, so must the
conceptual mind think, to objective preceptive states of our receptor organs, constituting
the conventional ground of science, characterized by experimental evidence arrived at
through testing & repetitive confirmation (cf. Chapter 2).
There is only energy-in-process (cf. Whitehead).
In affective & volitive contexts, consciousness posits mental objects. As a mental object of
itself, it is scrutinized and cleared of ontological traces. Empirical ego & own-Self, the two
foci of the "elliptic" continuum of consciousness, as well as this continuum itself, depend on
the lightnature of every single mind.

In a comical style, all keys are used but also negated. The artist is no longer the creator of
the work of art, the work of art is the artist and so art becomes a way of life. Futilization is
innocent and non-violent. This makes true comedy the most difficult form of art.
The limitations of each key become clear at the point of their transcendence. Then a multiharmonic
approach to beauty is opened, and every manifestation is an artistic display from
the base of all possible being.
S = O = Ø (or S = P with CI = 1) points to nondual thought (Chapter 6).
Suggested reading
Anderson, H.H. : Creativity and its Cultivation, Harper - New York, 1959.
Arieti, S. : Creativity - The Magic Synthesis, Basic - New York, 1976.
Austin, W.W. : Debussy - Prelude to 'The Afternoon of a Faun', Norton - New York, 1970.
Artaud, A. : Selected Writings, University of California Press - Los Angeles, 1988.
Baker, G.P. : Dramatic Technique, Da Capo - New York, 1983.
Bataille, G. : L'Histoire de l'Erotisme, Gallimard - Paris, 1975.
Bergson, H. : Matière et Mémoire, Skira - Genève, 1946.
Bertalanfy, von, L. : General Systems Theory, Braziller - New York, 1968.
Bono, de, E. : Lateral Thinking, Penguin - New York, 1970.
Bono, de, E. : Po : Between Yes and No, Penguin - New York, 1972.
Bohm, D. : Wholeness and the Implicate Order, Routledge - London, 1980.
Bohm, D. & Hiley, B.J. : The Undivided Universe, Routledge - London, 1993.
Bohm, D. & Peat, F.D. : Science, Order and Creativity, Routledge - London, 2000.
Boustead, A. : Writing Down Music, Oxford University Press - New York, 1975.
Bradley, A. C. : Oxford Lectures on Poetry, Indiana University Press, Bloomington, 1961.
Breton, A. : Manifestes du surréalisme, Gallimard - Paris, 1985.
Boulez, P. : Boulez on Music Today, Faber & Faber - London, 1971.
Brady, E. & Levinson, J. : Aesthetic Concepts : Essays After Sibley, Oxford University Press - New
York, 2001.
Bradley, A.C. : Oxford Lectures on Poetry, Indiana University Press - Bloomington, 1961.
Broeckx, J.L. : Grondslagen van de Muziekgeschiedenis, Metropolis - Antwerpen, 1978.
Broeckx, J.L. : Contemporary Views on Musical Style and Aesthetics, Metropolis - Antwerpen, 1979.
Brown, J.M. : A Handbook of Musical Knowledge, Trinity College of Music - London, 1980.
Carse, A. : The History of Orchestration, Dover - New York, 1964.
Carroll, N. : Philosophies of Art Today, University of Wisconsin Press - Madison, 2000.
Cassirer, E. : The Philosophy of Symbolic Forms, Yale University Press - New Haven, 1953, volume
1 Language, volume 2 : Mythic Thought, volume 3 : The Phenomenology of Language.
Croce, B. : Aesthetic as Science of Expression and General Linguistic, The Noonday Press - New
York, 1958.
Crowther, P. : Critical Aesthetics and Postmodernism, Clarendon Press - Oxford, 2000.
Danto, A. : The Philosophical Disenfranchisement of Art, Columbia University Press - New York,
1986.
Danto, A. : Encounters & Reflections : Art in the Historical Present, Farrar Straus & Giroux - New
York, 1990.
Danto, A. : After the End of Art, Princeton University Press -Princeton, 1998.

Danto, A. : Philosophizing Art : Selected Essays, University of California Press - Berkeley, 2001.
De Greeve, J. : Harmonieleer, De Sikkel - Antwerpen, 1970.
De Hen, F. & Goegebeur, R. : Inleiding tot de Geschiedenis van de Westerse Muziek, De Sikkel -
Antwerpen, 1978.
Delamont, G. : Modern Harmonic Technique, Kendor - New York, 1965, volume 1 & 2.
Delamont, G. : Modern Arranging Technique, Kendor - New York, 1965.
Delamont, G. : Modern Contrapuntal Technique, Kendor - New York, 1969.
Delamont, G. : Modern Twelve-Tone Technique, Kendor - New York, 1973.
De Pourtalès, G. : Wagner, Gallimard - Paris, 1932.
Derrida, J. : De la grammatologie, Seuil - Paris, 1967.
Dewey, J. : Reconstruction in Philosophy, Mentor - New York, 1953.
Dewey, J. : Art as Experience, Capricorn Books - New York, 1958.
Dewey, J. : Philosophy and Civilization, Capricorn - New York, 1963.
Dickie, G. : Evaluating Art, Temple University Press - Philadelphia, 1988.
Didden, F. : Theoretische Begrippen van de Muziek, Metropolis - Antwerpen, 1974.
Ducasse, C.J. : The Philosophy of Art, Dover Publications - New York, 1966.
Eaton, M. : Merit, Aesthetic and Ethical, Oxford University Press - New York, 2000.
Edgar, W. : Taking Note of Music, SPCK - London, 1986.
Eliade, M. : The Sacred and the Profane, Harcourt, Brace & C° - New York, 1959.
Eliade, M. : Images and Symbols, Harvill Press - London, 1961.
Forsyth, C. : Orchestration, Dover - New York, 1982.
Foucault, M. : Geschiedenis van de waanzin, Boom - Meppel, 1975.
Forte, A. : The Structure of Atonal Music, Yale University Press - London, 1973.
Freud, S. : The Interpretation of Dreams, Knopf - New York, 1994.
Gadamer, H-G. : Truth and Method, Crossroad - New York, 1975.
Gal, H. : Letters of the Great Composers, Thames & Hudson - London, 1965.
Gallon, N. & Bitsch, M. : Traité de Contrepoint, Durand - Paris, 1964.
Geeurickx, E. : Functionele Harmonie 1 & 2, De Monte - Leuven, 1973.
Gilbert, K.E. & Kuhn, H. : A History of Esthetics, Indiana University Press, Bloomington, 1954.
Goetschius, P. : Counterpoint Applied, Greenwood - Westport, 1975.
Goldblatt, D. & Brown, L.B. : Aesthetics : a Reader in Philosophy of the Arts, Prentice Hall - Upper
Saddle River, New Jersey, 1997.
Griffiths, P. : Histoire Concise de la Musique Moderne, Fayard - Paris, 1978.
Guénon, R. : Fundamental Symbols, Quinta Essentia - Cambridge, 1996.
Gurney, E. : The Power of Sound, Basic Books - New York, 1966.
Habermas, J. : Erkenntnis und Interesse, Suhrkamp - Frankfurt, 1973.
Hammond, W.A. : A Bibliography of Aesthetics and of the Philosophy of the Fine Arts from 1900 -
1932, Russell & Russell - New York, 1934, 1967.
Heidegger, M. : Nietzsche, Harper & Row - San Francisco, 1979 -1987, volume 1 : The Will To
Power as Art, volume 2 : The Eternal Recurrence and the Same, volume 3 : The Will to Power as
Knowledge and as Metaphysics, volume 4 : Nihilism.
Hein, H. & Korsmeyer, C. : Aesthetics in Feminist Perspective, Indiana University Press -
Bloomington, 1993.
Hindley, G. : The Larousse Encyclopedia of Music, Hamlyn - London, 1978.
Huxley, A. : The Perennial Philosophy, Harper & Brothers - New York, 1945.
Huxley, A. : The Doors of Perception, Chatto & Windus - London, 1951.
James, W. : Principles of Psychology, Dover - New York, 1950, 2 volumes.
Jacob, G. : How to Read a Score, Boosey & Hawkes - London, 1944.
Jelinek, H. : Anleitung zur Zwölftonkomposition, Universal - Wien, 1967.
Jung, C. : Collected Works, Bollingen series/Princeton University - Princeton, 1979, 20 volumes.
Kant, I. : Prolegomena to Any Future Metaphysics, Macmillan - New York, 1949.
Kant, I. : Critique of Judgement, Hafner - New York, 1951.
Kant, I. : Opus postumum, PUF - Paris, 1986.
Kelly, M. : Encyclopedia of Aesthetics, Oxford University Press - New York, 1999.

Kivy, P. : Philosophies of Arts, Cambridge University Press - New York, 1997.
Kivy, P. : Speaking of Art, Martinus Nijhoff - The Hague, 1973.
Kobbé, G. : Tout l'Opéra, Laffont - Paris, 1982.
Koestler, A. : The Act of Creation, MacMillan - New York, 1964.
Kovach, F.J. : Philosophy of Beauty, University of Oklahoma Press -Norman, 1974.
K•enek, E. : Studies in Counterpoint, Schirmer - London, 1940.
Langfeld, H.S. : The Aesthetic Attitude, Kennikat Press, Inc. - Port Washington, New York, 1967.
Langer, S.K. : Problems of Art : Ten Philosophical Lectures, Charles Scribner's Sons - New York,
1957.
Lee, V. : The Beautiful, an Introduction to Psychological Aesthetics, Cambridge University Press -
Cambridge, 1913.
Levinas, E. : Totality and Infinity, Duquesne University Press - Pittsburg, 1961.
Leys, B. : Der Ring des Nibelungen, Heuff - Nieuwkoop, 1976.
Lovelock, W. : Elementary Accompaniment Writing, Bell & Hyman - London, 1971.
Marcuse, H. : One Dimensional Man, Sphere - London, 1968.
Margolis, J. : Philosophy Looks at the Arts : Contemporary Readings in Aesthetics, Temple
University Press - New York, 1987.
Massin, J. & B. : Mozart, Fayard - Paris, 1970.
Merleau-Ponty, M. : Phénoménologie de la perception, Gallimard - Paris, 1945.
McKeon, R. : The Collected Works of Aristotle, Random House - New York, 1941.
Munro, Th. : Toward Science in Aesthetics, The Liberal Arts Press - New York, 1956.
Munro, Th. : The Arts and Their Interrelations, The Press of Case Western Reserve - Cleveland,
1967.
Nietzsche, F. : Werke in vier Bänden, Das Bergland-Buch Verlag - Salzburg, 1985, 4 Bände.
Neill, A. & Ridley, A. : Arguing About Art : Contemporary Philosophical Debates, McGraw Hill, Inc. -
New York, 1995.
Osborne, H. : Aesthetics and Art Theory, Dutton - New York, 1970.
Osterheld, H. : Franz Schubert, Donker - Rotterdam, 1979.
Pepper, St.C. : Principles of Art Appreciation, Harcourt, Brace & World, Inc. - New York, 1949.
Pepper, St.C. : The Basis of Criticism in the Arts, Harvard University Press - Cambridge, 1956.
Pepper, St.C. : Concept and Quality : A World Hypothesis, Open Court - LaSalle, 1967.
Pepper, St.C. : Aesthetic Quality : A Contextualistic Theory of Beauty, Greenwood Press Publishers
- Westport, Connecticut, 1970.
Persichetti, V. : Twentieth Century Harmony, Faber & Faber - London, 1978.
Piaget, J. : The development of thought. Equilibration of cognitive structures, Oxford University
Press - Oxford, 1978.
Prall, D.W. : Aesthetic Analysis, Thomas Crowell Co. - New York, 1967.
Piston, W. : Orchestration, Gollancz - London, 1979.
Piston, W. : Contrapunt, Strengholt - Naarden, 1977.
Plato : Verzameld Werk, Ambo - Baarn, 1980.
Plotinus : Complete Works, Platonist Press - Alphine, New Jersey, 1918, five volumes.
Popper, K.R. : The Poverty of Historicism, Routledge & Kegan - London, 1961.
Popper, K.R. : The Open Universe, Hutchinson -London, 1982.
Porette, M. : The Mirror of Simple Souls, University Notre Dame Press - Notre Dame, 1999.
Prall, D.W. : Aesthetic Judgment, Thomas Crowell Co. - New York, 1967.
Prigogine, I & Stengers, I. : Order out of Chaos, Bantam - Toronto, 1984.
Prigogine, I. & Stengers, I. : La Nouvelle Alliance, Gallimard - Paris, 1979.
Radcliffe, Ph. : Beethoven's String Quartets, Cambridge University Press - New York, 1978.
Rameau, J-Ph. : Treatise on Harmony, Dover - New York, 1971.
Rebatet, L. : Une Histoire de la Musique, Laffont - Paris, 1969.
Ricoeur, P. : Le conflit des Interpretations. Essais d'Herméneutique, Seuil - Paris, 1969.
Rimsky-Korsakov, N. : Principles of Orchestration, Dover - New York, 1964.
Rousseau, J-J. : The Confessions, Oxford University Press - Oxford, 2000.
Santayana, G. : The Sense of Beauty, Being the Outlines of Aesthetic Theory, The Modern Library -

New York, 1955.
Sartre, J-P. : What is Literature ?, Harper Colophon Books - New York, 1965.
Sartre, J-P. : Being and Nothingness, Washington Square Press - New York, 1966.
Saw, R.L. : Aesthetics : An Introduction, Anchor Books - New York, 1971.
Schaper, E. : Prelude to Aesthetics, George Allen & Unwin, Ltd. - London, 1968.
Schelling, F.W.J. : Sammtliche Werke, Augsburg - Stuttgart, 1857.
Schopenhauer, A. : The World as Will and Representation, Dover - New York, 1966, 2 volumes.
Schönberg, A. : Theory of Harmony, University of California Press - Berkeley, 1983.
Sheppard, A. : Aesthetics, an Introduction to the Philosophy of Art, Oxford University Press - New
York, 1987.
Shields, A. : A Bibliography of Bibliographies in Aesthetics, San Diego University Press - California,
1974.
Smith-Brindle, R. : Serial Composition, Oxford University Press - Oxford, 1977.
Smuts, J.C. : Holism and Evolution, Greenwood Press - Westport, 1973.
Sparshott, F. E. : The Structure of Aesthetics, University of Toronto Press - Toronto, 1963.
Sullivan, J.W.N. : Beethoven : His Spiritual Development, Vintage Books - New York, 1927.
Stace, W.T. : The Teachings of the Mystics, Mentor - New York, 1960.
Stace, W.T. : Mysticism and Philosophy, Macmillan - London, 1973.
Stein, G. : The Ways of Meaning in the Arts, Humanities Press - New York, 1970.
Stolnitz, J. : Aesthetics and Philosophy of Art Criticism, Houghton Mifflin Co. - Boston, 1960.
Tart, Ch. : Transpersonale Psychologie, Schibli - Doppler - Schweiz, 1978.
Taylor, C.W. : Climate for Creativity, Pergamon - New York, 1972.
Tolstoy, L. : What is Art ? & Essays on Art, Oxford University Press - New York, 1962.
Tormey, A. : The Concept of Expression : A Study in Philosophical Psychology and Aesthetics,
Princeton University Press - Princeton, 1971.
Townsend, D. : An Introduction to Aesthetics, Blackwell - Oxford, 1997.
Underhill, E. : Mysticism. A study in the nature and development of man's spiritual consciousness,
Dutton - New York, 1970.
Von Harsanyi, Z. : Vie de Liszt, Les Éditions de Paris - Paris, 1948.
Vuillermoz, E. : Histoire de la Musique, Fayard - Paris, 1949.
allas, G. : The Art of Thought, Jonathancape - London, 1926.
Weitz, M. : The Opening Mind : A Philosophical Study of Humanistic Concepts, The University of
Chicago Press - Chicago, 1977.
Wellek, R. : Discriminations : Further Concepts of Criticism, Yale University Press - New Haven,
1970.
Whitehead, A.N. : Process and Reality, The Free Press - New York, 1978.
Whitehead, A.N. : Religion in the Making, Fordham University Press - New York, 1996.
Whitehead, A.N. : The Concept of Nature, Dover - New York, 2004.
Willemze, Th. : Algemene Muziekleer, Het Spectrum - Antwerpen, 1979.
Wittgenstein, L. : The Blue and Brown Books, Harper - New York 1965.
Wittgenstein, L. : Filosofische onderzoekingen, Boom - Meppel, 1976.
Wolterstorff, N. : Works and Worlds of Art, Oxford University Press - London, 1980.

TABLE OF CONTENTS
Chapter 7
Intelligent Wisdom
reflections on the cognitive continuum
from myth to nondual thought
"As a man thinketh in his heart, so is he !"
"Wisdom resteth in the heart of him that hath understanding ..."
Proverbs, 23:7 - 14:33
I : The Heart of Wisdom in Ancient Egypt :
01. Visualizing the physical heart as the mind.
02. The heart in the Old Kingdom.
03. Conscience and the weighing of the heart.
04. Thoth, the first to write.
05. Intelligence-of-the-heart or the heart of wisdom.
II : Conceptualization in Western ontological thought :
06. Myth : simplifying "the beginning".
07. Proto-rationality in Parmenides and Democritus.
08. Conceptual rationality : the Sophists and Socrates.
09. Concept-realism : Plato and Aristotle.
10. Fideism or the onto-theological ground.
11. Real and rational science in scholasticism.
12. Rationalism and empirism of nature.
13. Kant, the shipwreck of foundationalism.
14. Criticism and the Münchhausen-trilemma.
III : Intelligent Wisdom after Critical Philosophy :
15. The own-Self and the heart of creative thought.
16. Beyond the concept : reflective & reflexive nonduality.
Epilogue : Guidelines
Suggested Reading

I : The Heart of Wisdom in Ancient Egypt.
"Osiris, the scribe Ani, said : 'O my heart which I had from my mother ! O my heart which I
had from mother ! O my heart of my different ages ! May there be nothing to resist me at
the judgment. May there be no opposition to me from the assessors.
May there be no parting of You from me in the presence of him who keeps the scales ! You
are my Ka within my body, which formed and strengthened my limbs.
May You come forth to the place of happiness whereto I advance. May the entourage not
cause my name to stink, and may no lies be spoken against me in the presence of the
god ! It is indeed well that You should hear !'"
Papyrus of Ani, Plate 3 - ca. 1250 BCE - XIXth Dynasty - British Museum
01. Visualizing the physical heart as the mind.
In Ancient Egyptian, the word for "heart" was written in three possible ways.
(1) Heart as "ib" -Eeb- (F34) was written as , a single hieroglyph, representing a
(mammal) heart + the determinative for "one" (a stroke).
(2) Heart as "HAt" -Hat- (F4) was written as , the forepart of a lion ("HAt"), a bread
("t" - X1, phonetical complement) + ("ib" - F34), used as determinative for everything
related to "heart". The first two signs ("HA" and "t") + stroke determinative meant
"forehead", "forepart", "beginning", "the best of", etc.
(3) Finally, heart was also written as "HAtii", with two strokes added, or , whereas
"Hatiiw" indicated "thoughts" ...
The semantic field associated with this visual sign, or icon of a mammalian heart, was very
rich, highly complex and encompassed all physical, emotional, mental and spiritual states
of the human. The heart represented the physical heart, but also denoted the seat of
thoughts and emotions, the mind, its intelligence and understanding, as well as will, desire,
mood, wish, interiority, attentions, intentions, disposition, conscience and middle. In the
sapiental discourses (cf. Amenemapt), it was the sacred shrine (devotion, spirituality). In
funerary theology, the heart was the ultimate motor of the spiritual transformation ("Xpr" -
Kheper-) of the "bA" -Ba- or "soul" into "Ax" -Akh- or "spirit" (in the horizon or "Axt" -
Akhet-). The physical heart was not removed from the body during mummification, and
often covered with an image of the dung-beetle -L1- "Kheper" ("Xpr") or "become",
deemed helpful during judgment.
The hieroglyph of the heart marked off the subjective state, quality or "mental" condition
which the Egyptians associated with the physical heart, considered as the master receptor
& coordinator and motor organ of the organic, functional unity at work in the physical body.
Likewise, the heart was the "other" (read "inner") side of this coordination of movements

using conscious intent, causing speech (cf. the role of the tongue in the Memphis
theology). The heart explicitly refers to the mind, as in : "thought of the heart", the
"kAt" ( ) meaning thought or meditation (cf. to think, to think out, to say).
The notion of the "shrine" of the heart as the sacred place of the "inner god" was a concept
developed in the Late New Kingdom (ca. 1200 BCE), when personal piety became fully part
of the Egyptian cultural form (cf. Hymns to Amun). By entering its "shrine", the heart
(mind, desire, will) is brought before the god, enabling the latter to dwell in the person.
Deriving their concrete (not abstract) concepts from natural differentials, the intellectual
elite of Ancient Egypt (scholars associated with the local House of Life) visualized their
thoughts in "sacred signs" (or "hieroglyphs"). Mythical, pre-rational and proto-rational
layers of cognition were superimposed and partly integrated into concrete
conceptualizations. This pragmatical, deep thinking of the Ancient Egyptians was indeed
unstable, but evidenced the first, unfinished "closure" of the cognitive apparatus. Protorationality
integrated both myth and pre-rationality. Tensions remained and turbulence was
unpredictable and possibly annual (cf. too much or too little Nile flood), but because of this
"hieroglyphic thinking from the heart" (allowing for a "multiplicity of approaches" - cf.
Frankfort, 1961), a dynamical equilibrium was achieved (and maintained for over thirty
dynasties, covering 3000 years of history).
Hieroglyphs (as Byzantine Icons) refer to a wider experience of reality, to an understanding
of the heart. Then, by using sacred symbols in particular cognitive contexts, the
surrounding macrocosm is visualized as one complex whole of architectures, momenta &
rhythms, which are also at work in human body, conceived as a microcosm.
Note that contrary to (a) the physical body or "Xt" -Khat-, (b) the "double" or "kA" -Ka-,
(c) the ritual (noble) body or "zaH" -Sah- and (d) the celestial body or "xA-bA.s" -Khabas-,
the heart represented a state of consciousness rather than a vehicle or executive,
functional component of man's soteriology. Its conservation was necessary because the
general mastery of life was projected in it. The heart was deemed responsible for the
direction of the rudder, the navigation on the river of this life and for the initiation of
spiritual transformation in the next (cf. the judgment scenes of deities, the divine king and
common mortals).
Chronology
approximative, all dates BCE
Predynastic Period
● earliest communities : - 5000
● Badarian : - 4000
● Naqada I : - 4000 - 3600
● Naqada II : - 3600 - 3300
● Terminal Predynastic Period : 3300 - 3000

Dynastic Period
● Early Dynastic Period : 3000 - 2600
● Old Kingdom : 2600 - 2200
● First Intermediate Period : 2200 - 1940
● Middle Kingdom 1940 - 1760
● Second Intermediate Period : 1760 - 1500
● New Kingdom : 1500 - 1000
● Third Intermediate Period : 1000 - 650
● Late Period : 650 - 343
02. The heart in the Old Kingdom.
In the Old Kingdom, both psychological and funerary identifications are attested :
"I have come and I bring You the Eye of Horus, that your heart may be refreshed
possessing it. I bring it to You under your sandals. Take the efflux which comes out of You.
Your heart will not be inert, possessing it."
Pyramid Texts, Unas:32.
"There is no seed of a god which passes away at his , and You shall not pass away
at his . Atum will not give You to Osiris, and he shall not claim your heart, nor have
power over your heart. Atum will not give You to Horus, and he shall not claim your heart
nor have power over your heart."
Pyramid Texts, Unas:215.
In the Maxims of Ptahhotep (ca. 2200 BCE) and other sapiental discourses, the word
"heart" is always used to indicate and/or express subjective, internal, intimate, "states" or
"conditions" of consciousness. In the context of the teachings, insofar as Maat is concerned
and is used as a good example, Ptahhotep summarized the phenomenology of the
subjective. The awareness of each human of him or herself, of volitions, affections and
cogitations, and the complex functions, organs, subdivisions and strata of the psyche and
her implicate processes are part of the connotative semantic field of the word "heart" and
its use.
The fact so many states of mind are mentioned, is suggestive of the freedom enjoyed by
the "heart" to turn to any side it desired. With the "heart", we touch upon Ancient Egypt's
concept of "will" and "freedom". Ante-rational thought did conceptualize the freedom to go
wrong. Moreover, to the ancients, a harmony, called "Maat" existed which was established
with the act of creation itself.
The Egyptian language of the Maxims captures the essence of the "state of heart" in a
pictorial, metaphorical and poetical way, leaving room for many readings and an alternative
"coupure" of the text. Indeed, to understand an Egyptian concept one is advised to seek
context before content. The latter may be isolated within a given set of connotative
meanings, but is never defined beforehand as in the "geometrical" method developed by
the Greeks (cf. Euclid).

The "heart" in the Maxims of Ptahhotep
every clause ends with det. ("ib" - F34)
heart is weary : to be tired in body and mind ;
the heart, ended : the cognitive faculties being absent, finished ;
the exactness of (every) heart : the correct, precise information given ;
heart get big/great : an inflated sense of personhood ;
directs the heart : to be able to conduct & control oneself, a powerful
man ;
seize your heart (against) : to act aggressively against someone ;
control of heart : self-control, restraint of one's personal drives ;
aggressive of heart : the attitude of attacking another person ;
relieve your heart : to undo oneself of a psychological burden ;
wash the heart : to relieve oneself of feelings, whether they be anger or
joy ;
little heart : a man of weak cognitive abilities, an incompetent person ;
your heart desires : what you like or wish ;
the heart that robs : the greedy person, the thief ;
evil on his heart : evil intentions, negative feelings and/or thoughts ;
please the heart : to satisfy oneself or another person ;
follow your heart : enjoy your life, be happy, make a good life for
yourself ;
the time of 'follow-the-heart' : sum of all happy, joyful, unmixed moments
of life ;
withdraw the heart : to separate oneself from a situation or a person ;
reaches the heart : to enter consciousness, to become aware ;
heart obeys his belly : the mind follows the instincts and the lower
affects ;
heart is denuded : sorrowful state of mind, degeneration of the sense of
ego ;
great of heart : great-hearted person ;
swallowing the heart : to loose sight of reality, to falter, to forget ;
calms the heart : to eliminate the harsh, unpolished sides of one's
character ;
the heart rejects it : a person does not accept a thought, feeling or
action ;
greed of the heart : the vice of always wanting more material things ;
gladden the heart : to make a person happy, joyful and serene ;
whole heart together : to concentrate exclusively on something ;
a high heart : to be haughty ;
the hot of heart : a hot-heart or a hot-tempered, uncontrolled person ;
sad of heart : a depressed, sorrowful person ;
frivilous of heart : to be constantly light-hearted, gay and without
concerns ;
obeys his heart : to follow one own rules ;
vex the heart : to make somebody furious ;
the trust of your heart : the faculty of trusting something or someone ;

lacks in heart : to be mindless, unconsiderate, disrespectful towards
others ;
water upon the heart : effeminate, unmanly thoughts, feelings & actions ;
test his heart : to probe the authenticity of oneself or another ;
unbound of heart : to be gay and joyful as a result of being without
obligations ;
joyful of heart : a positive, constructive attitude and a good sense of
humour ;
the heart twines his tongue : thought and speech match, are equal ;
heart ... a listener or a non-listener : a person decides to listen or not ;
life ... are a man's heart : the core of a person is alive, healthy &
prospering ;
valued by the heart : taken into consideration, given attention, be aware
of ;
immerge your heart : to be discreet, to hide one's thoughts, to keep to
oneself ;
be patient of heart : to be deliberate, to take the time to collect one's
thoughts ;
his heart matches his steps : he lives & acts as he thinks and says, is
straight ;
03. Conscience and the weighing of the heart.
"O my heart ! Raise yourself on your base (so) that You may recall what is in You."
Coffin Texts, spell 657.
In the Coffin Text, references to the netherworldly Judgment Hall abound. Brought before
this tribunal, the deceased had to recall his or her life. To do so, the heart was crucial. If it
abandoned the deceased, the cause was lost. The Coffin Texts were written during the
Middle Kingdom, but, contrary to the New Kingdom Book of the Dead and its weighing
scene, have no vignettes (explanatory, cartoon-like drawings explaining the actions
surrounding the text).
The collapse of the Old Kingdom brought about a provincialism in which the nomes (or 42
provinces) themselves and not exclusively the royal residence defined Egyptian culture (as
Memphis had between ca. 3000 & 2200 BCE). This triggered an interiorization and the
emergence of a personal accountability based on the moral condition of the individual, i.e.
on the nature of his or her heart. After the Old Kingdom, a person's place in society no
longer determined what would eventuate in the afterlife (as had been the case in the Old
Kingdom, where all depended on being near the divine king). Whether one had acquired
moral rectitude was enough to be saved (i.e. dwell in the dark kingdom of Osiris and, for
the very few, ascend to Re's heaven - cf. the Pyramid texts of Unas).
From ca. 1940 BCE onwards, every Egyptian was deemed to have a "soul" or Ba. No longer
a Pharaonic privilege, the soul of commoners could now spiritually evolve and also become
a spirit or Akh. Although the elite of the elite (the divine king and his family) would
experience ascension to Re, commoners, if vindicated by the independent tribunal of 42
Osirian assessors, could be regenerated to dwell in the latter's netherworld, which had its

own kind of heaven (accommodating the spirits bound to the realm of Osiris). In fact, the
kingdom of Osiris reflected the kingdom of the Horus-king on Earth. A Solar (royal) and
Lunar (common) soteriology emerged.
"... my heart is not ignorant of its place, and it is firm on its base. I know my name. I am
not ignorant of it. I will be among those that follow after Osiris ..."
Coffin Texts, spell 572.
During mummification, the mortuary priest would pull out the internal organs except the
heart, which played an essential role in the mortuary rituals performed throughout
Pharaonic history. If moved or damaged, it would be stitched together with great care. To
assist a good outcome of its weighing, the amulet of the Kheper Beetle ("xpr") was usually
placed on top of it during the wrapping of the mummy in linen.
The Weighing of the Heart
Papyrus of Ani, Plate 3 - ca. 1250 BCE - XIXth Dynasty - British Museum
In the Book of the Dead, the heart appears in the context of being without blame (i.e. in
harmony with Maat). The deceased did not wish to loose his or her heart after judgment,
for the heart was the seat of the Ba (before it entered its ritual, noble body). Judgment
came after the mummy had been reactivated, so it could speak and adapt to its new,
postmortem environment.
But to enter the heaven of Osiris, it was decisive to have passed the trial of the balance. A
heart found to be heavier than a plume, the symbol of Maat's justice, was devoured and
with it the prospect of eternal life. Such a heavy heart (burdened by sin), only invited the
remainder to be eaten by the monstrous "great devouress", the goddess Anmut ...
In the Book of the Dead, the process of deification of everyman implied a series of
initiatoric events, starting with purification, then judgment and finally admission as a deity,

or Akh of Osiris. Hence, the heart was also a major "moral" center (cf. "conscience" or
"super-ego" in depth-psychology).
During life, the heart was closely related with the Ka and (also) represented the cognitive
aspect of personalized existence (i.e. the mind). Hence, the importance of the words one
had spoken during one's earthly life.
The heart had to be restituted so the deceased received his memory and personal identity
back, for perpetual existence also implied personal continuity. This notion is amply present
in the Book of the Dead, elaborating on the restoration of the heart known in the Coffin
Texts (and earlier, in the Pyramid Texts of the Old Kingdom ).
In the famous scene from the Papyrus of Ani, Ani and his wife enter the Hall of the Double
Law or Double Truth (divine versus human - good versus evil - eternal life versus second
death, etc.) to have Ani's heart, emblematic of conscience, weighed against the Feather of
Maat, emblematic of truth & justice. Ani's heart is thus the epicenter of the whole scene,
symbolizing Ani's thoughts, intentions and conscience during his lifetime on Earth.
The central emblem is Maat's Feather. It represents the standard of truth & justice
immanent in creation, but also the truth of the declaration of innocence made by the
deceased (Plate 31) before the tribunal of assessors (the hieroglyph for "not" is in red). By
virtue of the rule of "reversal", this declaration involved a "purging" of possible past crimes.
Three offences are repeated in the Judgment Scene :
● never to diminish the offerings made to the temples (against the pantheon & the
people) ;
● never to destroy what had been made (against the memorial of the ancestors) ;
● never to speak deceitfully (against truth & righteousness).
What does the text give us ? It starts with Ani invoking his own conscience but also his
mother, from whom he received his heart (cf. the major role of woman in nurture, but also
as representing the sacred "matrix" of life). We also learn his heart was linked with the Ka
"within the body", the vital power making and sustaining one's stride. Next, Anubis weighs
Ani's heart against the divine standard (the Feather) and Thoth confirms no sin is found
and the equilibrium of the Great Balance is established. Finally, the Ogdoad of Hermopolis
(headed by Thoth), confirms the sentence spoken and recorded by Thoth and it is they -the
chaos-gods- who lift the curse of the Monster or Ani's "second death". Instead of being
annihilated, Ani will be allowed to enter the kingdom of Osiris because he is "maacheru"
("mAa - xrw"), i.e. vindicated, justified, triumphant !
What was the meaning of this afterlife scene to those still alive ? The importance given to
the heart could not be missed : it is a person's conscience, determined by what he said
(wrote) and did (how he lived), which was deemed crucial. As Ptahhotep taught, just
speech is the heart of a wise transference of the best of the past to the best of today for
the sake of the future (so the memorial of the ancestors remains), as well as of the
continuous progress made over the generations. If we study Egypt's sapiental literature,
we do not encounter the notion a person may be vindicated during his or her lifetime on
Earth. On the contrary, in the Old Kingdom, a non-royal could only hope to endure without
being immortalized. The sage was always in the process of attaining the state of
veneration, except when his vital force left his physical vehicle. Then and only then could

veneration be a final station (a terminus). Although since the Middle Kingdom, deceased
commoners could be immortalized and deified as "Osiris-NN", nobody attained this state
during his or her lifetime. Only Pharaoh was a living god on Earth. Hence, even during his
lifetime, Pharaoh was "justified", for he "lived in Maat".
The concept of the weighing procedure invoked in this scene, is not restricted to the
afterlife (were it appears as the final "balance-sheet" of the deceased). The sapiental
discourses make it clear that in every situation, the Egyptian wise seeks to do Maat, and
does it by "measuring" the scale of the imbalance in order to restore the Left Eye of Horus
and bring it to the forehead (i.e. realize a "tertium comparationis"). This to harmonize life
and end strife in Pharaoh's name, he who guaranteed the unity of the Two Lands by
returning Maat as voice-offering to his father Re.
First comes a careful, concrete investigation of what is at hand, in order to discover its
"balance", i.e. the two factors allowing the "Ka" to flow (from high to low) and animate the
given context. Next there is the restoration by striking the "nil", the true balancing-point of
the beam, arrived at when the difference between the two weights is naught. Indeed, the
sinuous waters go up and down and when this flood equilibrates (not too much and not too
little), the inundation is perfect and the surplus large. The wise has always enough reserves
to compensate for any imbalance ... At the balancing-point, Maat is brought to the nose of
Atum ...
The wise of Ancient Egypt made the poise of the balance of truth & justice rest upon the
vastness of the non-equilibrium (chaos) constantly threatening the survival of the cosmos.
He knew this reclaiming of life by death is of no avail if at every movement of the rudder,
the boatman knows how to balance the bark and master the waters, whether he be
traveling on Earth or on the Nile of the netherworld. His commanding excellence made his
bark float upon the chaotic ocean. His just word was the primordial hill, or the emergence
of order out of chaos, the making of the beam of the balance, keeping the two scales
together and separated, allowing one to "walk upon the waters", using the surface-tensions
of their chaos.
04. Thoth, the first to write.
Thoth's name, written as G26, the hieroglyph of the Ibis :
appeared perched on a standard on slate palettes of the Late Predynastic Period. The
sacred Ibis (Ibis religiosa) had a long curved beak, suggestive of the crescent New Moon,
and black & white feathering reminiscent of the Lunar phases of waxing & waning. In the
Old Kingdom, the association between the Ibis and Thoth had already been made, for in
the afterlife, the wings of Thoth carried Pharaoh over the celestial river (cf. Pyramid Texts,
§ 1176 & § 1254). Hopfner (1914) thought "DHw" could have been the oldest name of the
Ibis, implying that Thoth ("DHwT" or "Djehuti") would mean : "he who has the nature of
the Ibis". Others, like Wessetzky (1958), conjecture it proceeds from "HwwT" or
"messenger" with prefix I10, "D".
Another, less common, pictogram for Thoth was the squatting baboon, who greeted the
dawning Sun with agitated, chattering sounds. These baboons are also represented on their

hind legs with front paws raised in praise and greeting of Re (cf. the First Hour of the
Amduat). They faced the rising Sun (cf. above the statues of Ramesses II at Abu Simbel).
In both instances, Thoth wears a crown representing the crescent Moon supporting the disk
of the Full Moon. In the Middle Kingdom, he was worshipped in all of Egypt. In all major
temples, the cult of Thoth was present. Why ?
An exceptional deity, not part of the royal Heliopolitan Ennead, but with an Ogdoad of his
own, he was the secretary of Re, and so the "scribe of the gods". He was Re's messenger,
who promulgated the laws of "the Lord of All" or sole creator-god, Atum-Kheper-Re. He
was a traveler and an international deity, for his name can be found in many ancient
languages : neo-Babylonian, Coptic, Aramean, Greek & Latin. Thoth represented the
embodiment of all knowledge and literature. He had invented writing and wrote himself. His
most important record was the outcome of the mythical battle between Upper Egyptian
Seth and Lower Egyptian Horus, the son of Osiris and Isis. Thoth was at the command of all
the divine books in the House of Life. The wisdom of Thoth was revered and considered too
secret for profane eyes.
In the Middle Kingdom story of the magician Djedi, a man of a hundred and ten, we read
that Djedi knew the number of the secret chambers of the sanctuary of Thoth. The latter
was "mdw nTr" "medu netjer", the "word of the god", namely Re. He is called the "son of
Re" and "Lord of the Eight gods" (of Hermopolis, Thoth's cult centre). In the funerary
rituals, Thoth acted the part of the recorder, and his decision was accepted by all deities.
Thoth observed whether the heart (mind) of the deceased was light enough to balance the
feather of truth & justice. This by "weighing the words", for the heaviness of heart was the
result of unwholesome speech (cf. the insistence on silence serving magical purposes).
Thoth was also the ultimate teacher of magic, ritualism & the words of power which opened
the secret pylons of the underworld. As healer of the Left Eye of Horus (cf. wedjat), Thoth
is the deity of medicine.
His original home was Khemenu, or "eight-town", referring to the four pairs of mythical
chaos-gods existing before creation (cf. Nun), of which Thoth became the leader and head.
The Greeks called it Hermopolis. In myth, it was famous for the "high ground" on which Re
rested when he rose for the first time. This "risen land" was a central metaphor, an
example of the emergence of creation out of the undifferentiated waters, in which inert
chaos lay dormant.
This chaos of pre-existence was personified by the Ogdoad of Hermopolis, showing this
theology was intimately linked with the "mind of Re" speaking its Great Word transforming
the pre-creational, chaotic Ogdoad Egg (cf. the "Eight of Hermopolis", four female snakegoddesses
& four male frog-gods with Predynastic roots) into the created Ennead of
Hermopolis, headed by the "First of the Eight", the Great Word of Re, Thoth. The
Hermopolitan scheme is magical, for the true magician (like Pharaoh) finds his origin not in
the pantheon, but before the Ennead and Ogdoad.
In Isis and the other great goddesses (personifications of the Great Sorceress), the balance
tilted towards Lunar sacrality, in Osiris- Pharaoh, Follower of Horus, son of Re, towards
Solar divinity, but in both cases not exclusively. Isis knew the "true name" of Re without
which Osiris would not have resurrected. The divinity of Pharaoh was not without the
sacred, for he was the son of Her who bore Atum !

The peace of Thoth was a neutrality which was also the objective guarantee of objectivity,
truth and justice. This middle path had chaotic polarities of equal force (four females, four
males) surrounding it. Slight movements away from the straight path could imply going
astray and be assimilated by either polarity of the Ogdoad. Disease was the outcome of
this loss of equilibrium between and control over the forces of chaos. Through the power of
the Great Word, the greatest evil could be conquered (cf. the overthrowing of Apophis, the
giant snake trying to swallow Re before dawn). The creative verb is dropped by the sacred
Ibis, and order is restored. The mind of Re brings clarity, distinction and operational control
in all contexts.
Thoth is known as the divine witness, mediator & messenger who recorded things as they
were. He was also the arbiter, and his duty was to prevent Set or Horus from destroying
the other. He was able to keep these hostile forces in exact equilibrium. Darkness & light,
night & day, evil & good were balanced by Thoth, the heart and tongue of Re. It is Thoth
who spoke the Great Word, resulting in the wishes of Re being carried into effect, and once
he had given an authorative command ("Hu") and had put it into writing, it could not fail to
realize itself ("Heka").
The androgynous nature of Thoth can be derived from his being a male deity. Just as the
great magic of mother Isis (female) was derived from her knowing the true name of the
creator Re (male), so was the writer Thoth (male) a great magician because he (as the
mind of Re) knew how to practice the sacred Lunar traditions (female) to invent writing,
science & literature. Pharaoh (male), Lord of the Two Lands, was the greatest of magicians,
because as a living god on Earth he had assimilated the power of the sacred Great
Sorceress Herself (being Her son) and hence Pharaoh stood before the Enneads abiding in
the sky. Pharaoh's Great Word was spoken by a living god-with-us, and hence Pharaoh's
"heka" was outstandingly sublime and greater than the greatest deities.
To acclimatize to Egypt, the Greeks identified their gods with native divinities. In the Late
Period, Thoth was probably the most popular and diverse deity of the Egyptian pantheon.
Indeed, in the Late New Kingdom, Third Intermediate and Late Period, individual destiny
and fate had become increasingly important. Both lay in the hand of the gods and this fate
could be derived by studying the rhythms of planets & stars (astrology, entering Egypt
from Babylon).
Although a national deity, Thoth had local associations and particularities and was regarded
as a Moon-god, determining the rhythms of Egyptian national life (festivals & calendars).
As "Lord of Time", Thoth, the mysterious, ruled individual destinies too, and was thus very
popular. By extension he was lord of knowledge, language, all science, magic, writing and
understanding. He was the creator who called things into being merely by the sound of his
voice. As guide and judge of the dead, Thoth owed much popularity with common people,
and the "power of the Moon" was invoked in the wisdom teachings.
The Greek settlers identified their god Hermes with Thoth. Like Thoth, he was Lunar, and
associated with medicine and the realm of the dead. Both were tricksters and messengers.
Hermes was the "logos", the interpreter of Divine Will to humanity. In Stoic philosophy,
Hermes is both "logos" and "demiurge", which probably owed something to the
Hermopolitans. In Alexandrian Egypt, the Greek Hermes (identified with Thoth), became
cosmopolitan and Hellenistic, but Egyptianized and known throughout the Roman world as
"the Egyptian". Interestingly, by intermingling native Egyptian (Thoth) and Greek theology

(Hermes) with Hellenistic philosophy, a syncretic sum was produced, a major and crucial
archetypal idea, which encompassed the function of the cognitive in the Mediterranean
cultures of before Christianity : Hermes Trismegistus, or Hermes the "Thrice Greatest".
Indeed, for during their rituals, the Egyptians used to call Thoth "Great ! Great ! Great !".
However, by people of Greek culture, Trismegistus was not envisaged in the same way as
the Egyptians saw him. The Greeks produced fictional stories to explain the emergence of
Hermes Trismegistus (cf. the Tabula Smaragdina). For example, it was widely circulated
Homer was an Egyptian and a son of Hermes ! The learned Greeks invented a "human"
Trismegistus.
The "philosophical" Hermetica (the Corpus Hermeticum) presented Hermes as a teacher of
wisdom. However, in the "technical" Hermetica (the Greek magical papyri which readapt
Egyptian magic), Thoth appeared, for there Trismegistus was seen as a cosmic deity, able
to dwell in the heart of his devotees and object of identification for the magician. This
ambiguity of Hermes Trismegistus, the dual-union between the Divine and the human,
must have struck many. It may explain why Hermes is mentioned in early Christian
literature (cf. the two natures of Christ). Hermetical principles were imported in Europe in
the XI - XIIth century by the monastic movement (as part of the "Orientale Lumen" - cf.
Bernard of Clairvaux, Willem of St.Thierry).
Hermes Trismegistus the wisdom-teacher influenced both Christianity and Islam. Besides
its dogmatic canon, Early Christianity was influenced by neo-Platonism and Stoicism, both
linked with Alexandrian Hermetism, and the Pagan notions of "Divine Mind", "World Soul",
"Demiurge" and "Pure Act" (developed in the New Kingdom and returning in Classical Greek
philosophy).
Through Harran, Hermes established his place in Islamic sciences, which in turn would help
initiate the European Renaissance in XIVth century Italy. It is at this point a new mixture
was brewed, one which called into being a re-Platonized egyptomanic Hermeticism
conquering Europe and finally the New World. It is still with us in Egyptian Masonic Orders
and the various branches of Californian New Age religion.
Three fundamental phases appear :
1. native Hermopolitan theology : the perennial worship of the native Egyptian Thoth,
"Thrice Greatest", centered in Hermopolis ("Hermoupolis Magna") ;
2. historical Hermetism : the identification of Thoth with Hermes Trismegistus, who, in
his Graeco-Alexandrian, philosophical teachings (between ca. 150 BCE and 250 CE) is
Greek and human (although Egyptian elements persist), but who assumed, in the
technical Hermetica, the cosmicity of the Egyptian Thoth ;
3. literary Hermeticism : the Renaissance produced a fictional European Trismegistus,
based on the Alexandrian Hermes Trismegistus and a misunderstood Ancient Egyptian
language. Trismegistus became the patron of alchemy, magic, mystery orders,
freemasonry, astrology, the New Age, the Western tradition ... and all matters occult.
Thoth was the first to write. The hieroglyphic system reflects his mentality, for it aims at a
fluent communication of the pictorial, non-cerebral, parallel, non-linear "intelligence of the
heart", integrating (although ante-rationally) the early layers of cognition, namely its

mythical, pre-rational and proto-rational sedimentations.
Our knowledge of the Ancient Egyptian language is the result of modern scholarship, for
since the Renaissance, a symbolical and allegorical interpretation was favored, which
proved to be wrong (but based on the practice of allegorical mystifications of Egyptian
priests working under the Ptolemies). Egyptian belongs to the Afro-Asiatic language family,
and is related to Arabic, Ethiopic and Hebrew, but also to North African (Hamitic) languages
such as Berber and Cushitic. Being the longest continually attested language in the world, it
appeared ca. 3000 BCE and remained in use until the XIth century CE.
The learned Jesuit antiquarian Athanasius Kircher (1602 - 1680) proposed nonsensical
allegorical translations (Lingua Aegyptical restituta, 1643). Thomas Young (1773 -1829),
the author of the undulatory theory of light, who had assigned the correct phonetical values
to five hieroglyphic signs, still maintained these alphabetical signs were written together
with allegorical signs, which, according to him, formed the bulk. The final decipherment,
starting as late as 1822, was the work of the Frenchman Jean-François Champollion, 1790
- 1832, cf. Précis du système hiéroglyphique des anciens égyptiens par M.Champollion le
jeune, 1824.
Champollion, who had a very good knowledge of Coptic (the last stage of Egyptian), proved
the assumption of the allegorists wrong. He showed, especially aided by the presence of
the Rosetta Stone, Egyptian (as any other language) assigned phonetical values to signs.
These formed consonantal structures as in Hebrew and Arabic. He also discovered that
some were pictures indicating the category of the preceding words, the so-called
"determinatives".
After Champollion's death in 1832, the lead in Egyptology passed to Germany (Richard
Lepsius, 1810 - 1884). This Berlin school shaped Egyptian philology for the nineteenth and
twentieth centuries, in particular scholars such as Adolf Erman (1854 - 1937), Kurt Sethe
(1869 - 1934), who, together with Francis Griffith (1862 - 1934), Battiscombe Gunn (1883
- 1950) and Alan Gardiner (1879 - 1963) in England, laid the systematic basis for the study
of Egyptian. Later, Jacob Polotsky (1905 - 1991) established the "standard theory" of
Egyptian grammar. These efforts finally made the historical record available to scholars of
other disciplines. Hence, by interdisciplinary work, the impact of Pharaonic Egypt on all
Mediterranean cultures of antiquity can be put into evidence. Ancient Egypt can no longer
neglected in the history of the formation of the European intellectual movements (cf.
Egypt's impact on Greek philosophy, in particular Memphite thought).
The first hieroglyphs were written down towards the end of the Terminal Predynastic period
(end of the fourth millennium BCE), often attached as labels on commodities. There is a
continuous recorded until the eleventh century CE, when Coptic (the last stage of the
language) expired as a spoken tongue and was superseded by Arabic.
The Egyptian language knew six stages :
* Archaic Egyptian (first two Dynasties)
* Old Egyptian (Old Kingdom)
* Middle Egyptian (First Intermediate Period & Middle Kingdom)
* Late Egyptian (New Kingdom & Third Intermediate Period)
* Demotic Egyptian (Late Period)
* Coptic (Roman Period).

In the last two stages, new scripts emerged and only in Coptic is the vocalic structure
known, with distinct dialects. Archaic Egyptian consists of brief inscriptions. Old Egyptian
has the first continuous texts. Middle Egyptian is the "classical form" of the language. Late
Egyptian is very different from Old and Middle Egyptian (cf. the verbal structure). Although
over 6000 hieroglyphs have been documented, only about 700 are attested for Middle
Egyptian (the majority of other hieroglyphs are found in Graeco-Roman temples only).
modes
of thought
mythical
sensori-motoric
pre-rational
pre-operatoric
proto-rational
concrete operations
examples
in Egyptian literature
Gerzean ware design
schemata, early palettes
Relief of Snefru, Biography of
Methen, Sinai Inscriptions,
Testamentary Enactment
Pyramid Texts
Maxims of Ptahhotep, Coffin
Texts, Sapiental literature, ...
Great Hymn to the Aten ...
Memphis Theology
major stages of growth in
the formation of Middle
Egyptian
individual hieroglyphs,
labels, no texts, no
grammar, cartoon-like
style - Predynastic
individual words with
archaic sentences, a
rudimentary grammar to
simple sentences in the
"record" style of the Old
Kingdom
from simple sentences to
the classical form of a fine
literary language capable
of more further changes
Egyptian hieroglyphs is a system of writing which, fully developed, had 2 classes of signs :
logograms & phonograms. The phonograms refer to the actual sounds of the language.
Each letter is a phoneme. The consonantal phonograms, representing either one, two or
three phonemes are without vocalization, and so lack pronunciation.
Hieroglyphic Egyptian gives a pale reflection of the spoken tongue, and was used as a
ceremonial, sacred language. At best, we may derive guides to pronunciation based on
Coptic. The "e" of Egyptology is only a convention.
Mainly found in temples & tombs, the sacred script bring into visual evidence the excellence
of Egyptian civilization and hence mirrors Egyptian life as an idealized, a-historical
(timeless) "golden" form. Precisely this strong desire of most Ancient Egyptians to visualize
the afterlife after this-life, and to give an account of the heaven of their desires (in
particular in tombs of kings, royals and high officials), makes us recover, through
hieroglyphs, parts of the overall typology of their ante-rational mindset, which is lost.

These artworks, or archetypes of Ancient soteriology, try to eternalize what was the most
creative and efficient, namely the luminous & self-created Re-spirit of eternity-ineverlastingness
(Atum-afloat-in-the-Nun, the boundless ocean of darkness).
Contrary to other languages (except perhaps Linear A, Maya script and Chinese), Egyptian
introduced visual glyphs (pictorial materializations, actualizations or sedimentations of
meaningful shared states of consciousness). These various visual and artistic
representations of crucial typologies brought in effect (in its classical form) a variety of
categories, namely : man and his occupations, woman and her occupations,
anthropomorphic deities, parts of the human body, mammals, parts of mammals, birds,
parts of birds, amphibious animals, reptiles, etc., fishes and parts of fishes, invertebrates
and lesser animals, trees and plants, sky, Earth, water, buildings, parts of buildings, etc.,
ships and parts of ships, domestic and funerary furniture, temple furniture and sacred
emblems, crowns, dress, staves, etc., warfare, hunting, butchery, agriculture, crafts and
professions, robe, fibre, baskets, bags, etc., vessels of stone and earthenware, loaves and
cakes, writings, games, music, strokes & geometrical figures (cf. the sign list of Gardiner,
1982, pp.544-547).
Each visual glyph is a work of art. Because these glyphs (as cultural sedimentations),
represent an important part of the iconography of the Egyptian mindset, they form a
complex image-language with a sense of nuance broad enough to encompass ancient
wisdom and its teachings of the heart, and this for more than 3000 years. To put into
evidence the "sacredness" of hieroglyphs, we may try to visualize -with the icons as
windows to Egypt's wisdom- how the practical closure offered by this proto-rational
cognition created literature, religion and wisdom teachings.
Mature ante-rational thinking enables a first closure of mind, allowing concepts to form
concrete "blocks" or mental aggregates. These refer to concrete, specific situations, local
contingencies and geosentimental conceptualizations. When the context is changed, the
blocks no longer support each other and the concept is undermined. So bound to changing
contexts, the concrete concept is unstable. This contrary to the second, stable closure of
formal rationality, which operates in the abstract and the decontextualized. Ante-rational
thought has no universal operator. Only existential contexts are denoted.
If communication is always based on signs, and the latter are signals (reptile cortex), icons
(limbic system) and symbols (neo-cortex - cf. neurophilosophy), then hieroglyphs bring out
the best of "emotional intelligence", or the "intelligence-of-the-heart". Its icons bring the
synthetic function of symbols to the fore, and appeal -in the right-handed- to the right
hemisphere of the neo-cortex, processing spatiality and synthesis.
"Let us remember that prior being a device of physical weighing, the pair of scales is the
symbol for the act of exchanging physical and intangible things. In other words,
exchanging and not weighing is the main thing."
Mancini, 2004, p.53.
An image is not a sequential symbol, but always a whole. It does not need to be analyzed
(like letters in a word), but grasped as a totality. Hence, besides artistic aptitudes, the
ability to visualize is trained as well as thinking in images. Small visual details define
important distinctions (for example, the difference between G36, the swallow, & G37, the
sparrow, is defined by a tiny change in the tails). Subtlety and nuance are possible by

adding pictures with determinative meaning to the phonograms (together forming a
consonantal system of sounds).
logogram (word writing)
A logogram is the representation of a complete word (not individual letters or phonemes)
directly by a picture of the object actually denoted. As such, it does not take the phonemes
into consideration, but only the direct objects & notions connected therewith. To compose a
complete vocabulary with logograms would however be cumbersome. As there were about
500 hieroglyphs in common use, only the same number of words could have been written
this way. The rest of the ca. 17.000 known words had to be written with phonograms.
For example :
, depicting the Sun, signifies : "Sun", is a logogram, for this sign alone denotes the Sun.
, depicting a mouth, signifies : "mouth", is also a logogram.
Indeed, a writing system exclusively based on logography would have thousands of signs to
encompass the complete semantics of any spoken language. Such a large vocabulary would
be unpractical. Moreover, which pictures to use for things that can not be easily pictured,
like wisdom, understanding, authoritative speech, love, justice and the like ? How to
address grammar (and simple categories as gender and number) ?
The theory according to which Ancient Egyptian was a complex allegorical logography was
refuted by Champollion in 1822. Most hieroglyphs represent phonograms, not logograms
(or ideograms, in the case of allegorical denotation). As until recently sufficient insight into
Egyptian was lacking, trustworthy translations were slow to emerge and their assimilation
by historians, philosophers and philologists even slower. The impact of Ancient Egypt on
Judaism, Greece and Christianity (curtailing Hellenocentrism) has been put into evidence
only a few decades ago (cf. Hermes the Egyptian, 2002 & The Instruction of Amen-em-apt,
son of Kanakht, 2003). Via Alexandria, Egypt's wisdom influenced the Hellenistic world and,
much later, the Renaissance (cf. the Orientale Lumen and the rise of Hermeticism). This did
not bring about a historical Egypt, but an egyptomania turning romantic in the XIXth
century.
phonogram (sound writing)
Egyptian phonography (a word represented by a series of sound-glyphs or phonemes -
letters- of the spoken sounds) was derived through phonetic borrowing. Logograms are
used to write other words or parts of words semantically unrelated to the phonogram, but
with which they phonetically share the same consonantal structure.
For example :
The logogram , signifies "mouth". It is used as a phonogram with the phonemic
value "r" to write words as "r", meaning "toward" or to represent the phonemic element "r"
in a word like "rn" or "name".

"rn" or "name" : the logograms of mouth and water
This pictorial phonography is based on the principle of the rebus : show one thing to mean
another. If, for example, we would write English with the Egyptian signary and apply the
rebus principle, then the word "belief" would be written with the logograms of a "bee" and
a "leaf" ...
The shared consonantal structure allows one to develop a large number of phonograms
with limited number of hieroglyphs. These, and not the logograms, as in any other
language, are the solid architecture of Egyptian.
The consonantal system was present from the beginning. Three main categories of

phonograms prevail :
● uniconsonantal hieroglyphs (one sign for one sound) : 26 (including variants) - they
represent a single consonant and are the most important and frequent group of
phonograms ;
● biconsonantal hieroglyphs (one sign for two sounds) : a pair of successive consonants
(ca. 100) ;
● triconsonantal hieroglyphs : (one sign for three sounds) : a trio of successive
consonants (ca. 50).
Duplets and triplets are often accompanied by uniconsonantal hieroglyphs which partly or
completely repeat their phonemic value. This phonetic complementation is to make sure
the complemented hieroglyph was indeed a phonogram and not a logogram and/or to have
some extra calligraphic freedom in case a gap needed to be filled ...
This phonography allowed a word of more than one consonant to be written in different
ways. But in Egyptian, economy was exercised and spellings were relatively standardized,
allowing for variant forms for certain words only.
ideogram or semogram (idea writing)
Logograms are ideograms, concerned with direct meaning and sense, not with sound. A
pictorial ideography (a variety of hieroglyphs -representing idea's, notions, contexts,
categories, modalities, nuance etc.-) adds meaning. Ideograms are semantic (and so
semograms). Egyptian has a particular type of ideogram, the determinative, derived from
logograms, and placed at the end of words to assist in specifying their meaning when
uncertainty existed. To the objective sound-glyph (the phonetics, in this case, being the
consonantal structures with no vocalizations), an ideogram is added indicating the general
idea of the word.
A stroke for example was the determinative indicating the function of the hieroglyph was
logographic. The determinative specified the intended meaning. Some were specific in
application (closely connected to one word), while others identified a word as belonging to
a certain class or category (the generic determinatives or taxograms). Determinatives of a
word would be changed or varied to introduce nuance. The same hieroglyph can thus
function as a logogram, a phonogram and a determinative (O1, "pr" or "house", was
regularly used in all three functions) !
For example :
The logogram , depicting the Sun, signifies : "Sun" (in continuous texts, a stroke would
be put underneath the hieroglyph to indicate a purely logographic sense). Placed at the end
of words, it is related to the actions of the Sun (as in "rise", "day", "yesterday", "spend all
day", "hour", "period") and so then the hieroglyph is a determinative. In the context of
dates however, it is a phonogram with as phonetic value the duplet "sw".
Besides these purely semantical functions, the determinatives also marked the ends of
words and hence assist reading. They help to identify the "word-images" in a text, and
point out the preceding signs are meant as phonograms. Once established, these were slow

to change, causing -as early as the Middle Kingdom- great divergences between the written
script, becoming increasingly "historical", and the spoken, contemporary pronunciations of
the words.
In the New Kingdom and later, when Middle Egyptian became the ceremonial or "sacred"
language of the rituals, its hieroglyphs had lost touch with the actual spoken tongue,
although the magical, effective power of these visual symbols abided, spurring the
analogical frenzy of the native Ptolemaic priesthood (bringing to number of hieroglyphs to
more than 6000).
Until its demise (the last datable hieroglyph is a temple inscription on the island of Philae,
carved as late as ca. 394 CE), hieroglyphic writing remained a consonantal, pictorial
system, allowing for both phonograms & determinatives to convey meaning. The latter,
because of the specific iconography, is symbolic in both the analytic and synthetic mode of
recording cognitive states in material glyphs.
05. Intelligence-of-the-heart or the heart of wisdom.
The reptile brain emits signals to identify territory, aggression and food. It has no emotions
and is primarily occupied with immediate survival.
The mammalian brain concocts affects to color sensoric and motoric stimuli. It contains the
cranial endocrinal glands governing sexual development, passions, sleep, dreams, pleasure
and pain. Emotional patterns gives rise to icons, or signs allowing consciousness to move
from an outer representation to an inner sensation (of light, sound, smell, touch & taste),
and this based on personal phantasms, dream & wish. The latter are computed and
memorized by a limbic cortex constantly balancing between lust and unlust, allowing
gratification or triggering woe, and more often the latter ... This system empowers the
early mental function of visual retention.
On the level of the neocortex, consciousness, identity, conceptual cognition & willful action
are processed and sedimented into symbols, intended to compute information about inner
states and outer phenomena. The left hemisphere of the neocortex processes information
sequentially, the right hemisphere simultaneously (or parallel, accessing several inputs at
once). The digital mode of the left hemisphere deals with the analytical mode, reducing
variety to a defined abstractions. The right hemisphere allows for the analogical mode,
denoting quanta, making the unity of the standard principle, rule or abstraction into a
variety of facts.
Symbols are semantic fields of meaningful patterns, associations, connotations, etc.
Analytic symbols are quantitative and measure our inner & outer environment. Synthetic
(or analogical) symbols are qualitative. They constitute a network of connected &
interdependent meaningful associations around a semantic core which they constantly
circumambulate, bringing variety under unity. Synthetic symbols join different associations
to each other and bring this diversity in the cognitive act of apprehending one sign.
"Thus a symbol is a material representation of immaterial qualities and functions. It is an
objectification of things subjective in us and subliminal in nature, awakening us to a
perception of the world which may make us aware of a knowledge contained in our soul."
Schwaller de Lubicz, 1978, p.17.

The evocative power of an analogical symbol rallies a complete emotional pattern, as it
were triggering the whole network at once (cf. the role of mandala in Buddhist Vajrayâna).
Insofar symbols are introduced to evoke subjective, vital responses, they are esoteric.
Hieroglyphs are sacred because -next to their utilitarian, arbitrary and singular meaning or
analytical function-, they also act as analogical links between the reptilo-limbic systems &
the right hemisphere of the neo-cortex. In this mode, they play out their synthetic function.
"In this sense, the symbol is thus the object, exterior to us, which awakens innate
knowledge through the senses. This creates our intuitive knowledge of the simultaneous, a
continuity in which a discontinuity is located."
Schwaller de Lubicz, 1978, p.62.
Complementarity rules the synthetic mode. A relationship between two elements always
prevails. If the active pole is forward activity, then the passive pole moves by inverse
activity.
"Earth's rightness lies in justice !
Speak not falsely - You are great.
Act not lightly - You are weighty.
Speak not falsely - You are the balance.
Do not swerve - You are the norm !
You are one with the balance,
if it tilts, You may tilt."
The Eloquent Peasant - third petition, Middle Kingdom (Lichtheim, 1975, I.176).
In Ancient Egypt, the heart (mind) of mind "is the balance" and realizes the constant
exchange between divine and mundane levels of existence. The "intelligence-of-the-heart"
evoked by the Egyptian sages works analogically.
Wisdom ("sAA"), understanding ("siA"), authoritative speech ("Hw") and effective power
("HkA") are the mental functions developed by this ancient proto-rational civilization. As
the theoretical, formal, purely analytic mode is lacking (as are decontextualization and
universals), hieroglyphic thinking is close to the "instinctive" or ante-rational approach of
the "intelligence-of-the-heart".
In three millennia, this synthetic, analogical mode was able to develop a range of anterational
theologies, rituals and wisdom teachings. Heliopolitan, Hermopolitan, Theban &
Memphite henotheist thought represented so many answers to the same set of
philosophical questions :
How did creation come about ? What is man's place in the order of the universe ? How to
speak & act justly ?
● Memphite unity (body) : Ptah is one & all-comprehensive (he is Nun, Atum & Re).
With mind he speaks the Great Word and creates everything therewith. Pre-creation,
first time & creation are all put into one category, an exemplaric summation. Ptah
was before creation, during the first time, at the moment of creation and in every
created god & goddess, in all Kas & Bas, in all temples and on every altar ... Just as
Pharaoh alone faced the deities (everybody else had to face him), so was every
member of the Enneads (or constellations of deities around a godhead), a

manifestation of Ptah.
● Heliopolitan ritual (appearance) : Atum-Re, afloat in Nun, creates himself in the first
time and with himself his Ennead or company of gods & goddesses. Pre-creation is
left behind and hostile. Self-creative Re-Atum-Kheprer has understanding (sia),
wisdom (saa), authoritative utterance (hu, the Great Word), magic (heka) and justicetruth
(maat). His eternal rejuvenation is based on his being all-light forever, life
eternal & mutating perpetually in his Bark. At night, Re navigates on the Nile of the
Duat, the underworld, the depth of which touches the primordial chaos of precreation
(or Nun, represented by Osiris). His eternal cycle represents "neheh", the
perpetuity of eternity-in-everlastingness (or Atum in Nun).
The origin of creation was Atum, but the moment he autogenerates he splits into a
pair (Shu and Tefnut). Unity and differentiation walk hand in hand. The first two
"generations of gods" are natural principles : Shu, Tefnut, Geb and Nut and the
hypostases of physical phenomena : Air, Moist, Earth & Sky. Only with the third
generation of deities, did human drama enter the picture. As is to be expected, they
are represented by anthropomorphic deities. Osiris, Isis, Seth and Nephthys are the
prime actors in the mystery play of the mythical "golden age", the grand story of
Osiris ;
● Hermopolitan magic (names) : Thoth is the head of the pre-creational Ogdoad,
composed of four frog-gods and their consorts. When Thoth, as the sacred Ibis, drops
the creative Great Word from his beak, everything is created. The mythical origin
(before time and before the intermediate, transient, fugal first time) is placed under
the command of the divine mind, the word of Re and the god of magic ;
● Theban monarchy (power) : Amun is one & all-comprehensive (he is Nun, Atum &
Re). Amun is the "king of the gods" and Pharaoh. Amun was before creation, during
the first time, at the moment of creation and in every created god & goddess.
Moreover, he is not only "before" everything, but also "beyond" everything. Amun is
one and millions. Nevertheless, Amun hears the prayers of the poor and is near to the
devotees.
II : Conceptualization in Western ontological thought.
06. Myth : simplifying "the beginning".
To situate, within the framework of Ancient Greek history, "the Greek miracle" in general
and the advent of philosophy in particular, the following division is helpful :
● Neolithic Age (7000 - 2600 BCE) : settlements of farmers in Crete and mainland
Greece ;
● Bronze Age (2600 - 1100 BCE) : the Bronze Age, starting with the arrival of peaceful
immigrants on Crete, can be divided in two periods :
Minoan : This culture was palace-based. Between ca. 2600 and 1600 BCE, no Greek
influence was present on the island. The Minoans reached their zenith between ca.

1730 and 1500 (the "Pax Minoica"). Two scripts are attested : hieroglyphic (not yet
deciphered) & Linear A. The latter is nearly always used for administrative purposes
(the count of peoples & objects). The last phase of the Minoan neopalatial civilization
was characterized by Mycenæan influence (i.e. after ca.1600 BCE).
Mycenæan : Initiated ca. 1600 BCE, the culture of these Greek speaking people
spread over mainland Greece and reached Crete. It was strongly influenced by
Minoan protopalatial (ending with the destruction of ca. 1730 BCE) & neopalatial
culture, but remained loyal to its own Greek character. Eventually they conquered
Crete (ca. 1450 BCE) and caused the elaboration of Greek Linear B based on Cretan
Linear A, which is not a Greek language as evidenced by the few tablets found in
Linear A (for example, the word for "total" -often used in administrative texts- cannot
be understood as the archaic matrix of a Greek word).
So Minoan and Mycenæan cultures interpenetrated : before 1600 BCE, Crete had
directly influenced the formation of Early Helladic Greece but was itself non-Greek
(Linear A) - after 1450 BCE, Mycenæan Greece took over Minoan culture on Crete and
Greek Linear B was used by the Minoan treasury of Crete in the postpalatial.
● Dark Age (1100 - 750 BCE) : "Dorian" Greece, pushing Greek culture a step back ;
● Archaic Age (750 - 478 BCE) : Greek culture reemerges ;
● Classical Age (478 - 323 BCE) : the "polis" and the emergence of classical, conceptrationalism.
Although the scattered Mycenæan refugees probably kept parts of their linguistic tradition
alive, the cultural network which had existed beforehand had been destroyed by the
Dorians and with it a unified cultural form in Greece based on a shared language.
Moreover, Dorian culture was very likely oral.
During these obscure centuries, Greek culture, as a form shared by all the inhabitants of
Greece, was nonexistent. The marauding barbarians, who had destroyed the fortified towns
of the pre-Helladics, and had developed (thanks to Crete) into the grand Mycenæan
culture, were themselves destroyed by horned plundering hordes from the North, identified
by some as belonging to the Doric branch of the Greek family ...
The second half of the tenth century BCE brought a distinct easing off in depopulation,
isolation, metal-shortages, architectural and artistic impoverishment & regional disparities.
Because important centers of Greek civilization were still wrapped in obscurity, one can
however not claim the "Greek Renaissance" had already begun ... Moreover, these changes
were confined to the Aegean and its coasts.
In the memory of these few scattered groups, settling in the South of Greece and able to
safeguard the "original" Mycenæan form, Mycenæ became legendary & heroic. In a sense,
the Mycenæans represented the "mythical" past of the Ancient Greeks ...
The length of the Dark Age (300 years) threw a devastating shadow on the survival of
Mycenæan culture. Note the name of this period refers to how little is known about it and
also points to the remarkable contrast between Doric Greece & Mycenæan culture. The
Dorians had no written language of their own and did not use Linear B. Isolation and loss of
skills characterized the period.
The archaic mentality emerging in Ionia around 750 BCE and prefigurated in the rigid

Mycenæan "megaron" as well as in the complex geometrical design of Dorian pottery, was
stern, courageous, young, linear and geometrizing. But just like the rigid Mycenæans had
been fascinated by Minoan Crete and its "African" elliptic and chaotic natural scenery, these
Archaic Greeks were awestricken by the formidable grandeur of (Afro-)Egyptian culture.
Their own insistence upon this should be taken serious. There was more than intellectual
opportunism at work here.
Of course, as Indo-Europeans, the Ionians had a couple of typical features of their own :
● individuality / authority : at the beginning of the Archaic Age, there was a "crisis of
sovereignty" (Vernant, 1962). It implied a new political problem : Who should rule
and by virtue of what authority ? The collapse of the Mycenæan palace civilization
was followed by a return to the small tribal organization (cf. the "ethnos"). This
tension between individuality and social unity is fundamental to understand Greek
philosophy (culminating in the judgment of Socrates). The view an individual had the
right to rule by virtue of divine lineage was undermined. Heroic individualism was
slowly replaced by an egalitarian ideal, in which archaic aristocratic authority was
challenged. The building of temples was an "argument" for the appropriation of civic
authority and helpful to keep control of the foundation of the economic power of the
landowners, the aristocrats (Hahn, 2001, p.237). They secured their claim by drawing
a particular connection between themselves together with a given deity and so
integrated the divergent fractions of the community through the regularity of
worship ... This swing of the pendulum between the particularism of the aristocrats
and the egalitarism of the democrats, remained a fundamental ingredient of Greek
culture & animated the Classical Greek "polis" ;
● exploring mentality : at the beginning of the Archaic Age, the population quadrupled
and citizenship was increasingly connected with land ownership, triggering a
competition for land which motivated the colonization. But besides these external
causes, the Greeks were a curious people, always eager to learn more by approving
new ideas and linearizing them in accord with their own abstract (generalizing,
universalizing) frame of mind. The dynamic nature of the Greek cultural form assisted
a decontextualized approach (while in Egypt, a sedentary mentality reigned & the
concrete concept never emerged without context) ;
● unique dynamical script : the importance of their new system of writing should not be
underestimated : by fixating the vowels, the Greeks were able to describe an state of
affairs with a precision no other script of antiquity possessed. This referential,
objective linguistic capacity enabled them to communicate through writing with more
ease, precision & objective validity. The Egyptian intellectual elite read and wrote
hieroglyphs, also used a short-script (hieratic) and mastered a common script
(Demotic, Coptic). The absence of vowels in hieroglyphic script eternalized it and
made it ill-equipped to cover both the immediate situation as well as be precise. By
adding vowels, the Greeks made writing referential, dynamical and objectifying ;
● linearizing, geometrizing mentality : proportion, measurement, number, spatial
organization, cyclical processes etc. "reveal" the structure, form, order, organization
of the cosmos. Numbers are more than practical tools to categorize, for they reflect
the genuine, authentic, essential features of any object. A number never stands
alone, for it entertains numerous fixed mathematical relationships with other numbers
and spatial characteristics. These are described in general, universal, abstract terms
("theoria"), to be distinguished from their particular, local, concrete applications in

architecture, sculpture, poetry etc. ("techné") ;
● anthropomorphic theology : deities had a human face and in the Mycenæan age,
they were at times combined in one cult. At the beginning of the Archaic Age, the
pantheon was systematized by Homer and Hesiod, and each deity received its task
(as in human society). However, Greek religion was undogmatic, for no sacred text
existed. Xenophanes was critical about Greek anthropo-morphic (and
anthropocentric) polytheism, proposing One Supreme God who was unlike anything
human. Typical for Greek soteriology (salvic theory), is insisting the human soul had
to liberate itself from the physical body through purification (cf. "ascesis" in Orphism)
or somehow trigger its release (cf. "katharsis" & "ekstasis" in the Dionysian cult).
Most major Greek emancipatoric theories will return to this and understand the body
as the prison of the soul (cf. Plato & Plotinus). This would become the cornerstone of
the Greek idea of "mystery", as opposed to the Egyptian view on the mysteries, in
which transformation and ascension are taught.
"Perhaps the greatest contribution of the Bronze Age to Classical Greece was something
less tangible, but quite possibly inherited : an attitude of mind which could borrow the
formal and hieratic arts of the East and transform them into something spontaneous and
cheerful ; a divine discontent which led the Greek ever to develop and improve their
inheritance."
Higgings, 1997, p.190 (my italics).
So from the middle and late eight century BCE, profuse changes came about in the outlook
of Greek civilization. This "Greek Renaissance" was an Age of Revolution. Exploration and
codification (through settlement) were its leitmotivs. This revival took place between ca.
750 and 650 BCE.
The Corinthian expansion probably took place at the end of the ninth century BCE, while
the establishment of a Greek settlement in the Levant is slightly earlier. These colonizations
did not leave a strong impact, while the eighth century Greek colonies in southern Italy and
Sicily shaped the history of these regions for the next centuries. The early colonizations
consisted of forerunners of probably voluntary and spontaneous venturers, whereas those
of the eight century were the work of organized bodies of Greeks, possibly led by an
individual aristocrat and his retinue, stimulated by the growth of population in the Greek
homeland.
Greeks may have been marauding the Egyptian Delta perhaps as early as ca. 800 BCE, if
not earlier. Because Ionian mercenaries had successfully assisted Pharaoh Psammetichus I
(664 - 610 BCE) in his battle against the Assyrians, the Greeks were welcomed in Egypt,
enabling Miletus to found Neukratis and the Greeks to settle in the Delta of Lower Egypt.
Pharaoh Amasis (570 - 526 BCE) allowed them to settle upstream (Heliopolis, Thebes). Of
a direct influence of Ancient Egyptian thought on these early visitors is more than likely (cf.
Hermes the Egyptian, part I, 2002).
Greek philosophy, the intellectual side of the "Greek miracle", was initiated in Asia Minor,
starting in Ionia ca. 600 BCE. Initiated by Thales of Milete (ca. 652 - 545 BCE), it
commenced with a pre-rational approach of nature (the material pole), and, thanks to
Pythagoras of Samos (ca. 580 BCE - 500), who coined the term "philosophy", added a
study of proportion and number (the mathematical pole). These early philosophers tried to
do away with mythological explanations, whereas the symbolism of Pythagoras coupled

their naturalism with a mysticism of numbers, allowing natural phenomena to be related to
each other in abstract, theoretical terms.
Identifying the myths of Mycenæan heroism, the pantheon (Hesiod) and the works of
Homer as representing the mythical and pre-rational phases of Greek cognition, we see the
Ionians gather the central themes of Greek thought in proto-rational terms. A closure is
realized by justifying the world by its origin & the role of man by symbolization. Each pre-
Eleatic posits a pivot, an ontological foundation for what exists. The multiplicity of mythical
views is challenged by the unification around a single principle. This proto-rationality
exceeds itself, and paves the road for the conceptual rationality of the Eleatics, the sophists
and Classical Philosophy.
With the introduction of conceptual rationality by Parmenides of Elea (ca. 515 - 440 BCE) &
Democritus of Abdera (ca. 460 - 380/370 BCE), the stage is set for the ontological tradition
of the West long before the Platonic and Peripatetic systems.
Thales of Miletus
There is a consensus, dating back at least to the 4th century BCE and continuing to our
present academical history of Greek philosophy, of Thales of Miletus being the first Greek
philosopher. According to the Greek thinker Apollodorus, he was born in 624 BCE. The
Greek historian Diogenes Laërtius (ca. 3th century CE) placed his death in the 58th
Olympiad (548 - 545 BCE), at the age of 78. He also affirms Thales traveled to Egypt, while
Iamblichius explains how he advised other intellectual Greeks to go to Egypt in order to
learn :
"Thales advised Pythagoras to go to Egypt and to entertain himself as much as possible
with the priests of Memphis and Diospolis : it was from them that he had drawn all the
knowledge which made him a sage and a scientist in the eyes of the masses."
Iamblichius : Life of Pythagoras, 12, my italics.
During his lifetime, the word "philosopher" (or "lover of wisdom") had not yet been coined.
Thales was counted, however, among the so-called "Seven Wise Men" (the "sophoi"),
whose name derives from a term designating inventiveness and practical wisdom rather
than speculative insight (consistent with the Ancient Egyptians' notion of wisdom). In fact,
today we reckon Thales to be the only "philosopher" on that list !
Thales tried to transmit to the Greeks the mathematical knowledge he had derived from
the Babylonians (who, when conquering Egypt in the Third Intermediate Period, had
influenced its astronomy profoundly). Thales sought to give it a more exact foundation and
used it for the solution of practical problems, such as the determination of the distance of a
ship as seen from the shore or of the height of the Gizza pyramids. Though he was also
credited with predicting an eclipse of the Sun, it is likely he merely gave a natural
explanation of one on the basis of Babylonian astronomical knowledge (cf. the Saros-period
between eclipses).
Thales' significance for Greek philosophy, lies less in his choice of water as the essential
substance, than in his attempt to explain nature by the simplification of phenomena.
Indeed, Thales searched for causes within nature itself rather than in the caprices of the
anthropomorphic gods. He was deemed the first Greek to give a purely natural explanation
of the origin of the world, free from all mythological ingredients and unnecessary

complexities (linearization and homogeneity). The claim Thales was the founder of Greek
philosophy rests primarily on Aristotle, who wrote he was the first (Greek) to suggest a
single material substratum for the universe, namely, water, or moisture ...
Even though Thales renounced mythology, his choice of water as the fundamental building
block of matter had its precedent in the Egyptian tradition (cf. "Nun", the undifferentiated
primordial waters before time and space and its "Ba" or "soul", the autogenitor Atum). To
Thales, the entire universe is a living organism, nourished by exhalations from water (cf.
Egypt's organic, hylozoistic view on creation).
It is true Thales made a fresh start on the basis of what a person could observe and figure
out by looking at the world as it presented itself. This procedure naturally resulted in a
tendency to make sweeping generalizations on the basis of rather restricted but carefully
checked observations. Milesian thought prompted philosophy to move beyond the localized,
contextualized & traditional thought of the cultures surrounding it.
In geometry, Thales has been credited with the discovery of five theorems :
(1) a circle is bisected by its diameter ;
(2) angles at the base of a triangle having two sides of equal length are equal ;
(3) opposite angles of intersecting straight lines are equal ;
(4) the angle inscribed in a semicircle is a right angle ;
(5) a triangle is determined if its base and the angles relative to the base are given.
The mathematical achievements of Thales are difficult to assess. The ancients credited
particular discoveries to men with a general reputation for wisdom. However, their logic
evidences the linear and geometric spirit of the Greeks. Surely, before Thales, Egyptians
and Mesopotamians had arrived at the truths represented by these theorems. But the way
the Greeks recorded and fixated knowledge in more abstract, discursive, denotative and
context-independent terms, was highly original. It is these linearizing & symbolical
activities which foremost characterize the "Greek miracle", not observation, recording and
comparison. The latter can be done with proto-rational concepts too. But formal reason is
precisely this : a reduction of a variety (a manifold) to a limited number of categories. This
in order to seek a universal proposition (a conclusion) on the basis of a universal major and
an empirical minor. The latter was provided by the storehouse of practical knowledge
cherished in all important Egyptians temples (cf. Memphis, Heliopolis, Hermopolis, Abydos
& Thebes).
Anaximander of Miletus
Thales' friend, disciple and successor, Anaximander of Miletus (ca. 611 - 547 BCE), is said
to have given a more elaborate account of the origin and development of the ordered world
(the cosmos). However, his writings are lost, and although still available to Apollodorus of
Athens (cf. Chronica, ca. 140 BCE), they are not known to have been used by any other
writer later than Aristotle and his successor Theophrastus of Eresus (ca. 370 - 285 BCE).
The latter's Phusikos Doxai is also lost, but repeated by Simplicius (6th century CE). All
ancient doxographers depend on the latter's Physics (Diels).
Doxography evidences Anaximander wrote treatises on geography, astronomy, and
cosmology surviving for several centuries. He made a map of the known world, prized
symmetry and introduced geometry and mathematical proportions into his efforts to map

the heavens. Thus, his theories departed from earlier, more cosmogonic conceptions of the
universe and prefigured the achievements of later astronomers.
Unfortunately, we only possess one sentence of Anaximander's writings. In this sentence,
Anaximander explains a "need" or "necessity" (a moral imperative at work in creation)
operating between the elements (as well as in human society) :
"But where things have their origin, there too they must pass away, as it should ; for
indeed, they give one another justice and penalty for their injustice, in accord with the
ordinance of time."
Simplicius : Commentary on the Physics, 24.13v, my translation.
According to him, the cosmos developed out of the "apeiron", the boundless, infinite and
indefinite (without distinguishable qualities). Aristotle would add : immortal, Divine and
imperishable.
Within this "apeiron" something arose to produce the opposites of hot and cold. These at
once began to struggle with each other and produced the cosmos. The cold (and wet)
partly dried up (becoming solid Earth), partly remained (as water), and -by means of the
hot- partly evaporated (becoming air and mist), its evaporating part (by expansion),
splitting up the hot into fiery rings, which surround the whole cosmos. Because these rings
are enveloped by mist, however, there remain only certain breathing holes visible to men,
appearing to them as Sun, Moon, and stars.
"The Greeks seem to have received from Egypt their old celestial architecture, as well as
that of their temples. It is only when conceived in this way, as a roof, that the 'ouranos'
can be described as 'brazen' or (in the Odyssey) as made of iron. The reference is no doubt
to the great solidity of the edifice. Hesiod has much the same thing in mind when he calls
it, 'a seat set firm'."
Kahn, 1994, p.139.
Anaximander realized upward and downward are not absolute. Downward means toward
the middle of the Earth and upward away from it, so the Earth has no need to be supported
by anything (as Thales had believed). Instead, he asserted the Earth remained in its
unsupported position at the centre of the universe because it had no reason to move in any
direction and therefore was at rest.
Starting from Thales' observations, Anaximander tried to reconstruct the development of
life in more detail. Life, being closely bound up with moisture, originated in the sea. All land
animals, he held, are descendants of sea animals. Gradually, however, the moisture will be
partly evaporated, until in the end all things will have returned into the undifferentiated
"apeiron", in order to pay the "penalty for their injustice", i.e. of having struggled against
one another.
Anaximander subscribed to the philosophical view unity could definitely be found behind all

multiplicity.
Anaximenes of Miletus
Anaximander's successor, Anaximenes of Miletus (ca. 585 - 525 BCE), taught Air was the
origin of all things. Neither Thales nor Anaximander appear to have specified the way in
which "the other things" arose out of the water or the "apeiron". Anaximenes, however,
declared the other types of matter arose out of Air by condensation and rarefaction. In this
way, what to Thales had been merely a beginning, became a fundamental principle
remaining essentially the same through all of its transmutations.
Thus, the term "arch•", which originally simply meant "beginning," acquired the new
meaning of "principle," a term henceforth playing an enormous role in philosophy. This
concept of a principle remaining the same through many transmutations is, furthermore,
the presupposition of the idea nothing can come out of nothing. All of the comings to be
and passing away we observe, are nothing but transmutations of something remaining
essentially the same for ever (the law of conservation).
Pythagoras of Samos
The Ionian naturalists (materialists) were individuals, and although Anaximander had
Thales as a teacher, no "school" emerged after their death. With Pythagoras (ca. 580 BCE,
island of Samos, Ionia - ca. 500, Metapontum, Lucania), this son of an engraver of gems,
we encounter the first Greek "school" of thought, a teaching in which religion, mysticism,
mathematics and philosophy were allowed to interpenetrate each other and orchestrate a
totally new symphonic whole, which will have a decisive influence on Greek thought as well
as on Greek architecture. This was so unique, that Pythagorism may well be called the
second major orientation in pre-Socratic philosophy next to Milesian materialism as a
whole.
According to tradition, the very word "philosophy" was coined by Pythagoras, who
described himself as a "philo-sophos", a "lover" of wisdom. With his school, the scope of
the Milesian "sophoi" was dramatically enlarged by the introduction of metaphysics,
mystical experience and the philosophy of mathematics (including Pythagorean
numerology). These speculative considerations took place "next to" physical inquires into
the nature of all possible beings. With his emphasis on numbers and the theology of
arithmetic (cf. Nicomachus of Gesara's The Theology of Arithmetic, ca. 100 CE), Pythagoras
completed mathematics, for a complete study of geometry was taken for granted (for part
of the "know-how" of the Milesian "sophoi").
The combination of geometry and arithmetic, was called the "tetraktys" (from "tetra",
"four"), after the form of a four-tiered triangular patters of ten dots, the sacred symbol
upon which Pythagorean Oats were sworn, and which probably had its origin in the
arrangements of pebbles used to study mathematics. It is "holy", because of its
summarizing manifestation of completion. It is "sacred", because it contains a secret which
is kept out of sight of the inept ...

TETRAKTYS - ultimate sacred number
"delta" shaped form (cf. "deka", ten) in four ("tetra") rows
directly influenced Hebrew qabalah and its 10 "Sephiroth"
as well as the structure of the 4 qabalistic worlds
Unfortunately, none of the writings of Pythagoras have survived, and Pythagoreans
invariably supported their doctrines by indiscriminately citing their master's authority. It is
difficult to distinguish his teachings from those of his disciples, neither legends from
historical fact. However, he is credited with the theory of the functional significance of
sacred numbers in the objective world and in music (obtained by stopping a lyre string at
various points along its length - the octave (2: 1), the fifth (3: 2) and the fourth (4: 3)).
Other discoveries often attributed to him, like the incommensurability of the side and
diagonal of a square, and the Pythagorean theorem stating the square of the hypotenuse of
a right-angled triangle equals in area to the sum of the squares of the other two sides (wellknown
in Egypt and Mesopotamia), were probably developed only later by the Pythagorean
school.
Diogenius Laërtius also tells us Pythagoras entered the Egyptian temples and learned the
secrets of their gods. This is a remarkable testimony. The Egyptian gods were hidden from
sight. Nobody, except Pharaoh and his appointed priests, could enter the "holy of holies"
and face the deity. There was no communication between the deities and humans, for gods
communicate only with gods. In the Late New Kingdom, common people took Amun "in
their heart" and the Hidden Supreme heard their prayers & supplications ... Does the fact
Pythagoras entered parts of the inner spaces of the temple (decorated with the grand story
of the pantheon), not make it likely he had learned how to read hieroglyphs and had
satisfied the discipline of an Egyptian priesthood in decline ? Not to say he had become an
Egyptian priest, but a wide variety of functions were in existence in Egyptian temples and
some of them allowed access to areas which revealed much to those able to read the
sacred writing, the "words of the gods" (cf. "lector" priest of the "House of Life" - in the
Late Period Memphis, Sais and Bubastis had major libraries).
Iamblichus writes Pythagoras buried Thales and knew Anaximander before he stayed 22
years in Egypt and was initiated in the teachings of the priests of Thebes (plurality & unity
of the Divine) and the doctrine of the resurrection of Osiris (the immortality of the soul). He
would have received the sign of the winged disk in gold on his thigh, so that he was called
"chrysomeros", or "he of the golden thigh". When the Persian Cambyses conquered Egypt
in 525 BCE, he was made captive and brought to Chaldea. There he studied with the
"magoi" for 12 years and learned about numbers and music. Other authors claimed he
encountered Zarathoustra (being baptized in the Euphrate) and traveled to India were he

met Gautama the Buddha (& was taught the doctrine of the "transmigration", i.e.
rebirth ?). The teachings drew a large following in the Greek colony of Croton in southern
Italy, were he went to live. A kind of Freemasonry "avant la lettre" rose among the
aristocracy. It was a fraternity with Pythagoras as its "master". Its members had a lot of
political power (based on "areté" and "ponós", excellence and effort), but were eventually
massacred in a riot long after Pythagoras had died. The followers spread the principles and
caused Pythagorism (or "Pythagoreanism") to become part of the Greek world. Iamblichus
quotes his master, who had said : "number is the rule of forms and ideas, and the cause of
gods and demons".
In all, the various accounts draw a cosmopolitan picture of Pythagoras. He was the first
Greek philosopher in the universal sense of the word, for all beings were part of his
reflection. His interests go further than the physical doctrines of the Milesians and for the
first time in Greek history, philosophy, mathematics & religion were put in one system of
thought.
The problem of describing Pythagorism is complicated by the fact the surviving picture is
far from complete, being based chiefly on a small number of fragments from the time
before Plato and on various discussions in authors who wrote much later - most of whom
were either Aristotelians or Neo-Platonists. In spite of these historical uncertainties, the
contribution of Pythagorism to Western culture has been significant and therefore justifies
the effort, however inadequate, to depict what its teachings may have been.
Three levels may be discerned :
1. original teachings of Pythagoras ;
2. Pythagoras in Plato and Aristotle ;
3. teachings & influence of the Pythagorean school.
The character of original Pythagorism is controversial, and the conglomeration of disparate
features it displayed is intrinsically confusing. Its fame rests, however, on some very
influential ideas, and likely most of these prevailed in the school of Croton :
● the metaphysics of number and the conception reality, including music and
astronomy, is, at its deepest level, mathematical in nature : Pythagoras' sufficient
ground is not a cosmic substance but an inner organization or structure coupled with
a liberating, salvic intentions, albeit ascetical & philosophical ;
● the use of philosophy as a means of spiritual purification : a lover of wisdom is more
than an intelligent person aware of problems and their solutions, for his pursuit of
wisdom must be a window to the immortal soul, the light of which draws him near to
the original and fundamental level of reality : the mathematical order of being which
whispers a hidden, mysterious language of silence, with a code available to the
initiate only ;
● the heavenly destiny of the soul and the possibility of its rising to union with the
Divine : Pythagoras is not satisfied with the mundane, immanent perspective, for the
Pythagorean philosopher is before all the rest a lover of unity & its experience,
implying transcendence, trance, osmosis etc. ;
● the appeal to certain symbols, sometimes mystical, such as the "tetraktys", the
golden section, and the harmony of the spheres : symbols are the residue of spiritual
experiences and contain a code to trigger co-relative experiences later ;

● the Pythagorean theorem : mathematics and the solution of particular problems are
the "purest" way to encounter the immortal soul, for its language is that of sacred
number ;
● the demand members of the order shall observe a strict loyalty and secrecy : the
order is a private affair and has no "outer order".
What could Pythagoras have learned from the priest of Memphis and Thebes ?
● the unity of the Divine : the absolute is One and Millions, invisible by nature and
manifest in nature's forms ;
● the rule of truth and justice : all actions have to be weighed on the balance of truth
to measure their order ;
● the order of creation : the cosmos unfolded as a series of numbers : 0 > 1 > 2 & 3 >
4 & 5 > 6, 7, 8, 9 ;
● the sacrality of "10" : Pharaoh, "son of Re", completes the Ennead + 1 = "10" order ;
● the creativity of thought and speech : the cosmos as conceived in the "mind" of the
absolute ;
● geometrical solutions to practical problems : mathematical papyri testify Egypt's
elementary abilities ;
● the magic of symbols : sacred script and ritual speech have powers beyond their
physical form ;
● the rule of silence : the Egyptian gods and their priests were out of sight and hidden -
silence was gold ;
● the harmony of opposites : all fundamental oppositions are bridged by a harmonic
"third" ;
● the symbolism of numbers : each natural number (0 - 10) has "inner" meanings,
purposes and relations.
There probably never existed a strictly uniform system of Pythagorean philosophy and
religious beliefs, even if the school did have a certain internal organization. Pythagoras
appears to have taught by pregnant, cryptic "akousmata" ("something heard") or
"symbola". His pupils handed these on, formed them partly into Hieroi Logoi ("Sacred
Discourses"), of which different versions were current from the 4th century BCE on, and
they interpreted them according to their convictions.
Plato mentions Pythagoras only once (Republic, X.600). No details are given about the
"Pythagorean way of life", which he compares with Homer. The Pythagorean teachings
were obviously popular enough for Plato not to bother to discuss them. Not so for his pupil
Aristotle, who wrote :
"Pythagoreans applied themselves to mathematics, and were the first to develop this
science ; and through studying it they came to believe that its principles are the principles
of everything. And since numbers are by first nature among these principles, and they
fancied that they could detect in number, to a greater extent than in fire and Earth and
water, many analogues of what is and comes into being-such and such a property of
number being justice,. and such and such soul or mind, another opportunity, and similarly,
more or less, with all the rest - and since they saw further that the properties and ratios of
the musical scales are based on numbers, and since it seemed clear that all other things
have their whole nature modeled upon numbers, and that numbers are the ultimate things
in the whole physical universe, they assumed the elements of numbers to be the elements

of everything, and the whole universe to be a proportion or number."
Aristotle, Metaphysics, I, v. 1-3, 985b.
In the 4th century BCE, Plato's inclination toward Pythagorism created a tendency -
manifest already in the middle of the century in the works of his pupils- to interpret
Platonic concepts as originally Pythagorean. Most of the literary sources ultimately hark
back to the environment of Plato and Aristotle. Later, neo-Platonism, which developed in
the third century CE, reworked Pythagorism. Although they claimed to reassert a true
understanding of Plato, they took a syncretic approach and drew from other sources, such
as Pythagorean number mysticism and the Hermetica.
By laying stress on certain inner experiences and intuitive truths revealed only to the
initiated, Pythagorism seems to have represented a soul-directed, salvic idealism alien to
the mainstream of pre-Socratic Greek thought, preoccupied with determining what the
basic cosmic substance ("phusis") was. In contrast with Ionian naturalism, Pythagorism
was akin to trends seen in mystery religions and mystical movements, such as Orphism,
which often claimed to achieve a spiritual insight into the Divine origin and nature of the
soul through intoxication. Yet, there are also aspects of it appearing to have owed much to
the more sober, "Homeric" philosophy of the Ionians, especially regarding ascetics and the
importance of mathematics.
Indeed, the Pythagoreans displayed an interest in metaphysics (the nature of being), as did
their naturalistic predecessors, though they claimed to find its key in mathematical form
rather than in any cosmic substance. They accepted the essentially Ionian doctrines saying
the world is composed of opposites and generated from something unlimited, but they
added the idea of the imposition of limit (number) upon the unlimited and the sense of a
musical harmony in the universe (a "music of the spheres", sounding to human ears as
silence - cf. Aristotle, De Caelo, II.9). Again, like the Ionians, they devoted themselves to
astronomical and geometrical speculations. Combining, as it does, a theory of number with
a numerology and a speculative cosmology with a theory of the deeper, more spiritual
reaches of the soul, Pythagorism interweaves religion and philosophy more inseparably
than does any other movement in pre-Socratic thought.
The occult blend of proportion & number with numerology, as well as speculative
philosophy masked with the pursuits of religion, point to an emerging conceptual rationality
still clinging to the proto-rational mode of thought, dependent of context & myth.
Pythagorism achieves a grand synthesis, liberated from the necessities of local myth, multicultural
and grasping an intrinsic "Homeric" tendency towards linearization. Pythagoras and
his school were also the first to develop a system of thought influenced by many disparate
sources (Ionian, Egyptian, Persian, Indian). These various elements were brought together,
equilibrated and made to function as part of a larger whole. Just as the Ionian "sophoi"
before him, this system of thought incorporated foreign sources, transcending them using a
Greek mode of thought. But if we analyze the object - subject relationships at work, we
cannot say of Pythagorism it has completely emancipated both sides. A symbolical
adualism is still implied. Numbers are more than just mental conventions, but are an
expression of the ontological structure of nature, and so refer to an extra-mental "ground",
"foundation" or "hypokeimenon" (underlying thing, substratum). A "magical" sympathy
exists between things. Wandering Pythagoras heralds urban Plato, who may be read as a
direct student of the former.

Pythagorism differentiates between subject & object, and so is the earliest manifestation of
conceptual rationality in Greece. Not yet a clear demarcation (as in Plato's "two worlds"),
Pythagoras steps outside the continuum of ante-rationality.
Ante-rationality encompasses the three first, earliest layers of cognition, namely mythical,
pre-rational and proto-rational thought, developing libidinal notions, tribal pre-concepts &
imitative concrete concepts respectively. Concrete concepts are never decontextualized.
These early Piagetian stages are characterized as follows :
First substage :
Myth : the notion
1. non-reflective adualism and only a virtual consciousness of identity ;
2. primitive action testifying a quasi complete indifferentiation between the subjective
and the objective side of cognition ;
3. actions are quasi uncoordinated, i.e. random movements are frequent.
Second substage :
1. first decentration of actions with regard to their material origin (i.e. the physical
body) ;
2. first objectification by a subject experiencing itself for the first time as the source of
actions ;
3. objectification of actions and the experience of spatiality ;
4. objects are linked because of the growing coordination of actual actions ;
5. links between actions in means/goals schemes, allowing the subject to experience
itself as the source of action (initiative), moving beyond the dependence between the
external object and the acting body ;
6. spatial & temporal permanency and causal relationships are observed ;
7. differentiation (between object and subject) leads to logico-mathematical structures,
whereas the distinction between actions related to the subject and those related to
the external objects becomes the startingpoint of causal relationships ;
8. the putting together of schematics derived from external objects or from the forms of
actions which have been applied to external objects.
Pre-rationality : the pre-concept
1. because of the introduction of semiotical factors (symbolical play, language, and the
formation of mental images), the coordination of movements is no longer exclusively
triggered by their practical and material actualizations without any knowledge of their
existence as forms, i.e. the first layer of thought occurs : the difference between
subject & object is a signal which gives rise to the symbol ;
2. upon the simple action, a new type of interiorized action is erected which is not
conceptual because the interiorization itself is nothing more than a copy of the
development of the actions using signs and imagination ;
3. no object of thought is realized but only an internal structure of the actions in a preconcept
formed by imagination & language ;
4. pre-verbal intelligence & interiorization of imitation in imaginal representations ;

5. psychomorph view on causality : no distinction between objects and the actions of
the subjects ;
6. objects are living beings with qualities attributed to them as a result of interactions ;
7. at first, no logical distinction is made between "all" and "few" and comparisons are
comprehended in an absolute way, i.e. A < B is possible, but A < B < C is not ;
8. finally, the difference between class and individual is grasped, but transitivity and
reversibility are not mastered ;
9. the pre-concepts & pre-relations are dependent on the variations existing between
the relational characteristics of objects & can not be reversed, making them rather
impermanent and difficult to maintain. They stand between action-schema and
concept.
Proto-rationality : the concrete concept
1. for the first time stable concepts and relations emerge and the interiorized actions
receive the status of "operations", allowing for transformations. The latter make it
possible to change the variable factors while keeping others invariant ;
2. the increase of coordinations forms coordinating systems & structures which are
capable of becoming closed systems by virtue of a play of anticipative and
retrospective constructions of thought (imaginal thought-forms) ;
3. these mental operations, instead of introducing corrections when the actions are
finished, exist by the pre-correction of errors and this thanks to the double play of
anticipation and retroaction or "perfect regulation" ;
4. transitivity is mastered which causes the enclosedness of the formal system ;
5. necessity is grasped ;
6. constructive abstraction, new, unifying coordinations which allow for the emergence
of a total system and auto-regulation (or the equilibration caused by perfect
regulation) ;
7. transitivity, conservation and reversibility are given ;
8. the mental operations are "concrete", not "formal", implying that they (a) exclusively
appear in immediate contexts and (b) deal with objects only (i.e. are not reflexive) ;
9. the concrete operatoric structures are not established through a system of
combinations, but one step at a time ;
10. this stage is paradoxal : a balanced development of logico-mathematical operations
versus the limitations imposed upon the concrete operations. This conflict triggers the
next, final stage, which covers the formal operations.
07. Conceptual rationality in Parmenides and Democritus.
The evolution from "mythos" to "logos", from absence of reflection to the reflective
reflexivity or clarification of thought, viewed as a self-conscious process of the
understanding of thought by thought itself, moved through several stages given to a
variety of object/subject-relationships.
Myth or the notion
In the first substage of mythical thought, non-reflective adualism pertains. The cognitive
process is non-verbal and the differences between subject and object are quasi absent. The
subject as an "oceanic" experience, as it were submerged in its environment. The world is

an extension of the physical body and the latter cannot be grasped as an entity in its own
right. In the second substage, cognition is not conceptual, but notional. These are
schematics derived from the coordination of movements, from external objects or from
"forms" applied to them. Notions imply logico-mathematical structures and a certain spatial
& temporal permanency. The subject experiences itself as source of action.
At some point, the body is experienced as an privileged object, allowing for a much needed
differentiation. This brings about the pre-concept, and a clearer distinction between object
& subject, mediated by semiotic factors. Interiority is established by copying actions using
signs & imagination. But, pre-rationality retains a psychomorph recuperation of the object
by the subject. Indeed, pre-conceptual thinking seeks to ground this new subjective in
objectivity. If in myth, the subject is fully submerged in the physical realities surrounding
it, pre-rationality has achieved a certain distance between object & subject, but cannot
establish a clear subjective identity. This identity is rooted in the world, transforming the
latter in a living, organic reality (hylezoism). Pre-concepts & pre-relations, standing
between the notional action-schema of myth and the concrete concept, depend on the
variations between the relations and cannot be reversed, making them impermanent & so
very difficult to maintain.
Pre-rationality or the pre-concept
In Ancient Egypt, in particular in the Old Kingdom, the movement from myth to prerationality
was realized by the introduction of the pre-concept of divine kingship,
expressing a unique feature : the equilibrium of opposites. The dual nature of the
monarchy was all-comprehensive and reflected in the regalia, in the royal titulary, in the
royal rituals and festivals. Frankfort (1948) called the presence of the divine king and his
institution of "transcendent significance". It was a unique phenomenon in the region, if not
in the world. Thanks to it, the mythical oppositions were mediated by a "tertium
compartionis".
In the pre-Eleatics, the so-called "philosophers of nature", the "arch•" of nature ("physis")
played the same cognitive role of "explaining" the constant intermixture of the objective &
subjective poles of thought. It did so, by moving beyond the scarcely established
demarcation, positing a "root-cause", borrowing its descriptive terms from the language of
myth and the ongoing battle of the "enantia" or elements of nature. The distinction was
grasped, but immediately blurred. Action-schemes prevailed and we see the first grounding
pre-concepts arise ("water", "apeiron", "air", etc.).
Nevertheless, the step from non-reflective adualism (myth) to pre-rationality was nothing
less than a revolution. For the first time, the coordinations of a physical body were
experienced by a subject as "its own", enabling this subject to distinguish between object
and subject, albeit in psychomorph form. Cognition began with notional myths based on
the action-schema, but the first pre-rational concept involves auto-reflection and language.
Likewise, the step from pre-rationality to proto-rationality, from pre-concept to concrete
concept, is crucial, for the ability to generate mental operations and achieve a mental
closure of sorts are added to the range of the cognitive differentiation between object and
subject.
Proto-rationality or the concrete concept
Indeed, by integrating transitivity, proto-rationality offers a closure. Various classes of

concrete concepts constitute practical "systems" operating logico-mathematical procedures
within given contexts. Theoretical insights are absent, and no formal procedure is ever
outlined. Practical inductivity (by entertaining the psychological connectedness between
events), not formal causality, yields a vast storehouse of practical notions, pre-concepts
and concrete concepts.
Formal rationality or the abstract concept
The formal operations of rational thought have no contextual entanglements, and give a
universal, a-temporal embedding to the cognitive process through abstraction,
categorization & linearization. Here the formal concept is introduced and theories see the
light. Cognition is liberated from the immediate events and able to conceptualize logical &
mathematical truths (deduction) as well as physical causalities in abstract terms, without
any consideration for their actual occurrence, if any (cf. the inner thought-experiment).
Thought is able to combine propositions into abstract systems and paradigms.
Pre-Socratic realism & idealism
The pendulum-swing between realism and idealism, or, in other words, the exorcism of
respectively either subject or object of knowledge, can be identified in pre-Socratic thought
as the apory between Parmenides of Elea (ca. 515 - 440 BCE) & Democritus of Abdera (ca.
460 - 380/370 BCE).
The idealism of Parmenides brings the logical necessities of thoughts to the fore. This
abstract, logical approach, the beginning of formal conceptuality, does not distinguish
between a substantial and predicative use of the copula "is". His idealism is steeped in
ontology, for Parmenides grasps "being" exclusively as a noun, never as a predicate.
Hence, the absence of certain properties could not be identified with "non-being", nor could
different forms of "being" be attributed to objects. The unique, imperishable, complete
nature of this all-comprehensive "being" is considered a given.
The realism of Democritus considers the reality of atoms as a given. Instead of building his
theory on the conditions of the subject of experience (namely logic), he focuses on the
object of experience, grasped by way of sense contact. Naive realism is apparent. How
atomism allows atoms to be described without somehow transcending them is not
explained. So, although matter is all there is, rational knowledge is possible. How this
knowledge can emerge if only atoms exist is not answered (in contemporary materialism,
this problem is apparent when considering the nature of consciousness in neurology or the
First Person Perspective in the philosophy of mind).
Both philosophies exemplify a movement of thought exceeding and thus reducing
(repressing) its natural anti-pode (Parmenides rejects matter, Democritus rejects
consciousness). Idealism rejects the object of sensation, realism the constructive activity of
the subject of thought. Instead of harmonizing both, by introducing a principle of
complementarity, thought is crippled by a contradiction. In each case, the necessities lay
bare by this forced monism (either of mind or of matter), bring the structure of both poles
to the fore : Parmenides thinks the logical conditions a priori, leading to oneness,
universality and qualitative uniqueness, Democritus observes the empirical conditions a
posteriori, bringing in an infinite series of singular atoms and quantitative multiplicity.
The tensions are not solved. A gaping abyss results. Is thought able to find true answers or

is skepticism the final outcome ?
08. Conceptual rationality in the Sophists and Socrates.
"Nothing exists. If anything existed, it could not be known. If anything did exit, and could
be known, it could not be communicated."
Gorgias of Leontini : On What is Not, or On Nature, 66 - 86.
With the start of the Vth century BCE, Greek philosophers showed less interest in
cosmological issues, but instead turned to practical questions of education, economy &
politics. On the one hand, international awareness made some question the natural
foundation of morality and justice, which seemed more a matter of habit & convention
("nomos") than being the expression of the unchanging natural law ("physis"). On the
other hand, the rise of powerful city-states ("polis") accommodated the study of good
citizenship.
After the Persian Wars, the rich wanted "areté", virtue, merit and social esteem. And to be
successful, especially in Athens, one had to be able to convince by using words. The
Sophists were wandering teachers paid to teach how to use words and arguments to win a
cause. They were not concerned with the contents, nor with the truth-value of their mental
strategies, but only with the result of convincing an audience hic et nunc.
Inventing rhetorics (cf. Gorgias), the Sophists posited the relativity of thought, making the
human the measure of all things in the process of escaping the wilderness (cf. Protagoras)
or rejecting culture and embracing the right of the strong to express their natural instincts,
i.e. enslaving the weak and glorifying egoism (cf. Callicles). Because of their blunt rejection
of objective, extra-mental truth, both Socrates (470 - 399 BCE) & Plato tried hard to refute
the relativism & skepticism of the Sophists they rejected.
By introducing the relativity of thought (skepticism and humanism), the Sophists prompted
a new quest for a comprehensive system. In it, the various facets developed since Thales
would have to be brought together so true knowledge would remain certain and eternal
(and not circumstantial and probable).
Socrates, as Plato, Xenophon & Aristophanes depict him, wanted to know the "eidos" or
"essence" of words, not just their rhetoric, opportunistic applications. He was convinced
there was an object, extra-mental reality which could be known by way of dialogue,
conversation, induction and apory. View and method of Socrates influenced Plato.
09. Concept-realism : Plato and Aristotle.
The abstract concept is the core of formal rationality, maintaining a clear-cut demarcation
between subject & object of experience. The object is felt to have substance &
independence, while the subject is deemed active, interactive and symbolizing.
Parmenides and Democritus were the first to explore the possibilities of the poles of
conceptual thought, but a system of philosophy is absent. To combat the Sophists
thoroughly, Socrates & Plato (428 - 347 BCE) launched a comprehensive philosophical
inquiry, advancing Platonic concept-realism. They wanted to escape skepticism & relativism
(suggested by the unresolved apory between Parmenidian idealism and Democritean
realism).

For Plato, truth is remembering ideas existing objectively in a higher reality. These
particulars of a higher order are not the truth of this world of becoming but of the better,
good world of being. A Platonic idea is a paradigm for singular things, participating in it. As
in the idealism of Parmenides, only being has reality. But this being is not physical, but
implies a trans-empirical world of ideas.
His pupil Aristotle (384 - 322 BCE) rejected the world of ideas, but not the ideas
themselves. They do not exist in a better world "out there", but are always immanent "in"
the singular things of this world of becoming. There is no cleavage between this world and
a better world. The universal ideas are abstractions based on what is gathered by the
senses. This universal law is established by the active intellect, acting as a Deus ex
machina. As in the realism of Democritus, only the senses provide us with reliable
information.
Classical Greek concept-realism, gratifying the tendency of conceptual thought to fossilize
& substantialize its inherent duality, developed two radical answers and two major
epistemologies. These were foremost intended to serve ontology, or the study of "real"
beings, as does the logic underpinning them. Moroever, knowledge is only true if universal
(universalism) & grounded (foundationalism).
Neither Plato or Aristotle developed the quantitative view of the world as proposed by
Democritus. Their comprehensive systems contain no mathematical physics. Escaping
skepticism, they want to establish the sufficient ground of true knowledge. Plato in the
idealism of the world of ideas, Aristotle in the realism of indwelling formal & final causes
(cf. hylemorphism).
In concept-realism, concepts must refer to something "real", either in the mind or extramental.
Our thoughts (even imaginations) are always about some thing. In conceptrealism,
this "real" is a sufficient ground guaranteeing the identity of every thing. For the
Greeks, the "real" had to be universal ("ta katholou", or applicable everywhere and all the
time).
Given the duality of conceptual, formal rationality, two positions emerged : either the
universals exist by themselves outside the sensoric world (the real is ideal - cf. Plato) or
they only exist as the form of things in each individual thing (the ideal is real - cf.
Aristotle). In the former, a cleavage occurs and dualism emerges (between being and
becoming), in the latter, a quasi-Divine "intellectus agens" has to be posited.
Again two reductions of the ongoing, crucial tension of thought ensue. The continuous,
shocking confrontations between object and subject of knowledge, are not solved, for the
concordia discors characterizing formal, conceptual, discursive rationality is not maintained
but eliminated by reductions (of object to subject, as in Plato or of subject to object, as in
the Peripatetics).
10. Fideism or the onto-theological ground.
Although the Romans established a vast political unity (cf. the Pax Romana), focusing on
monumental, lasting social, administrative and judicial order backed by a strong military,
their intellectual influence on the Middle Ages was not as profound as the Greek legacy.
The following components were decisive :

● the quality and variety of Greek philosophy : pre-Socratics, Plato-Aristotle, Hedonists,
Epicurists, Cynics, neo-Platonists, Stoics, etc. ;
● Greek art and science : mathematics, geometry, cosmology, architecture, grammar,
linguistics, drama, sculpture, etc.
● anthropocentrism : the human and his emancipation were of central concern ;
● ideal of the abstract : study devoid of practical consequences, aiming at absolute
knowledge coupled with tolerance, dialogue, contradiction and argumentation ;
● impact of reason on action : the search for harmony, measure and balance.
The Christian Empire of Constantine the Great (ca.274/288 - 337) heralded the beginning
of the end of "Pagan" philosophy and the indoctrination "de manu militari" of Catholic
dogma (cf. Council of Nicea of 325 CE). Both in Rome, Alexandria and Constantinople,
revealed knowledge was deemed superior than independent, rational thinking and
philosophy was made to serve fundamental theology. The latter was based on an exegesis
of the canon of the New Testament (a name invented ca. 190 CE). These 27 books were
accepted by the majority of the Roman Church as late as 382 CE (Concilium Romanum).
In 415 CE, the Hellenized Egyptian scientist & Platonic philosopher Hypathia of Alexandria
(ca. 370 - 415), the inventor of the astrolabe and the hydrometer, was brutally murdered
by a raging Christian mob tolerated by the Patriarch Cyril of Alexandria (ca. 375 - 444).
They tore off her clothing and dragged her through the streets of the city till she died ! In
529 CE, under the Christian emperor Justinianus, who commissioned the Hagia Sophia, the
Platonic Academy at Athens was closed. To fight those who made a different choice (or
"heretics"), institutionalized Christianity was all but loving & kind. In those days, and for
many more centuries to come, violence, repression, blacklisting, the suppression & burning
of manuscripts, the rewriting of history etc. would remain common practices in both
Western Catholicism and Eastern Orthodoxy alike.
Revealed knowledge was eternal and absolute, for unveiling the "Creator-God" of all
possible things, i.e. God as the ground of grounds and focal point of a theology rooted in
the axiom of the existence of this transcendent God (onto-theology). Educated by Late
Hellenism, early Christian thinkers allowed Greek concepts to infiltrate the emerging
Christian theology and its apology, in particular those of Plato and neo-Platonism, as
evidenced by the first "sum" of Christian philosophy (or philosophy of the revealed texts),
the work of Augustine of Hippo (354 - 430). For him, three "imperial" principles of faith
stood firm : the Incarnation of the Son of God, the God-Man Jesus Christ and the
Representative of Christ on Earth (the Pope of Rome).
The major difference between ancient philosophy (rooted in the maxim "know thyself") and
the end of Late Hellenism, is the beginning of a purely theoretical and abstract pursuit,
divorced from the oral tradition of the art of living. If ancient philosophy had been a way of
life (in the "polis"), implying the total person (including affects and volition besides
cognition), the Middle Ages would develop a purely intellectual, exegetic scholastic
approach, still with us in philosophy today. Spiritual exercises were no longer deemed part
of philosophy, but were integrated in Christian spirituality. Religion realized the
transformation of one's personality and oriented one's whole way of being, not philosophy.
Of course, the conceptions of Christocentric & Trinitarian monotheism, as well as the sense
of hierarchy and liturgy, serving Roman & Byzantine Christianity, sum up, albeit
"Christianized", the essence of Paganism.

Fideism holds faith above reason, or worse, denies reason its place. However, as soon as
faith needs to be explained to convert the infidel or to refute the arguments of critical nonbelievers,
reason is needed (cf. the Apologetics). Then, as the servants of dogma, logic and
philosophy accommodate theology, and adapt to the necessities of sacred, miraculous
texts ...
When Imperial Rome's upper classes turned Christian, they were driven by Late Hellenistic
fears (the collapse of a weakened empire) and spiritual pessimism (cf. the astral fatalism of
Pagan religions). The intellectual elite sought refuge in the salvic simplicity advocated by
the Roman centrist, based on an act of will, a leap of faith, but not in the elaborate
trappings of the mysteries, nor in the Gnostics. Thus, Christian intellectuals (starting with
Augustine and ending with Thomas Aquinas) slowly "Christianized" Pagan philosophy,
"explaining" the religion of Jesus Christ in a logic borrowed from Late Hellenism. Even
Trinitarian theology could benefit from the elaborated triadic speculations of neo-Platonism.
Usually depicted as a transitional figure between fideist & scholastic theology, the
Benedictine Anselm of Canterbury (1033 - 1109) was a protagonist of the Augustinian
tradition. Philosophy is only dialectica (logic, rhetoric, linguistic) and part of theology.
Nevertheless, his position within this fideist movement is rationalistic, for he seeks the
"rationes necessariae" (necessary reasons) for the existence of God, but also for
revelations as the Holy Trinity and the Incarnation of Christ. However, his rationalism is
provisional, for Anselm believes so he may understand ("credo ut intelligam"), but does not
seek to understand in order to believe.
The context in which he operated, the vows he took, deny Anselm to openly profess the
distinction between philosophy and theology, and so, even if he had not been able to find
the necessary reasons for Divine existence, he would not, therefore, have rejected the
existence of God. Perhaps is it fair to say Anselm is the most dialectical pole within the
Augustinian movement and its blatant fideism, overturned by Thomas Aquinas (1225 -
1274).
Clearly, Christian philosophy did not add a single iota to the problems posed by Greek
epistemology. Platonism and neo-Platonism were used to argue revelation, and the tension
between (Greek) rationality and blind faith turned philosophy away from its main target,
truth. The substantialism of Platonic & Peripatetic concept-realism was enhanced by
inflating conceptuality even more beyond its natural borders. The object of knowledge
became an absolute Deus Revelatus, while the subject of knowledge was deemed an
immortal soul created to serve this omniscient, omnipresent & omnipotent God. This ontotheology
sedated the critical stance of Western philosophy, forcing it into deep sleep.
11. Real and rational science in scholasticism.
In his Isagoge, a work translated by Boethius, Porphyry (232/3 - ca. 305) had written :
"I shall not say anything about whether genera and species exist as substances, or are
confined to mere conceptions ; and if they are substances, whether they are material or
immaterial ; and whether they exist separately from sensible objects, or in them
immanently."
Porphyry : Isagoge, 1, introduction.

For Boethius, considering these matters to be "very deep", the answer is Aristotelian : the
universals have an objective existence in particular physical things only, but the mind is
able to conceive genera and species independent of these bodies.
In the centuries which followed, scholasticism would be characterized by the tension
between realists and nominalists. The former were Platonists & Peripatetics, the latter
readjusted their definition of universals or rejected them altogether.
On the one hand, Peter Abelard (1079 - 1142) would accept the objective foundation of
universals, deemed mere words. This reality was based on real similarities between
particulars. On the other hand, William of Ockham (1290 - 1350), rejected both Platonic &
Peripatetic universals, for only nominal representations exist. Concept-realism, the idea
true, universal concepts are grounded in the reality of ideas (Plato) or in particulars
(Aristotle) is surpassed. Universals are limit-concepts. All scientific representations are
probable (terministic), and so true, scientific knowledge is not based on universals, but on
natural signs, i.e. natural reactions to empirical stimuli.
Peter Abelard
Abelard was able to avoid the tradition apory of the concordia discors (between Platonism &
Aristotelism) by introducing a third option :
1. universale ante rem : the universals exist before the realities they subsume :
Platonism ;
2. universale in re : the universals only exist in the realities ("quidditas rei") of
which they are abstractions : Aristotelism ;
3. universale post rem : universals are words, abstact universal concepts with a
meaning, given to them by human convention, in which real similarities
between particulars are expressed. These are not "essentia" and not "nihil", but
"quasi res".
Abelard's solution involves a crucial distinction : universals are not real, but they are mere
words (real sounds) with a significance referring to real similarities between real
particulars. Because of their meaning, they are more than "nothing". The foundation of his
nominalism is "the real" as evidenced by similarities between objects, whereas the
traditional "reales" supposed an ante-rational symbiosis or semantic adualism between
"verbum" and "res", between Platonic ideas and material objects (cf. Plato's "methexis").
William of Ockham
"Although it is clear to many that a universal is not a substance existing outside the mind
in individuals and really distinct from them, still some are of the opinion that a universal
does in some manner exist outside the mind in individuals, although not really but only
formally distinct from them. (...) However, this opinion appears to me wholly untenable."
Ockham : Summa totius logicae, I, c.xvi.
With him, the "via moderna" received its most logical of defenders. Thomists, Scotists and
Augustinians formed the "via antiqua". It is their realism, Platonic (the essence is
transcendent) as well as Aristotelic (the essence is immanent), which was firmly rejected.
Instead, nominalism was promoted, but one without objective universals. It was hence

more radical than Abelard's. No reality ("quid rei") is ever attained, but only a nominal
representation ("quid nominis").
For Ockham, the long scholastic dealings with concept-realism were futile. Universals are
not before, not in and not after particulars. They are simply abrogated. Given the religious
context at hand, only faith remains. Science is given a limited extension only. Nevertheless,
by positing empirical data as primordial, Ockham comes close to realism, grounding
knowledge (subreptively ?) in direct empirical apprehension, as would Thomas Aquinas
before him. The latter had returned to concept-realism and backed Aristotle. Intellectual
knowledge (science) derived from the senses and from abstraction (cf. the intellectus
agens). The influence of Thomism was vast enough for Ockham's message to pass
unnoticed.
12. Rationalism and empirism of nature.
Rationalists like Descartes (1596 - 1650) and empirists like Hume (1711 - 1776) developed
the modern version of the traditional apory between either a subjective or an objective
validation of knowledge. Both sought a solid foundation. Descartes was confident he found
one, namely the substantial ego and its "clear & distinct" ideas, but had not. Hume
concluded, as the Sophists before him, skepticism was the only outcome, triggering the
criticism of Kant (1724 - 1804).
The ontologisms a priori & a posteriori (of Greek concept-realism and the Medieval
universalia) gave way to the crucial distinction between analytic and synthetic propositions.
The former are tautological, while the former say something about the world.
On the one hand, Descartes, by introducing a substantial ego cogitans and its intuitive
cogito ergo sum, reintroduced Platonism by backing his criterion of truth with a proof of
God (making use of the criterion). On the other hand, Hume, by rejecting all but direct
synthetic propositions, was unable to explain how we can draw out the common element
without innate cognitive structures. Remember how Aristotle was forced to call in his
intellectus agens !
Is rationalism not a return to the symbolical (Platonic) adualism and its "leges cogitandi
sunt leges essendi" (the laws of thinking are the laws of reality) ? Is empirism not the
modern equivalent of the system of Democritus and the subsequent "veritas est adequatio
rei et intellectus" ("truth is the correspondence between the intellect and reality) ?
Keeping him awake at night, these scandalous pendulum-movements were first identified
by Kant !
13. Kant, the shipwreck of foundationalism & criticism.
Kant could not accept skepticism and the relativism it entails. Not finding this firm ground
in the objective, outward reality (as a transcendent world of Platonic ideas or universal
forms immanent in matter), his transcendental method cleared the foundations of the
subjective apparatus of thought, deemed universal. By thus making the subject of
experience active after the reception of sensuous input (analytic object-knowledge after the
aesthetic synthesis of phenomena), all possible knowledge was about the "thing-for-us"
and never about the absolute "thing-as-such".

But were does the "matter" of the sensation ("Empfindung") turned into phenomena
("Erscheinung") come from ? Kant supposed our sensations were somehow caused by
reality-as-such, the famous "Ding-an-sich". But how can this be ? Causality cannot be
invoked, for the nameless sensations are pre-categorial. Neither can the world-as-such be
thought as temporally first and the sensations last, for the former is outside time. Hence,
the way our senses receive information is obscured, compromising Kant's epistemology. If
Kant needs the "noumenon" to start up the engine of the categories, then he clearly does
not use the "thing-as-such" as a negative, formal and empty limit-concept, and the
Copernican Revolution is incomplete. And if this is the case, and it is, then his attempt at
justifying knowledge a priori fails. So far German Idealism was correct : knowledge cannot
find a sufficient ground in the transcendental apparatus, for the latter depends on the very
thing it tries to avoid : a direct, unmediated contact with reality !
Kant's system, although transcendental, and thus devoid of any attempt to explain the
possibility of knowledge by ontology, retains the postulate of foundation, by which true
knowledge is certain, universal and necessary. Hence, he still needed an Archimedic point
outside knowledge. To purge Kant's criticism, this was relinquished.
Scientific knowledge cannot be considered a system of synthetic propositions a priori.
Kant's philosophy is Newtonian, and so absolute principles are acknowledged both in
sensation (time, space), understanding (forms, categories), as well as in reason (the
ideas). At the same time, clear demarcations avoid their abuse and potential corruptive
effect on thought.
14. Criticism and the Münchhausen-trilemma.
For good reasons, the history of philosophy is divided in pre- and post-Kantian. For with
the crucial Copernican Revolution, the activity of the subject of knowledge was finally fully
acknowledged. The categorial scheme is deemed to yield object-knowledge in the form of
synthetical propositions a priori. So a Newtonian science of absolute certainties is possible.
The skepticism of Hume (also at work in Ockham) is overturned. Causality can be thought
and so the connectivity of our knowledge guaranteed. The catch ? By pursuing his
foundational course and in order to explain (describe) how the motor of the categories is
fuelled, Kant had to introduce a pseudo-causality before causality. Moreover, the cleavage
between becoming and being was reintroduced as the abyss between "noumena" and
"phenomena". To avoid these problems, parts of the transcendental exercise of Die Kritik
der Reinen Vernunft had to be redone.
With Kant, a totally new perspective unfolds : criticism highlights the limitations,
demarcations, frontiers and borders of thought. It is not possible to step outside ourselves
and witness the world from some real external or ideal internal vantage point. The
subjective structure cannot be removed and so what we call "objective" cannot be
identified as observation without interpretation. Conceptually, the latter is impossible.
There is no point of intersection between the lines created by our conceptual thoughts and
reality-as-such, i.e. absolute, noumenal reality. The lines bounce on the mirror-surface of
phenomena and do not allow concepts to probe into noumenal reality itself.
In philosophy, formal rationality has not objectified the conditions of its own operation. It
lacks reflexivity. In most systems of thought, ontology is placed before epistemology. This
means a certain state of affairs is implicitly or explicitly presupposed before explaining the
possibility of knowledge. Either the kickable qualities (cf. Popper) of reality are idolized,

and turned into an underlying thing, a solid brickwork of stubbornly unyielding particles and
forces (the realism of materialism), or the laws of thought are deemed sufficient to say
what "is" and what "is not", and so constitute a "hypokeimenon" (the idealism of
spiritualism).
To begin with ontology, is like starting with the fruit of philosophy. It also betrays the need
to secure knowledge in an absolute sense. The foundation is a given (not a fruit) and is
called in to subreptively ground knowledge by "explaining" it. Empiricism appeals to the
senses. Rationality calls in the universality of symbols.
Platonic and Peripatetic concept-realism was replaced by Medieval scholasticism. Modern
empirism & rationalism reframed the theories of the reales & nominales, backing their
position with realism or idealism respectively. Reflective, discursive, formal reasoning lacks
reflexivity, and presupposes a sufficient ground before knowledge in which the latter is
made to root. Either a real world "out there" is considered to be given, or an ideal subject
and its truth-bearing structures "in here" pre-determine the act of knowledge. Thought has
to make its surface reflective (capable of reflecting light) and investigate itself. With this
realization, the critical layer of cognition becomes operational. Formal thought has to be
integrated in the critical operation.
Critical thought uncovers the limits of conceptual thinking. Empirico-formal systems only
know reality as it appears to them, not as it is by itself, as such (cf. the Copernican
Revolution in epistemology). Hence, the world is epistemologically divided between
"phenomena" and "noumena", between what is processed by our understanding (by virtue
of the categorial schemes of out thinking capacity) and the intellectual intuition of things as
they are as such.
Much later, the problems of foundational thinking were summarized by the Münchhausentrilemma
(Albert, 1976). Its logic proves how every possible kind of foundational strategy is
necessarily flawed. The trilemma was named after the Baron von Münchhausen, who tried
to pull himself out of a swamp by his own hair !
Every time a theory of knowledge accommodates the postulate of foundation, three equally
unacceptable situations occur. A justification of proposition P implies a deductive chain A of
arguments A', A", etc. with P as conclusion. How extended must A be in order to justify P ?
1. regressus ad infinitum :
there is no end to the justification, and so no foundation is found (A', A", etc.
does not lead to P) ;
2. petitio principii :
the end P is implied by the beginning, for P is part of the deductive chain A.
Circularity is a valid deduction but no justification of P, hence no foundation is
found ;
3. abrogation ad hoc :
justification is ended ad hoc, the postulate of justification is abrogated, and the
unjustified sufficient ground (A' or A" or ...) is accepted as certain because,
seeming certain, it needs no more justification.
The Münchhausen-trilemma is avoided by stopping to seek an absolute, sufficient ground

for science. This happens when one accepts genuine science is terministic. In mathematics
and physics, major changes have happened since Newton, and who is able to disprove the
revolutions of tomorrow ? Hence, the categorial system cannot be absolute, although some
of its general features are necessary in a normative way (for we use them when thinking).
III : Intelligent Wisdom after Critical Philosophy :
15. The own-Self and the heart of creative thought.
Kant and the transcendental Self
Another great accomplishment of Kantianism, is to evidence certain necessary conditions of
the possibility of self-consciousness, understood as "an original and transcendental
condition" (A106), a state of consciousness preceding all data of perception, and without
reference to which no representations of objects are possible (A107). This "pure", original &
necessary Self-consciousness produces a synthetic unity of all phenomena in concept only
(A108). Indeed, reason cannot perceive and the senses cannot think (A51, A68).
Transcending the empirical ego & its various, ever-changing states, this fundamental
transcendental consciousness of myself cannot be rejected if the word "experience" is more
than an unconscious, non-reflective stream of events (in which case "theory" & "science"
would be impossible). For Kant, this "Self" of transcendental inquiry is not a substantial,
permanent state of consciousness open to experience, but the necessary apex point of the
whole cognitive apparatus.
Experience is always the experience of a subject of experience. But in critical epistemology,
and this necessarily so, the state of consciousness of the transcendental Self can never be
a clear, precise or definite conceptualization, as demanded by science, for conceptuality
always defines existence in relation to given (outer) objects (B72). In terms of our mental
concepts, the transcendental Self is the mere "representation I", always confused, and so,
from the point of view of formal & critical thought, this Self-consciousness lies outside the
empirical consciousness and is hardly a genuine "awareness" at all (for Kant, like
Descartes, finds authenticity only in thought). If this Self-presentation in Self-ideas & Selfknowledge
were as clear an impression of an object as in experience via the outer senses,
it would constitute object-knowledge, which is not the case. Science is only constituted by
the interplay of experimentation & argumentation. Hence, the Self is never the object
constituted by our outer, physical senses. If this were not the case, then the intellect would
perceive this Self directly.
Our consciousness assumes the color of our representations (experiences), and virtually
nothing is left to Self-consciousness. The consciousness of a permanent subjective element
in all our variegates experiences is not rejected, and necessarily so, but, according to Kant,
we are only conscious of ourselves "with respect to the manifold of the representations
which are only given in a perception" (B135). We know ourselves only as we appear to
ourselves, not as we are in ourselves (B152, B153). We only know the transcendental "I"
through our thoughts, not through direct experience. For Kant, sensation ("die sinnliche

Anschauung" - A31) is the only form of perception which "must fall to everybody's
share" (A42). He accepts an "intellectual perception" in which, though its own activity,
without any intervention of the senses, all possible objects would be given to the subject :
"The consciousness of self (apperception) is the simple representation of the ego, and if by
it alone all the manifold (representations) in the subject were given spontaneously, the
inner intuition would be intellectual."
Kant, I. : Critique of Pure Reason, B68.
However, for the human this is not possible. It can only belong to the "primal
Being" ("Urwesen").
Indeed, if the experience of the transcendental Self would be an articulate
conceptualization transcending the categories, it would be an intuition of absolute reality
(ideality), which would run against the conditions of possible knowledge (as defined by the
categorial scheme fed by the outer senses). Hence, Self-consciousness demands perception
of objects (B68), and on this Kant concurs with Descartes and Hume. "I" exist necessarily
with and through my thought and experiences. Consciousness is always consciousness of
something and the latter is an outer object. Without the senses no objects are given and
without reason no object would be thought. Thoughts without contents are empty,
perceptions without concepts are blind (A51). Although Kant has a intuition of sorts of the
existence of the "I", he has no perception ("Anshauung") of it. The "I" is always connected
with an "act", but is itself never an "act" or an "action" (B108). He affirms the existence of
a transcendental Self of all thinking, but considers it to be inaccessible to direct experience
and so not open to verification. Of course, the question is whether the "I" is always a
"thinking I". In terms of "empirico-formal rationality" this is necessarily the case, but the
possibilities of human consciousness are perhaps not as limited as the sort of
consciousness voiced by Kant ...
In critical thought, strictly remaining within the realm of conceptual thinking, the
transcendental Self of apperception points to an aspect of consciousness which does not
refer to an empirical ego (or subject of experience), and so cannot be an object of any
outer sense. All it does is guaranteeing the continuity of cognitive experience. Indeed, the
connectedness of experience cannot be rejected. The latter is "a minimal condition of the
occurrence of anything that can properly be called experience." (Strawson, 1982, p.167).
Conceptual thought has no direct, immediate access to the Real-Ideal. We must accept the
transcendental Self to accompany every empirical experience, but we have no conceptual
knowledge of this. Allowing intuition to constitute object-knowledge (in whatever way)
would again open the door to an ontology in the heart of epistemology and blur the crucial
barriers between the stages of cognition, particularly between rationality and intuition.
Rationality, as the buffer-zone between instinct and intuition must guard its borders. These
two "rings-pass-not", one between instinct and reason and another between reason and
intuition, are necessary for reason to remain independent, free, flexible, open,
communicative, dialogal and, eventually, sapient.
If no isolated consciousness of the "I", independent of its thoughts, experience and
activities is possible (as Descartes, Kant and Husserl think), then for empiricists like Hume,
James (1842 - 1910), Russell (1872 - 1970) & Ayer (1910 - 1989), this is sufficient to
characterize the formal Self as nothing at all. A return to skeptic realism ?

"Indeed, by what would one know the knower ?"
Brihadaranyake Upanishad - 4.5.15
For Kant, the "intellektuelle Anschauung" was a perception producing outer objects, a
bringing into existence contents of empirical experience without the use of the senses. Only
a "primal being" or "Urwesen" could be entitled to such a capacity. It is not at all
"everybody's share", as is sensation. In the Critique of Judgment, the Divine intellect
evacuates the difference between possible & real, for in such a super-mind everything
thought is also real. The mind of God is an "intellectus archetypus" or "intuitus originarius".
But our sensations are not original, but derived ("sensuous"). Human cognition is an
"intellectus ectypus", a derived, discursive intellect, i.e. one dependent on the material of
the outer senses.
Although necessary in the theory of knowledge, this "Protestant" reduction of the
substantial Self is too radical in other areas of philosophy. Even Kant knew this,
reintroducing the substantial Self, the world as well as God as postulates of practical
reason.
The preface to the second edition of his Critique of Pure Reason is the only place Kant
writes about a fixed point required for our time-determined existence to be thinkable,
implying an intellectual perception of the "I am" as the perception of a fixed inner point.
For Kant, also our inner sensation is limited and bound by spatio-temporality. Schelling
(1775 - 1854), trying to open another way for idealism and an ontology of the Self, accepts
this latter type of intellectual perception as belonging to our cognitive abilities &
distinguishes it from an intellectual perception producing objects by thinking. For Kant,
inner sensation has nothing constant, while Schelling will criticize him concerning this
limited view on possible human experience and accept "inner" experiences as real and
empirical as those derived from the "outer" senses. Moreover, from 1801 onward, Schelling
identifies the "Ichheit" as the highest principle of finitude, a subjective, relative and
empirical unity. Against Kant and Husserl, for whom the "pure consciousness-life", the "I"
and its pure experiences precedes all "worldly objectivity", Schelling said the Self is objectrelated
and definable as object. The Self is a finite existence ("Seiendes"), to be left behind
in order to attain to being (cf. nondual thought). So Schelling digs two strata below Kant,
for besides the reduction of the pure ego to an "ego sum", this subjective, individual
consciousness has to be reduced to an absolute consciousness, eclipsing all distinction
between the two, in reality one, or the identify of the Real-Ideal ("Real-Idealismus").
The direct perception of a fixed inner point, of "I am" instead of "I think", is an existential,
inner datum constituting the First Person Perspective (FPP). When the empirical ego
retreats, the Self experiences itself as a distinct, individual entity. The own-Self pretends
substantiality while, conceptually, it is never found isolated. Hence, the cogitations of the
own-Self are not conceptual but hyper-conceptual. It mirrors to itself a unique "own object"
which is, in terms of conceptuality, apart from its relations, empty, although, for itself,
originator of individual, unique Self-ideas. In that sense, from the point of view of critical
thought, the own-Self is the imagination of complete I-ness beyond egology. It is a true
fiction, a real Ideal.
In critical thought, the own-Self is an active fiction, potent icon, or imagination, a point or
"focus imaginarius" beyond the surface of the mirror. In creative thought, consciousness
projects itself into the mirror of the mind and beyond, and so the own-Self is directly,
intimately but decisively experienced as a part of history, in casu, "my" individual,

fundamental, unique ontic history, destiny of soul. In that sense, the own-Self is not only
part of the world, but reflects my individual path or cosmodesic within the world-system.
The own-Self is the logical precondition of transmigration, or (a) an existence in storeconsciousness
unsupported by the physical body and (b) the constant factor in a variety of
consecutive physical supports for consciousness. Although the empirical ego dies with the
body, the own-Self does not, and the "summum" (in terms of the unique Self-ideas) of
thought, affects & actions done by the ego in its short life "on Earth" are transcribed at the
moment of physical death in pure consciousness and retained there, adding to the maturity
of the own-Self (cf. the "age of the soul"). Each consecutive incarnation is an opportunity
to work out the agenda of the own-Self, fulfilling its purpose of ultimate principle of
finitude, the subjective pole of the creative pull towards totalization characterizing
immanent metaphysics. Hence, without the own-Self, immanent metaphysics cannot be
thought.
Is the own-Self a metaphor of the "heart" of my consciousness, selecting out the positive
evolutionary effects of the sensations (sensuous contact), the actions (volition), the
affections (emotion) & the cogitations (thought) of the empirical ego ? This abstract "idea
of ideas" is then the "real" Ideality of an own-Self, an abstract hyper-concept "of my pure Iness",
leading to a clear, inner, imaginal awareness of who "I am", a "Gestalt" or
"mandala" of a someone rather than a something. Real in creative thought, this mandala is
a fiction in critical thought. This demarcation between an empirical ego and a imaginal
point remains pertinent as long as cognition works in accord with the principles of reason.
Although the own-Self does not constitute reason (but regulates it), it does constitute the
reality of my ideality-as-such.
As in the psycho-philosophical methods of surrealism, this "own-Self" is not a substantial,
essential, ontological stratum "out there", but an epistemo-ontological interpretation of
intuition "in here". This means it does not exceed the limitations given by immanent
metaphysics, providing the heuristics for physics, biology and the human sciences.
This new province of creative thought redefines the First Person Perspective (FPP), giving
shape to a mature "reality-for-me", the subjective knowledge of inner, intimate, private,
secret, hidden mode of creative cognition through inner experience, reduced by critical
thought to imagination, fiction & virtuality. This is not, as in critical thought, a "reality-forus",
for the moment anything private is shared by way of the outer senses, it a priori stops
being private & inner. It may be a shared imagination, but never as clear and precise as in
a trained imagination, able to hold thousands of individual items as one icon, image or
visual matrix in each "moment" of thought of the ongoing mindstream.
Before reason, "reality-for-me" is geo-sentimental, firmly rooted in libidinal, tribal &
imitative behaviours, realizing a context-bound & concrete closure. Formal & critical
rationality are dual, operating the concordia discors of subject & object and advocating,
along as things work out well, a relative, consensual paradigm. With reason, "reality-forus"
effectuates. Beyond reason, entering the mode of the creativity of the intellect, a
mature & refined intimacy (without psychomorphism) re-emerges.
From the side of critical thought, interiority (via meditative introspection & absorption)
initiates the "open space" of visualized options. In creative thought, the direct experience
of an ideal Self effectuates. It is "real", but only for "me", i.e. as in true fiction, or like
dreams come true in ways patterned with causality & meaningful coincidence.

How to experience the own-Self ?
The direct experience of this own-Self is possible, but not by way of the outer senses.
Which introspective meditation introduces this "higher" Self-consciousness ? Can it be done
by way of the inner organ of imagination ? In the Renaissance, memory theatres were
common to organize the mind and enable its incredible mnemonic capacities, keeping track
of all outer inputs & results from inner computing (Yates, 1965). Today, mental laziness
and absence of spiritual exercises decrease the store of information available at any time.
For the brain, visualizing an image is as "real" as computing one using sensoric information
(cf. From the Living Mindbrain to the Imaginal Brainmind, 2003). Imagination is therefore a
powerful tool, enabling the inner transformation of parts into a larger whole, a visual
interplay of different levels of meaning, composed out of numerous parts, etc.
Conceptual cognition evolves from the psychomorph pre-concepts of pre-rationality to the
psychocreative hyper-concepts of creative thought. The latter observes an "inner
world" (comparable to, but not the same as dreams, visions, fictions, hallucinations,
mirages, etc.) in ways transcending the normal capacities of the ego. Self-realization
begins with the internalization (introjections) of a particular Self-knowledge (or gnosis),
which is not the direct, nondual discovery of absolute reality (Real-Ideal), as in nondual
thought, but rather sets off with the imagination-reality of one's original leitmotif, the
calling of one's ontic own-Self, offering (giving) vocation, i.e. the gift to subjective reality
(or ego-consciousness) of an objective sense, I-ness or "I am" within subjectivity and the
FPP. Although not "substantial", the own-Self is "existential" in inner monologues as well as
in every intersubjective dialogue. In all creative thinking, "being-there" (Dasein) rather
than "being-what ?" or "being-who ?" (Sosein) is invoked. To know, realize and experience
the own-Self directly is like living on the "razor's edge" invoked by Maugham in his famous
1944 novel, citing the Upanishads (understanding the edge of the razor as the unique
vantage point of creative thought to address nondual thought) :
"Arise ! Awake !
Having attained your gifts, understand them.
Sharp as the edge of a razor and hard to cross,
difficult is this path, say the sages.
What has no sound nor touch nor form nor decay,
likewise is tasteless, eternal, odorless,
without beginning or end, beyond the great, stable,
by discerning that, one is liberated from the mouth of death."
Katha Upanishad, Beck 1996.
Creative thought implies a continuously recurrent, sustained & concentrated cogitation of a
new, more complete, enthusiastic inner vision of the individual person one experiences
oneself to be. Insofar as this is introduced by an internal, iconic visualization of this
imagination of "who I am", the condition of wholeness is satisfied & consciousness may
expand and deepen its inner experience along those lines. At each moment of the
mindstream, the creative operators cause changes in the overall conscious synthesis,
transforming cognitive, affective & volitional events into the actualizing mandala (cf. infra),
increasing compassion & love for all sentient beings (cf. goodness regulating the practice of
philosophy). So the Socratic "know thyself", the primacy of cognition, can also be read in

metaphysical terms, namely as a precept to acquire Self-knowledge, insight into who one
truly is, i.e. a unique own-Self, allowing a second focus to operate in the functional field of
consciousness. The circular movement of the empirical ego is replaced by a recurrent
pendulum-swing between "katnut" and "gatlut", as Qabalah calls it.
"I still cannot, in accordance with the maxim at Delphi, know myself. I therefore think it
ridiculous, as long as I don't know that, to devote my attention to something that is foreign
to me."
Plato : Phaidos, 230a (Socrates is talking).
Bi-focality or a consciousness of both the empirical ego and the own-Self, represents a
higher panorama in which the empirical ego is completely integrated, giving less afflictive
emotions, goodness and a deep, clear, open & strong mind. The own-Self is thus a "higher"
Self. By the way, the major difference between the psychosis of bipolar disorder and
creative thought is not vision and its contents, but moral engagement (cf. Bucke, 1901).
Sublime artists and sages shape their own "spiritual biotope". Crazy people have no place.
Touching upon the whole range of meaningful (semantic) presences by the clear, serene,
dependent synthesis of cognitive, affective & actional experiences from an inner, panoramic
perspective of the "I am" or ontic Self, creative thought transforms, through inner vision,
the dual tension of rationality into the direct experience of life as a meaningful conscious
event, stimulating one to practice its precepts (enthusiasm). Creative thought is thus the
optimalization of :
● self-reflection, or the dimension of the own-Self ;
● free thought, acting on the human right to exhaust its potential ;
● encompassing finitude (completing immanent metaphysics).
How, given observers a priori never share the same spatio-temporal parameters, can
"reality-for-us" not be a transient & conventional construction ? But is this "reality-for-me"
of every other sign-interpreter, being untestable, not the immanent metaphysical root of
our shared "reality-for-us" ? In tune with social logic, humans make-believe, pretend & act
as if "reality-for-us" is substantial, permanent, "for all times", etc. But this is clearly never
the case, for things are subject to causes, changes & connections, acting against pet ideas
triggering solidification, petrification, mummification, fossilization, sedimentation, etc.
● 1 - 4 : nominal senses : three-dimensional matter (particles & forces) & twodimensional
information on an uni-directional time-line : a physical body constituted
by the operators matter and information ;
● dim = 5 : nominal consciousness : the presence of an observer of the nominal world,
not-coinciding with it, and able to exercise free choice : the empirical ego at the
centre of a circular consciousness ;
● dim = 6 : consciousness of the own-Self : direct, inner observation from the
perspective of a unique spiritual vantage point : the ontic "I-ness" as the second
focus of an elliptical consciousness ;

● dim = 7 - 10 : the dimension of no-dimension : direct discovery of the natural state
of the mind and its clear, natural, absolute light of presence-of-no-presence, the
station-of-no-station.
Although the own-Self is untestable but arguable, its presence in consciousness is
undeniable in an existential sense and effectuates the creative operator, producing series of
totalizing, unconditional thoughts or hyper-concepts. These emanate from the own-Self and
its ongoing "making of the mandala" and are sublime, imaginal, artistic (very beautiful)
constructions of the mind, which, like pure diamonds, seem limitless, substantial &
permanent (which is not the case - cf. nondual thought). They occupy the end of finitude,
and define the borders of the ontic subjectivity at work in immanent metaphysics.
Immanent metaphysics still retains the division between object and subject. The former
being a totalized picture of the outer world and the latter an inner mandala having the own-
Self in its centre (or, an elliptical consciousness with two foci of I-ness, one empirical &
conventional, another trans-empirical & ontic).
Five stages introduce the own-Self :
● building : on the basis of the super-ego, the "summum bonum" of empirical
consciousness, or a totalized icon or mandala of the best of cognition, affection and
action is made. This mandala is a vibrant total picture, a summary of what the ego is
able to perceive as its ultimate self-representation. This stage is purely empirical and
does not escape the confines of critical thought. It demands renunciation and being
conscious of the impermanence (interconnectedness) of all objects of empirical
consciousness (ego as well as of all possible outer objects) ;
● concentrating : once the mandala made, prolonged concentration on it decenters the
ego, and "purifies" all which does not belong to the mandala, allowing the ego to take
on the form of its own ideal, and distinguish itself clearly from its negative, the
Shadow (cf. Jung). This form is not the own-Self, but a ladder to the plane of creative
thought ;
● becoming : insofar as the mandala indeed represents the best the ego is capable of,
its representation is internalized and perceived "from within". Instead of visualizing
the mandala "before" the ego (as any other outer object would), it is observed with
"the eye of the mind" and realized as an inner object encompassing consciousness.
When this happens, the mandala, or visualized correct Self-knowledge, is seen from
within, with the direct experience of I-ness, of "my" soul or own-Self placed at the
center ;
● actualizing : Self-realization initiates the production of Self-ideas, which are more
than a projection of the super-ego, but the living experience of an individual,
historical being experiencing itself directly as a Self witnessing (integrating) all
empirical states of consciousness ;
● annihilating : the last stage of the own-Self is the end of the own-Self, namely when
its own root is directly discovered as the nondual light of consciousness, the natural
state of the mind.

In this philosophical & cognitive approach of the Self, the individual, personal nature of our
creative thought is emphasized. The own-Self is not a collective "Self", a so-called "mystical
body" or "community" (church) of "our Lord", as in the organized theistic religions & faiths.
Neither is it a universal Self "of all times" or a depersonalized, solipsistic "complex mind",
as so-called quantum-spirituality holds. If recuperated in a universalizing doctrine,
especially a religious one, the direct experience of the Self is never direct or immediate, but
a replacement of "my Lord" by "our Lord" (cf. Ibn-al'Arabî), a mere indirect, "collective
ego".
Does monotheism not subjugate the most personal and intimate focus of consciousness to
rules invented by a (usually male) elite and this in order to dominate the collectivity and
satisfy their mammalian sex, money & power-drives ? This would be the very opposite of
the true intent of creativity, implying novelty (progressivism), but also genuine
individuality, the celebration of a someone rather than a something, of a "soul" rather than
an ego.
Because traditional Western philosophy focused on formal and critical thinking, erroneously
accepting the latter as the final stage of cognition, it opened the way for a dogmatic
recuperation of creative thought, assisting (by means of an exclusive logic of finitude) the
false, evil, ugly, dangerous, abusive and dehumanizing formats at work today. It is easy to
hide someone behind something, but difficult to truly know oneself & live accordingly.
16. Beyond the concept : reflective & reflexive nonduality.
Hegel (1770 - 1831), rejecting the transcendental necessities of critical thought, confused
his own-Self with the "absolute I" and attributed, with foundational eloquence, a
transcendent, Divine consciousness to man :
"Consciousness, then, in its majestic sublimity above any specific law and every content of
duty, puts whatever content it pleases into its knowledge and willing. It is moral genius and
originality, which knows the inner voice of its immediate knowledge to be a voice Divine ;
and since in such knowledge it directly knows experience as well, it is Divine creative
power, which contains living force in its very conception. It is in itself, too, Divine worship,
'service of God', for its action is the contemplation of this its own proper Divinity."
Hegel, G.W.F. : The Phenomenology of Mind, 1807, chapter 8, my italics.
The "katapathic" (positive, constructive) recuperation of ontology in Hegel's epistemology,
uniting the ontological, more extended (objectifying) definition of "intellectual perception"
with the idea of the "absolute I" as the Self having itself as object (cf. Schelling), results in
an invalid confusion (Hegelianism) and, a few decades later, in an even more regrettable
reversal (Marxism). Both moves must be rejected as uncritical (invalid), but also
confounding the higher modes of cognition (confounding the valid demarcation between
immanent & transcendent metaphysics). Hegel makes clear the benefits of critical thought
are not "dead bones". In the name of historical materialism, Marx (1818 - 1883) evacuates
the higher modes altogether.
Absolute reality (ideality) is beyond the own-Self and its creative thoughts. It can no longer
be called "an experience" although its introduction is experiential. The natural light of the
mind cannot be observed, for it is the very thing observing, perceiving only the suchness of

the actual event(s) without interpretation. This light is a virtual light-point, a potential, a
single clarity (as of a single mass less photon) in the single, open space of "all
possibilities". It cannot be affirmed this singularity exists, for it can not be objectified,
being the objectifier of objectifiers. It cannot be denied to exists, for there must be an
absolute I (only witnessing itself) to support the own-Self & the ego, if the FPP & "realityfor-me"
are to have meaning. It cannot at the same time be affirmed & denied (noncontradiction).
It cannot be anything outside everything affirmed & denied (excluded
middle). This is the nature of the mind as it is by itself, its witnessing clarity.
Nondual thought via the catuskoti ?
"Everything is such as it is, not such as it is, both such as it is and not such as it is, and
neither such as it is nor such as it is not. That is the Buddha's teaching."
Nâgârjuna : Mâdhyamaka Kârikâ, 18.8.
The knowledge, experience and realization of the own-Self is a necessary precondition for
nondual thought (much like formal thought was for critical thought). The burning-away of
attributes (of both ego & own-Self), leads to the discovery of and an introduction to the
nonmanifest, natural foundation of the mind. The "veil of Self" is what keeps the creative
mind and its immanent metaphysics wandering aimlessly, glorifying the limitations of only
one infinite string, a unique individual among an infinity of individual strings. If nondual
"knowledge" operates without notions, pre-concepts, concrete concepts, formal concepts,
transcendental concepts or creative concepts, it can hardly be called "knowledge" in the
conventional sense at all.
"What words can express comes to a stop when the domain of the mind comes to a stop."
Nâgârjuna : Mâdhyamaka Kârikâ, 18.7a.
Nondual thought is not discursive, nor conceptual. In other words, the apex of thought is
non-verbal. Myth, the beginning of cognition, is also non-verbal, but opaque & nonreflective
(and, mutatis mutandis, non-reflexive). Nondual thought, the end of cognition, on
the contrary, is highly reflective (dynamical, differential, energetic) and sublimely reflexive,
with no other object than the "I", turning it into an "absolute I" à la Schelling. But this is no
longer "inner" knowledge, not even arguable (immanent) metaphysics, for it lacks all forms
of duality and cannot be expressed in teachings, although teachings mime it poetically. As
a direct self-liberating, self-transforming, wordless, instantaneous awareness in presence of
the unlimited wholeness of which one's nature of mind is part.
If this highest, nondual awareness is called "wisdom", then wisdom transcends the world of
the concept (i.e. concrete, formal, critical & creative).
Formally, nondual thought may be approached with the logic of the tetralemma, known in
Indian philosophy as the "catuskoti", worked out in a Buddhist context by Nâgârjuna (ca.
200 CE) in his Mâdhyamaka Kârikâ, and used by countless practicing Buddhists, especially
in Theravâda & Sûtrayâna, as the supreme device, mental tool or efficient instrument to
liberate consciousness from all possible conceptualization, namely by negating all views,
discovering they are without inherent existence, eternal substance, absolute identity or
immortal essence, in short : impermanent. In the Pâli Canon, the principle emerges in the
context of what Buddha Shakyamuni left "undeclared" (cf. Majjhima Nikâya, sutta 63).
"Yoga is the restriction of the fluctuations of consciousness.

Then the seer stands in his own form.
At other times there is conformity with this flux."
Patañjali : Yoga-sûtra, 1.2 - 1.4
In logic, the particle "not" has no other function than to exclude a given affirmation. The
tetralemma excludes everything by exhaustively analyzing what it is not :
1. as it is (identity) : things are always connected with other things and if causality
& change are accepted, then all identity is impermanent and devoid of inherent
existence or substance ;
2. as it is not (negation) : likewise, the negation of anything cannot be done
without negating other things, making what is being negated interconnected
and thus impermanent ;
3. as it is and as it is not (mixture) : to say this clause has meaning is to utter a
meaningless "flatus voci", except if differences in time, space & persons are
introduced. In the latter case, the mixture is a new identity, and (1) applies ;
4. beyond as it is and as it is not (included middle) : only if (1) & (2) cannot be
clearly defined may this clause apply, but it is rejected as invalid. However,
denying the included middle implies the excluded middle if we accept the
principle of double negation, equivalent to the excluded middle.
"For the repelling of unwholesome thoughts, cultivate the opposite."
Patañjali : Yoga-sûtra, 2.33.
The tetralemma negates the four options given by logic (using the "reductio at absurdum",
the "prasanga"). Accepting the first two is "nominal", and no valid path to liberation, for
suffering is what is common to everything. Identity has to be renounced and its emptiness
realized, i.e. conceptualizing the impermanence of everything (due to interconnectedness,
interrelation and causality at work in the nominal consciousness) leads to the end of
conceptualization. Accepting the last two is "irrational", for in classical logic, noncontradiction
& the principle of the excluded middle are necessary (although many-value
logics do not accept the principle of the excluded middle).
By restriction ("nirodha"), each clause removes, dissolves, evacuates & drives calm the
final obstructions of knowledge (cf. "jñeyâ-varana"), and, ultimately, the concordia discors
itself. The result being what is ultimately possible to get closer to the nondual state using
conceptual thought. The tetralemma expresses the inapplicability of ordinary, nominal
conceptual language to the absolute Real-Ideal. The idea behind the tetralemma is to
establish a view beyond concepts, i.e. employ logic to reach beyond logic. Indeed, the
"wisdom" of meditative equipoise cognizing emptiness is induced by an inferential
consciousness segueing into emptiness. The "operation" of the tetralemma is therefore not
self-settled, but a process by which conceptual thought is transformed into the highest
possible wisdom. Is such an "operation" possible ?
The Lumen naturale.

"... for what the natural light shows to be true can be in no degree doubtful, as, for
example, that I am because I doubt, and other truths of the like kind ; inasmuch as I
possess no other faculty whereby to distinguish truth from error, which can teach me the
falsity of what the natural light declares to be true ..."
Descartes : Meditations, III.9.
In La Fléche, Descartes was introduced to the light-metaphysics of the philosophers of the
Renaissance, for whom the "lumen naturale" was still a direct way to know the Divine and
its absolute truth. Augustinian symbolic adualism or Peripatetic empirism both invoke a
sufficient ground outside knowledge. But strict nominalists like Ockham, rejected any form
of natural, primordial, given link between the order of thought and the order of the extramental.
"... commencer tout de nouveau dès les fondements ..."
Descartes : Meditations, 1.1
Descartes wants to escape the nominalism of Duns Scotus (ca. 1266 - 1308). The "Deus
absconditus", the eclipsing of God and Being, are caused by nominalism and its
conventionalism. To escape eternalism (the presence a natural connection or innate bridge
between thought and extra-mental reality) and nominalism (all thinking happens in
conventional symbols, there is no "sacred" language, theory, insight, understanding,
wisdom, etc.), Descartes posits the natural light as before any (conventional) meaning,
before any possible word.
This "lightning" of direct insight happens in the interiority of the human "spirit", an innate,
given, direct, immediate, spontaneous, luminous space or field of endless possibilities. As
in Thomism, light is conceived as an "actus".
With his view on the natural light as a "habitus", as a gift of nature to our human spirit, to
this sublimity beyond object & subject (as thus beyond consciousness), enabling it to
illuminate the imaginary space of our intellect, Descartes distances himself from the Divine
interpretation (steeped in concept-realism and its authorities), positing the nondual
"beginning" or zero-point of the Cartesian grid. This direct, nondual intuition of the point of
singularity implied by the notion of absolute beginning is a point of light, clarity &
luminosity (ironically, the photon has no mass and travels at the highest speed). Cartesius
aimed at a secular sapience, rooted in the natural light of cognition, divorced from
revealed, Divine wisdom. This natural light is ineffable and before consciousness itself.
Descartes uses the metaphor of a blind man with a stick to convey the direct, invisible
activity of the natural light in every cogitation. Only the stick connects the intellect with the
extra-mental. Only in an instantaneous cognition (implying instant presence), can intellect
know the absolute, as Buddhist logicians like Dignâga (480 - 540) and Dharmakîrti (ca. 7th
century) also pointed out.
The stick is pivotal. It represents the immediate, instantaneous cogitation (direct
experience), or "moment of truth", preceding every meaning of every sign. The ultimate
foundation of thought is not found in the object (for then the natural light is also the Divine
light), nor in the subject (for then the natural light is produced by languages, which are
traditional). Only in each individual instance of cogitation, beyond object & subject, is
certainty found, and this because the foundation of the mind found is "natural", i.e. the
stick is trustworthy and represents the "straight path" followed in science as wisdom. The

space illuminated by clarity is before any thought.
The nondual foundation of the mind is the only possible foundation for certain (but
nondual) knowledge (cf. Spinoza's "verum index sui"). The natural light is the nature of
mind or nondual thought. This is a direct, immediate, spontaneous, nondual intuition of the
mind of itself one-fold, before any concepts and words. The latter should be stressed. The
activity of the natural light has no bearing on concepts, but only on clarity, the presence of
clear transparency integrated with every cogitation.
In Cartesian thought, the innate activity of the natural light of the mind is unmistaken,
outspoken & crucial. Invisible and inner, this light illuminates our interiority in very act of
cognition, opening new, ever-receding intellectual horizons for thought. The rationalist is an
intellectual affirming nondual thought.
The nature of mind.
Even the creative concepts of the intellect, still circumambulating a fixed inner point
(namely the own-Self), do not convey the nature or foundation of the mind itself. Without
direct, contemplative experiences, i.e. distinguishing between the use of a logical system
and the direct method of discovering and dwelling in the nature of mind, the foundation of
the mind itself remains covered by conceptualizations, like the Sun behind massive clouds
(cf. mythical notions, pre-concepts & concrete concepts, formal concepts, critical concepts
& creative concepts).
To introduce nondual thought, logic & contemplative experience have to be distinguished. A
direct introduction to and discovery of the natural light, does not create something, rather,
as a mirror, reflects, when secondary causes manifest, the movements of energy appearing
in it.
The nature of mind is ultimate reflectivity & reflexivity (the absolute I knowing the absolute
I). The nature of mind is thus (a) self-clarity, like a Sun allowing itself to be seen or as a
lamp in a dark room lighting up the room but also itself, (b) primordial purity, or the
absence of conceptualization, (c) spontaneous perfection, self-liberating all flux within
consciousness, (d) unobscured self-reflexion, as in a polished mirror, transparency in
variety, like a rainbow or as water taking on the color of the glass and, as space accepting
all objects in it, (e) impartiality.
The fundamental nature of the moving mind, its foundation, is a primordial, pervading
awareness, a non-conceptual, instantaneous self-understanding & presence, an open,
clear, luminous space of possibilities. This nature is not consciousness, and so some form
of awareness functions outside its limits. Indeed, once there is consciousness, there must
be an object and thus a dualism. The open, clear awareness present in nondual thought is
a type of direct perception not found among sensate or mental objects. Hence, it is not an
"intellectual perception", restricted to creative thought. The latter does not observe its own
natural state, but the own-Self and its complex creative hyper-thoughts. Nondual
awareness is not induced by any immediate prior condition. It is a self-settled, wordless,
open awareness, without a place ("epi") on which a subject might stand ("histâmi") and so
pre-epistemological. It is simply present to, aware of, its own state of absolute
absoluteness (as the absolute I only aware of the absolute I).
Although without object, this subjectivity is "aware". It is "awareness of awareness",

eached by a pathless path. It is clarity, but without differentiating anything. Liberation is
discovering it and integrating all with it. And as the essence of all enlightened ones is the
same, their form of manifestation is separate, distinct from one another. Indeed, in the sky
many Suns may arise, but the sky always remains the sky. Likewise, the nature of mind of
every individual is unique & distinct, but the base or essence of every individual is
universal, and common to all sentient beings.
"Because reflexive open awareness lacks holding to any focus, its nature is clear light.
Because its essential nature is untouched by extremes of permanence or annihilation, its
nature is nondual. Because it is uncontaminated by an attraction to either excluding or
including, its nature is blissful. (...) untouched by either the extreme of permanence or
annihilation, it is the Lord that dwells just as it is, aware of everything."
Lishu Daring : Authenticity of Open Awareness (8th century), commentary 526.6ff (Klein &
Wangyal, 2006, p.84).
The essence & its display : energy & the nature of mind.
"There was neither non-existence not existence then.
There was neither the realm of space nor the sky which is beyond.
What stirred ? Where ? In whose protection ?
Was there water, bottomlessly deep ?"
Rig Veda : Creation Hymn, 1.
"Through the paradox of rite, every consecrated space coincides with the center of the
world, just as the time of any ritual coincides with the mythical time of the 'beginning'.
Through repetition of the cosmogonic act, concrete time, in which the construction takes
place, is projected into mythical time, in illo tempore when the foundation of the world
occurred."
Eliade, M. : The Myth of the Eternal Return, 1965, p.21.
In Ancient Egypt, precreation (Nun) was the founding concept of all extant systems of
theology (Heliopolitan, Memphite, Hermopolitan, Osirian & Theban branches). This founding
concept, for which a special virtual adverb clause existed, was, like many others, also a
transposition -in ante-rational, pictorial thought- of an important natural process, in this
case, water surging up as the result of the specifics of the water table of the alluvial plain
of the Nile (another image was provided by water falling from the sky).
As early as the Old Kingdom (ca. 2670 - 2198 BCE), the virtual clause "n SDmt.f", i.e.
"before he has (had) ..." or "he has (had) not yet ..." (Gardiner, § 402), denoted prestates,
namely a potential state before the actual state happens. Because this state was
not yet actual, it indicated mere possibility, virtuality or potentiality, but related to
(preexisting in) the effect. Anterior to creation, it was imagined as limitless waters (or
ocean), called by various names : "nw", "nww", "nnw", "nnww", "nnnww" and "niw",
vocalized in Coptic as "Noun", from which the English "Nun" has been derived.
Nun represented a principle of limitless wholeness before oneness rather than an
individuality (beginning with oneness). It represents dark, primordial undifferentiated
wholeness, preceding the creation of sky and Earth, i.e. before any movement or display
from the base. It represents the everlasting dark pre-condition of creation, but also the
unchanging vastness which abides simultaneous with all possible light-creation or display.

This nondual state is :
"... before the sky existed, before the Earth existed, before that which was to be made
form existed, before turmoil existed, before that fear which arose on account of the Eye of
Horus existed."
Pyramid Texts, utterance 486, § 1040.
In the ontology sketched in the Pyramid Texts, precreation is an undifferentiated mass of
water. The Egyptians gave descriptive rather than denominative qualifications. Nun is
conceived as an inchoate, dark, inert, nonexistent state-of-no-state. A large, inert mass of
water higher than the sky and deeper than the netherworld is the image conveyed. This
virtual realm of the nonexistent is beyond the subtle, invisible strata of creation, beyond
the sky and underneath the netherworld. It is nondual, everywhere and nowhere.
This precreation, or nonexistence, is not a nothingness. There is movement from this base,
there is display, for to be nonexistent potential is obviously to preclude actuality, but in
Egyptian thought this never precludes the potentiality to come into existence, to become,
transform or transmute. The latter is indicated by the verb "kpr", "Kheper", meaning "come
into being, become, change, occur, happen, grow up, come to pass, take place, be
effective, etc". Hence, besides chaotic Nun, precreation also effectuates the capacity of
autogenous creation or self-creation.
The first display from the base is this autogenous activity. Limitless wholeness is before
oneness, or the beginning of order. Light and life are spontaneous manifestations
happening in the base, in Nun. Precreation is the conjunction (unity) of Nun & the sheer
possibility of something preexisting as a nonexistent, virtual, clear, singular, one,
primordial awareness causa sui. Precreation is viewed as the dual-union of Nun and Re-
Atum, of the infinite, dark sea and the primordial light-spark of luminous self-awareness
and self-creation (Atum-Kheprer). The image of Atum, in his Egg, afloat in Nun.
Creation (order, display, effective result) emerges from a singular, atomic monad, floating
"very weary" (CT, utterance 80) in the dark, gloomy, lifeless infinity of Nun. Within the
omnipresent substance of Nun, the possibility of order, light and life subsists : a
nonexistent object capable of self-creation ex nihilo. Hence, although Nun is nowhere and
everywhere, never and always, it is the primordial, irreversible and everlasting milieu in
which the eternal potential of light auto-creates. Although order is not ex nihilo (for there is
"something" before "anything"), self-clarity is spontaneous & without precedent.
Precreation is thus not the zero of nothingness, but the unity of a limitless wholeness (Nun)
and the virtual oneness of a singular, autogenous genetic potential within it (Atum).
"Les Égyptiens ne rencontrent l'unicité absolue de dieu qu'en dehors du monde et de la
création, durant la transition fugace entre la non-existence et l'existence. Par ses travaux
créatifs, le premier - et à l'origine le seul dieu, disperse l'unicité primordiale en une
multiplicité et une diversité de manifestations : ainsi, en dépit de multiples caractéristiques
communes, chaque dieu est unique et incomparable."
Hornung, 1986, p.169, my italics.
Atum "created what exists" and is the "Lord of all things" (CT, utterance 306), "Lord of
All" (CT, utterance 167), "Lord of Everything" and "Lord of Life" (CT, utterance 534). He/
She is "the origin of all the forces and elements of nature" (Allen, 1988, p.9). His/Her name
is a form of the verb "tm", probably a noun of action, meaning both "complete, finish" and

"not be". Indeed, Atum, a bi-sexual supreme deity, makes display/creation emerge and
completes it without belonging to the created order.
"In the beginning Elohîm created the heaven and the Earth. And the Earth was without
form and void ; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved
upon the face of the waters."
Genesis, 1:1-2.
Precreation is more than a dark, everlasting and limitless sea of undifferentiated space. It
is more than a formless mass, inert, dark and inimical to the light-order & its life. In other
words, precreation is not identical with Nun. Atum, the "Ba", "soul" or transformational
principle of Nun, is the co-relative factor of Nun in preexistent nonexistence. Re-Atum-
Kheper represents singularity, order, light and life resulting from self-creation, in essence
self-clarity.
On the first moment of display, or "zep tepi" ("zp tpi"), on this "first occurrence" or "First
Time", Atum is Atum-Kheprer. Before that moment, no order, light or life preexisted. While
Atum "floated" in the inert ocean, this potential was as it were diffused in Nun. But on the
creative instance, the patterns of existence were established and enacted by focus,
contraction and pressure (or singularity). Creation was thus initiated by the distinction
between the surrounding waters (Nun) and the active primordial seed or monad.
Atum-Kheprer creates ex nihilo. The beginning of display and energy (differentiation) is not
the transformation of a previous state. Diffused in Nun, and thus inactive, Atum as Kheprer
autocreates his own change of mode, and recollects out of darkness and dispersal,
reversing the genetic potential, beginning the genesis of light and clarity. Nun is not
changed because of Atum-Kheprer. Although the Egyptians could well see Atum-Kheprer as
the "Ba of Nun", this mythical notion is rather confusing.
Let us go over this notion again. Before the monad Atum self-creates as Atum-Kheprer
(changing from diffused and passive to contracted and active), lifeless, inert, dark
nonexistence prevailed (Nun). With this monad bringing itself into existence, nonexistence
is divided into, on the one hand, the chaotic waters (the Abyss) and, on the other hand, the
seed of order, light and life (the Ennead). Atum represents the spontaneous, genetic
potential of precreation to manifest creation, and because Atum-Kheprer self-creates, there
is nothing anterior to this monad, except the liquid space of disorder and darkness in which
Atum passively floats ... Before becoming singular, Atum (the genetic potential) is diffused
in Nun, and thus incapable of concentration, focus and hence creativity or display of energy.
This difficult notion is touched upon in this remarkable text :
"It is me (who came out of) Nun, the sole one, without equal. If I (Atum) have
transformed, it is on the great occasion of my floating (after) I came into being ! I am he
who flew up, who's {form is that of he who encircles}, who is in his egg. I am the one who
began in the Nun. See : the chaos-gods came out of me ! See : I have come ! If (I)
brought my body into being, it is through my Akh, (for) I am the one who made myself and
I formed myself at my will according to my desire."
Coffin Texts, utterance 714, lines 343-344.
In the "zep tepi", Atum creates and completes the world for his own pleasure and according
to his own heart (or divine mind - cf. Memphite theology).

The reason why something came out of Nun is explained as Atum pleasing himself (the
image of masturbation), not parenthood. Other images convey the meaning of strong and
powerful ejection (as in expectoration or ejaculation). Atum is both male and female and
does not need a consort. The "zep tepi" emerges as the dreamed genesis (of the pantheon
and its "golden" proportions) of an autarchic, masturbating bi-sexual African Solar deity,
who at the moment of ejaculation brings actual creation into being (a "giving birth" of
actualized "nature" of the godhead).
The first occurrence (display) unfolds at the moment creation starts with the spontaneous
emergence of Atum-Kheprer contracting to a luminous point (Re) ex nihilo. Atum is alone
insofar as he has no consort. He is causa sui (cause of itself) and sui generis (the only
example of its kind and so constituting a class of its own, unique).
Atum autogenerates and necessarily splits into a divine diversity. The first "stable" form in
(or first generation of) this "divine comedy" is the fertile trinity "Atum - Shu - Tefnut". His
oneness is "fugal" (running away) and his being alone only serves his autogeneration,
which does not impend an instantaneous differentiation into life and order, on the contrary.
Atum is aloneness-in-transformation, a point of alternation between the diffused genetic
potential and the beginning of light-genesis, the reversal of this diffusion by contraction or
drawing together.
Atum, autogenerating for his own pleasure, immediately & simultaneously splits and, in the
"zep tepi", gives birth to Shu & Tefnut, the start of a chain of ordered structures, the
Ennead or divine sequence : {1, 2, 3} U {4, 5} U {6, 7, 8, 9}. This eternal happening, the
proto-type (matrix) of order, is the imaginal continuum or "Golden Age" of natural
parameters, preparing creation before it happens, and sustaining it when it actually
happens. This is the divine mind and "Golden Age" with its infinite number of names,
attributes and functions.
With Atum-Kheprer and the (eternal) first occurrence, no actual thing is positioned, but
only the structure necessary to manifest light. This is the "Ennead" of Atum : Atum, Shu,
Tefnut, Geb, Nut, Osiris, Isis, Seth, Nephthys. Only the formal conditions of the divine
display are given (i.e. an outline of its elements and forces). The world is in the image of
Atum ("iti tem").
As every thing, except the absolute base or essence (Nun), is a dynamic light-display of the
latter, even clarity and open awareness (Re-Atum) differ not from the ongoing movement
from the base or "energy" (difference) or "Khepri". Instability (Set) is therefore part of this
dynamic display, and "sub specie temporis", the base itself is impermanent (Atum is fugal).
But from the perspective of its own essence, the base is changeless and ceaseless (every
thing floats in Nun).
The essence of everything : the absolute Real-Ideal.
"The Tao that can be trodden, is not the enduring & unchanging Tao. The name that can be
named, is not the enduring & unchanging name."
Lao-Tze : Tao Teh King, 1.1.
"There is no speaking of it, nor name nor knowledge of it. Darkness and light, error and
truth - it is none of these. It is beyond assertion and denial. We make assertions and

denials of what is next to it, but never of it, for it is both beyond every assertion, being the
perfect and unique cause of all things, and, by virtue of its preeminently simple and
absolute nature, free of every limitation, beyond every limitation ; it is also beyond every
denial."
ps.-Dionysius the Areopagite : The Mystical Theology, chapter 5.
In Ancient Egypt, before any light, a dark, undifferentiated, indefinite vastness abided
enduringly & everlastingly ("djedet"). This limitless darkness was always present, did not
change and was without singularities. Nevertheless in this ocean, an inert & diffused
potential for oneness was afloat. Out of itself, this potential hatched as the One to
immediately differentiate, giving form to the natural energy-differentials ruling the order of
light (the "gods & goddesses"). The display of Atum is spontaneous and ongoing, for the
creation of the Ennead is an eternal and unending repetition.
In Dzogpa Chenpo (cf. Bön, Vajrayâna and Iranian light-mysticism), the essence or base of
everything is discovered to be vast, boundless, everlasting, omnipervasive, limitless
expansiveness, immeasurable, uncontracted & immutable. It is neither oneness or twoness,
but indefinite. It is what Mâdhyamika cannot posit by way of inferential logic : emptiness
beyond "affirmation & denial" (cf. negative theology). This base is real and displays itself as
energy (lights, sounds, rays), of which the nature of every mind is part.
Western Abrahamic theology largely affirms the "Names of God" and their underlying
symbolic adualism in terms of dogmatic fideism (escaping nominalism through faith alone).
On the fringes, negative theology identified the essence of God with absolute, nameless,
signless transcendence, only to be approached by nondual, ineffable and un-saying thought
in the contemplation "of the mind".
So, as in Vedânta, with its important, Sanskrit-inspired distinction between "Nirguna-
Brahman" & "Saguna-Brahman", Western onto-theology of the Divine Names and their
"sacred" language (Hebrew, Latin, Arabic), distinguished between the interior "essence" of
God and the exterior "existence" of God, between an impersonal absolute and a personal,
more approachable God.
In Qabalah, "YHVH" being ineffable, is pronounced as "Adonai" (or YHAdonaiVH).
"ALHYM" (or "Elohîms), a masculine plural ("Eloah" is the singular form, "Allah" in Arabic)
of a feminine noun, indicating neutral plurality & receptivity to the creative impulse, is the
"Divine presence" within the created order (cf. the "shekinah"). "Elohîm" is creational as
shown by the first three words of Genesis : "B'RASHITh BaRA ALoHIM ...", "In the
Beginning the "Elohîm" Created ..." "Elohîm said" (343) occurs 10 times (cf. the 10
Emanations or "Sephiroth"). "Elohîm" is repeated 32 times in the first chapter of the
account (cf. the aleph-beth (22) + 10 Sephiroth or the 32 Paths of Wisdom of the Tree of
Life).
"Elohîm" is related to the majestic revelatory plurality of the singular hidden "YHVH" and is
translated as "the holy Gods" or "Gods & Goddesses". It expresses the totality of Divine
attributes (or exterior) and underlines the variety with which the Divine manifests in
creation (God-in-Nature). The "Elohîm" are not idols for no "Eloah" (singular) can constitute
Divine existence without reference to "YHVH", the uncreated silence.
The translators of the Septuagint (starting in the middle of the 3th century BCE) identified
the Hebrew Name of the Divine "YHVH (the) Elohîm" with the Greek "Kyrios ho Theos",

"Kyrios Kyrios" or "Despotes Kyrios", the gods of Hellenism. So "YHVH" was translated as
"the Lord", and "Elohîm" as "God" ("Theos", "Deus"). Thus the plural "ALHYM" became the
singular "God" !
Orthodox Christianity keeps the neo-Platonic division between the inner essence & the
outer face of God. Indeed, the only place in creation where God is constantly Present (after
the ministry of Jesus Christ), is in the Eucharistic Host & Cup. God is therefore "Loinprès"
(or far-near).
In the tradition of Sufism, the essence of the Divine is unknown (nobody known Allah's
Face but He). Divine existence is the Self-disclosure of Sheer Being in an infinite number of
Divine Names, origin of all of creation (cf. Ibn al-'Arabî). Here "Allah" ("The God") is both
Essence (His Face) & Existence (99 most beautiful Names).
These "positive" (dogmatic) theologies "of the book", pertain, as written testimonies, to the
domain of creative thought, invalid when God's essence is at hand. As nominalism is
correct, no symbolic adualism can be invoked to explain the "exclusive" status of any
written text, of whatever nature or whatever its author. There is no God-given bridge from
"text" to "God". Words do not suffice, on the contrary, as mere conventionalities, they
obscure the natural light acting in the mind of each. Hence, as negative theology makes
clear, positive theology becomes uncritical, unworldly & delusional if it does not regularly
purge itself by way of negation, denial and renunciation.
For Plotinus (ca. 205 - 270), multiplicity is a fragmentation of the original unity of the One.
Hence, each stage of emanation is a descent into greater multiplicity, which means greater
restriction, more needs, and the dispersion and weakening of the power of previous stages.
The One is the negation of duality, formless, unmeasured, and infinite. "Soul" (psyche - cf.
empirical ego) and "spirit" (nous - cf. own-Self), are insufficient to know the One, because
both operate by positing object & subject. Contemplation brings us so far as the ideas (of
the own-Self), but only ecstasy allows for glimpses of the One.
"With the absolute I, which can never become object, the principium essendi and
cogniscendi coincide."
Schelling : On the Self, 1.236.
For Schelling, the absolute subject is the knower of itself. It is "den Urstand", which can
never become "Gegenstand" or object. To be known as subject and object is only possible
in "ecstasy". Hence, absolute idealism is also absolute realism, for absolute I = Being
pertains. Besides the reduction of thinking to the ego sum, the latter needs also to be
reduced to an absolute I. So the empirical ego opens up for the state of its own
individuality (or own-Self) and then annihilates this to discover the natural state of mind,
which is one with the absolute I. This identity is then called "real-idealism". In the absolute
I, the fight finally ends, the concordia discors is put to rest. Mind is no longer before
nature, nor is nature before mind. Both are originally united, and the distinction between
two is gone, for the are in reality one ("realiter Eins"). It is possible for a "completed spirit"
to unite with the absolute, to bring on-itself ("an Sich") and for-itself ("für-sich") together.
This is not to have the absolute in thinking (as in Hegelianism), for the spirit being "with
itself" ("der 'bei sich' seinde Geist") has thinking in the absolute. Indeed, the thought of the
absolute is not the state of the absolute !

Mystical experience : contemplation & union.
"'There is no target behind God' - that is the Real, that cannot be coveted. This is the
station of the Real. Do not transgress ! In this station, no station is permitted.
When You arrive, my brothers, return !"
Ibn al-'Arabî : The Meccan Openings, chapter 410 (Chittick, 1998, p.225).
In Classical Yoga ("râja"), three "inner" limbs characterize the path of increasing distinction
between nature ("prakrti") & spirit ("purusha") : concentration ("dhâranâ"), contemplation
("dhyâna") and union ("samâdhi").
Nature includes matter, the world of appearances and mind, or "that which knows".
"Purusha" ("man", "person") is the eternal, absolute I or "own-form" of "citta",
consciousness. It observes the changes in matter as a witness, and, as Sâmkhya
philosophy explains, the world comes into being by a union of both. In Vedânta, "purusha"
is identified with "âtman", and hence also with "Brahman".
For Patañjali, the three "inner" limbs form a whole, called "restraint" or "selfcontrol"
("samyama"). Contemplation is an incomplete union (cf. the presence of the own-
Self as "samskâra" and/or the "union with nature"). Only when nature & pure
consciousness are absolutely divorced, will all fluctuations of consciousness be restricted.
This is not described as a "standing-outside-oneself" or "ecstasy", but as the realization of
the true core of consciousness, "purusha". To realize the "own-form" of consciousness is
restricting all of its fluctuations, bringing its luminous nature to the surface.
"And when fluctuations have dwindled consciousness is like a precious jewel ; there results
with reference to the 'grasper', the 'grasping' and the 'grasped' a coincidence with that on
which consciousness abides & by which it is 'anointed'."
Patañjali : Yoga-sûtra, 1.41.
In Zen, belonging to the Mahâyâna, "satori" is the beyond of knower & known. In
Vajrayâna Buddhism, "union" is not called "samâdhi", but "contemplation" ("dhyâna"). This
is a state of emptiness, or absence of inherent existence and substance, united with clarity.
This highest meditative state is present in the inseparability of clarity & emptiness, which is
liberation or "nirvâna".
In Dzogchen Buddhism, mindnature generates an ultimate, primordial wisdom beyond
thought.
"One is introduced directly to one's own state.
One definitively decides upon this unique state.
One continues directly with confidence in liberation."
Garab Dorje : The Three Statements That Strike the Essential Points, (Reynolds, 1996, p.39).
The "gradual", "staircase" methods of Sûtrayâna & Tantrayâna use a "scala perfectionis"
based on renunciation, compassion & emptiness, involving transforming impure into pure,
slowly accommodating the advent of the highest state of awareness. Sûtra teachings
accept the absolute view may be realized using conventional logic. Dzogchen, accepting no
conceptual authentication of the absolute, directly introduces the nature of mind & its light
(clarity) by pointing to its immediate, instantaneous and constant presence hic et nun.

Once properly introduced, only two practices pertain : (1) constantly cutting through the
conceptualizations created by the mind, and so each time being re-enlightened
("tregchöd") and (2) integrating every display from the base (pure & impure) with
mindnature ("thödgal"). These ongoing, primary practices no longer rest on meditational
sittings & pûjâs (both Sûtrayâna & Tantrayâna are "secondary" practices). Cutting through
and integration bring the mind to itself and so allow it to be convinced of the genuine
reality of its own light-nature, which is a display from the essence of everything. They
enables the mind to better integrate every thought, affect & action in mindnature through
self-liberation : as everything is as what it is, nothing must be done (i.e. rejected or
affirmed). Without effort, every thought, affect and action is seen to "liberate" itself
spontaneously. Being impermanent, it vanishes. To release all conceptualization is the
precondition to gain confidence in the "even plains" of nondual thought.
"The nature of phenomena is nondual,
but each one, in its own state, is beyond
the limits of the mind.
There is no concept that can define
the condition of 'what is',
but vision nevertheless manifests :
all is good !
Everything has already been accomplished,
and so, having overcome the sickness of effort,
one finds oneself in the self-perfected state :
this is contemplation."
Garab Dorje : The Six Vajra Verses (Norbu, 1996, p.81).
In Qabalah, "katlut" denotes the lower, "nominal", material kind of consciousness of the
fallen Adam. The "Fallen Daughter" ("Assiah", manifestation), bound by the four elements
of the physical four-dimensional world of the body ("Malkuth", the kingdoms of thought,
volition, affects & sensation), is conscious of herself in a confused, dreamlike Lunar way
("Yetzirah", formation). In this world of mind & imagination, consciousness, operating in a
fifth dimension, does not exceed its own egological deeds, affects and cogitations (limited
to the formal and the critical).
The higher state ("gatlut") is two-tiered. In Tiphareth, the Solar adept experiences, knows
& communicates with his or her Higher Self, the incarnating own-Self or "ego sum". This is
a glorious spiritual experience. Transformation, freedom & compassion are necessary to
cross the "abyss" separating the world of soul ("Briah", creation) from the world of spirit
("Atziluth", Divine presence). The latter is nondual & ineffable, involving a direct special,
unworldly knowledge ("Daath") of the three factors of Divinity : Understanding ("Binah"),
Wisdom ("Chockmah") & Crown ("Kether"), in other words, the triad of material forms,
natural lights & ALHYM or "Gods & Goddesses" respectively, "YHVH" or "God" being posited
beyond the Crown (as "Ain Soph Aur").
Christian mysticism, dominated by theological Christocentrism, introduced two paths to
experience God : contemplation "of the heart" and contemplation "of the mind". In both

cases, the essence of God is never known, but only how He shows Himself to the mystic.
The mystic knows God only thanks to Divine Grace, as a gift of the Holy Spirit and never as
the result of any effort or special technique (virtue prepares but does not produce). The
contemplation of the heart or love-mysticism, involves a direct contact with the absolute
through the dynamics of "holy" love, described by Beatrice of Nazareth (1200 - 1268), in
her Seven Ways of Holy Love (1237), as a process unfolding in seven steps. The highest
way brings the soul "into the insusceptible wisdom and the silent highness, into the deep
abyss of the Deity, who is everything in everything that exists, insusceptible, elevated
above everything, imperishable, almighty, all-embracing, and who acts all-ruling in
everything that exists" (Seventh Way, § 1). On this highest level, her Divine love has
objects as Christ and the Holy Trinity, but not God-as-He-is.
Contemplation "of the mind" brings the mystic close to God by way of the "imago Dei"
hidden in the depth of the soul. In this type of experience, the absolute dawns. In the
Spiritual Espousals (1335) of Jan van Ruusbroec (1293 - 1381), the path of the Christian
mystic has three parts : the "via pugativa" (the "active life"), the "via illuminativa" (the
"yearning life") & the "via unitiva" (or the "contemplative life"). The last is also called "the
third life" and deals with the supreme mystical experience. The core of the mystical
teachings of Jan van Ruusbroec is the "summit of the inner life" and was considered by
major French theologians like Jean Gerson (1363 - 1429) as heretical (because -in his
reading- it was pantheistic) and hence a good candidate for rejection & critical scrutiny. For
although Ruusbroec does stress the ontological difference between God and the
contemplative, he nevertheless is unable to stop this overt proof of orthodoxy of being
blurred by his definition of contemplation as "seeing God with God". The conflict between
orthodox mystical theology and Ruusbroec's ultimate mystical experience is prominent in
the text and often one has the impression that he invokes orthodoxy just to avoid
condemnation each time his experience transcends important ontological boundaries. Did
Ruusbroec think it possible to trespass the "natural" God-given limitations of created
beings ? By stressing the core of our being is nothing less that God Himself, he comes very
near the Vedânta and its identification of the soul ("âtman") with absolute being
("Brahman"), and seems to underpin the claim of some Islamic mystics, like Mansur Al-
Hallaj (ca. 858 - 922), that they actually are "Allah" !
In Sufism, the sea can not be separated from the waves, nor can the waves exist without
the sea. All these waves of light have names and create worlds, but there is nothing but
the sea and its water. The water of the sea is always the selfsame water. Only the color of
the cup determines its color. The Islamic mystic who plunges into this ocean of light
annihilates everything he or she is (cf. "fanâ" or "annihilation"). What is left is utter
darkness because of the nearness to the Absolute light. In that darkness is hidden the
"Water of Life". To drink this water (a metaphor of "baqâ" or "survival") is to recover from
total oblivion and survive as the perpetual witness of the Absolute. One is reborn as a
totally renewed & perfected human being in the imperishable light which is the Face of the
Absolute, but not the Absolute-as-such. The mystic cannot become God Himself !
Indeed, Sufi ontology of "wahdat al wujûd" (the unity of being), distinguishes between
being-as-being (One & Necessary) and being-as-existence (multiple & possible), between
being indeterminate and determinate. The mystic witnesses multiplicity as an expression, a
modality of the absolute being-as-being. But the latter is irreversibly ineffable,
incomprehensible & incomparable (i.e. the One Alone without a second). Indeed, in the

Koran we read :
"Allah warns you about His Self."
Koran, 3:28.
The task of philosophy ?
"He who sees the Infinite in all things sees God.
He who sees the Ratio only sees himself only.
Therefore God becomes as we are, that we may be as he is."
Blake, There is No Natural Religion, ca.1788.
It is not possible to express with words what is before and after words, forcing the infinite
into the finite categories of concepts. But although ineffable, wordless, non-conceptual &
non-verbal, nondual thought nevertheless exist. The religions "of the book" (Judaism,
Christianity, Islam) reject any direct experience of God-as-God on onto-fideist grounds,
and if contemplatives do touch the level of nondual thought and dare to express it, they are
condemned, marginalized as insane, excommunicated and/or killed.
A direct experience of mindnature is the sole remedy here, not dubious poetry like "an
awareness of awareness no longer consciousness", etc. Nevertheless, when their direct
experience can no longer be kept a secret, mystics only have ambiguous poetical language
and flamboyant prophetic speech as their final refuge ! Then, spurred by their enthusiasm,
they evoke the deepest mystery, but this hidden, implicate layer of theirs, effective no
doubt, is always at work without words & concepts, as the wisdom of silence.
How can philosophy assist in the discovery of the nondual ?
Theoretically, even creative thought is untestable, only arguable. The sublime constructions
of the own-Self are immanent metaphysical speculations, transcending the limitations
imposed by formal & critical thought. Here, philosophy has logic, argumentation & the rules
of the ars inveniendi left as methods to discern between valid & invalid creativity, between
strong, doubtful & weak arguments in the quest for totalizing answers regarding being, life
& the human. This is important, for some speculative thinkers (like Hegel - cf. supra), posit
the "Divine" within conceptual thought. Their systems block the direct discovery of the nonverbal
pyramidion crowning the obelisk of consciousness with un-saying. One cannot
discover the non-conceptual by applying inferential logic to concrete, formal, critical or
metaphysical (hyper) concepts.
Insofar as the complete unfoldment of the cognitive continuum from myth to the nondual is
deemed necessary, metaphysics may develop ways to annihilate the own-Self, as it were
prepare cognition for its last & final step : nondual thought. Acting as a preliminary, the
philosophy of emancipation gathers the mental conditions necessary to develop the best
possible mindset to discover mindnature. It has no other focus, and mindnature (not the
Real-Ideal) lies at the heart of such a "therapeutic" philosophy, as an act of caring for
growth-potential and full realization.
Practically, the wise is constantly working to make things fit in a less limited & narrowed
"space". Clutching to pet ideas is renounced. The annihilation of the own-Self, as well as its
rebirth, resuscitation & resurrection, are ongoing in each "invention" (cf. the alchemical
"solve et coagula"). The own-Self, as a cup, is (re)created for the sake of compassion and

out of love for all beings of light. The own-Self is a "phantasm" (a fiction) at work (i.e.
genuinely operational) to help other beings to be less & less engrossed, anticipating &
unable to "fit in" all others in their "Lebenswelt".
The practice of philosophy is helpful to lay bare mindnature. Open dialogue with a "spiritual
friend" lies at the core of all spiritual transmissions, empowerments & initiations. However,
this is but preliminary play, for if nondual thought can be pointed at (introduced
ostentatiously as in : "There it is !"), it cannot be developed, produced, generated, invited,
transmitted, anticipated, taught etc., completely & irreversibly baffling & perplexing
conceptual thought ... even wondrously annihilating the own-Self (again).
As the blanks in-between thoughts, it occurs and that is what is.
Epilogue : Guidelines
● reason (formal & critical thought) is not intellect (creative & nondual
thought) ;
● neither is reason instinct (ante-rational thought) ;
● or intuition instinct ;
● or instinct intuition ;
● confirm the heuristic contribution of an immanent metaphysics of
finitude to science ;
● to move beyond critical thought, is to transcend the "nominal"
empirical ego, the fugal "I" ;
● beyond critical thought, always maintain a non-ontological definition
of "intellectual perception" or intuitional knowledge, affirming
intellect does not create outer objects without the outer senses
(which are everybody's share) ;
● conceive the own-Self or "ego sum" as the heart of an existential,
meaningful, inner, positive, creative experience, like an imaginal,
intellectual, meta-physical space, set ablaze by the Cartesian "lumen
naturale" ;
● creativity guards the limitations set by the immanent metaphysics of
the own-Self ;
● always remind the ineffable, nonverbal, non-discursive, nonconceptual
nature of nondual thought, shaping the "apex" of thought
as an open area of endless possibilities, a direct experience of the
nature of mind ;

Table of Contents
Prologue
Introduction
● transcendent metaphysics poetically extols mind-nature & the
absolute Real-Ideal ;
● who knows whether the clear light of mindnature is united with the
base of everything ?
● who knows whether mindnature is a luminous energy-singularity of
the absolute Real-Ideal ?
● philosophy may seek preliminaries for the nondual but without
causality between preparation & fruit ;
● the practice of philosophy is the open space in "a forest dark",
bringing to awareness a change of mind is possible and so indirectly
pointing to the transparant openness of the natural light of mind.
Chapter 8
Does the Divine exist ?
prolegomena to a possible religious philosophy
"Wovon man nicht sprechen kann, darüber muß man schweigen."
Wittgenstein, L. : Tractatus Logico-Philosophicus, 7.
1. Windows on the traditional proofs of God.
1.1 Aristotle on the Supreme Being.
1.2 To battle over universals.
1.3 Anselm of Canterbury's ontological proof.
1.4 The "quinque viis" of Thomas Aquinas.
1.5 Ockham's first Conserver.
1.6 Cusanus and the coincidentia oppositorum.

1.7 The Cartesian proofs of God.
1.8 David Hume and the cause of order.
1.9 Kant and the architect of the world.
2. A revised ontological proof of Divine existence ?
2.1 Kant and the ontological proof.
2.2 Phenomenology and the question of Being.
2.3 The logic of the revised proof.
2.4 Process philosophy and God.
2.5 The a priori argument rejected.
3. Towards an exposure of the Divine.
3.1 The Münchhausen-trilemma in science & religion.
3.2 The genetic approach to knowledge.
3.3 The argument from design - the anthropic principle.
3.4 The "Anima Mundi" and the worship of Nature.
3.5 Memorial & wager-argument of Pascal.
3.6 Uncertain objectivity in authentic existence.
3.7 Objective chance.
3.8 The case of Raja Yoga.
3.9 The God-spot : a brain wired for the Divine.
3.10 Atheism - agnosticism - gnosis.
Suggested Reading
Prologue
Can logical atheists, arguing against the existence of the Divine, be refuted ? Can the
concept of a theist, omnipotent, omniscient & transcendent God be made meaningless ? Is
a rational discourse on the Divine possible ? These questions are answered affirmatively.
Studying movement, Aristotle conjectured a Supreme Being. Rooted in fideism and
Platonism, Anselm of Canterbury tried to prove God's existence a priori, from mere
concepts. Thomas Aquinas offered five arguments a posteriori intended to help believers
apologize Divine existence by observing the world. Like Ockham, Kant argued with success
the impossibility of any possible proof of a transcendent God, but like the Franciscan,
accepted a highest cause in the finite order of actual things. Although no definite concept of
it is possible, its greatness, intelligence and conserving power can be admired.
What formerly was called "cognitio experimentalis Dei", although deemed possible, is
limited by genetico-cognitive criteria, leading up to a "desperate leap" (Kant) or a "leap of
faith" (Kierkegaard), and a reevaluation of the "psychic mechanism" (Breton) advocated by
surrealism and put into practice by the dadaists. First Patañjali's yoga is taken as a
historical, non-Western, example of a common religious practice of spiritual emancipation
and experience, and then the neurological structures computing this are referenced.
These considerations lead to a re-evaluation of "atheism" and "agnosticism", bringing to

the fore the quest for a gnostic interpretation of the existence of the Divine, in terms of an
immanent metaphysics of becoming (cf. Whitehead) and a henotheist pan-en-theism. The
experience of the unity of the world may serve as the exclusive stepping-stone to a nonconceptual,
mystical experience of outwordliness and transcendence.
These exceptional experiences, so do mystics testify, may be poured in non-propositional
statements of the most sublime poetic excellence, exemplaric of God. This pataphysics is
suggestive, intimate, subtle, tactful and non-directive.
True religion is applied poetry.
Introduction
"How can cosmic religious feeling be communicated from one person to another, if it can
give rise to no definite notion of a God and no theology ? In my view, it is the most
important function of art and science to awaken this feeling and keep it alive in those who
are receptive to it."
Einstein, A. : "Religion and Science", New York Times Magazine , 9 XI 1930.
§ 1
The skeptic Pyrrho of Elis (ca. 365 - 275 BCE) taught conflicts between two (or more)
criteria of truth automatically lead to an apory or an antinomy, i.e. a contradiction posed by
a group of individually plausible but collectively inconsistent propositions. The truth of a
given criterion can only be argued using true propositions. But, whenever a given criterion
is justified, a petitio principii or circular argument is involved. Discussions about the
criterion of truth are therefore unending and without solution.
This holds true within and between the monotheist religions, based on a criterion of truth
rooted in a particular "revelation" of "God", called "Adonai" by the Jews, "Father" by the
Christians and "Allah" by the Muslims.
Ad intra. Catholics claim the New Testament is true because Jesus and the authors of these
books were inspired by the Holy Spirit and thus expressed the "Word of God". Because of
this, the New Testament is absolutely true (Ratzinger : Dominus Iesus, § 8). But why
believe God is the author, and not some malin génie ? Because these books say so.
Muslims claim the Koran is the last and most true revelation of God. Why ? Because God
said this to His prophet Muhammad. How do we know this ? Because the Koran says so,
and authors claiming the presence of Satanic verses in it should be executed.
Ad extra. As major differences between these faiths occur, no truth-bearing communication
is possible between them, for none will relinquish the "sacred" set of beliefs adhered to,
and this despite the conflicts with the other revelations (of the same God). For example,
the ontological identity between Jesus Christ and God will never be accepted by the Jews
and the Muslims, whereas the revelation of the Koran to Muhammad by God will never be
accepted by the Christians, who see Christ as the fulfillment of Judaism. Neither is it likely
for them to ever change their core dogma's. Because of this, in every communication, an
implicate, silent and hidden a-symmetry will be maintained by both sides, each considering
the other as holding a lesser truth, a lesser view on God. Hence, only strategic action is

possible, but truth-bearing communicative deeds are out of the question.
This emphatically points to the pivotal importance of science in a possible religious
philosophy, for ecumenism is bound to book marginal advances only, which, given the
popularity of the Abrahamic "religions of the book", nevertheless may be of crucial practical
significance (like peace).
§ 2
The existence of God is the propositional core of the doctrine of theology. God is not merely
symbolical, but always theo-ontological, not only restricted to myth, language and
mentalities, but involving nature, humanity and the future of creation. One cannot worship
God if there is not something worthy to be worshipped. To not take the proposition "God
exists" literally, is equal to not believing in the existence of God, which is the thesis of
historical atheism. The matter of God's existence is the core dogma of all possible
theologies and its "proof" the task of religious philosophy.
To facilitate the entire argument, let us avoid a relative treatment of the subject, i.e. one
posited from the perspective of a single theological system of beliefs among many. Hence,
in what follows, "the Divine" is divorced from the exclusive milieu of Abrahamic
monotheocentrism (Judaism, Christianity, Islam). The question is not : "Does the God of
Abraham exist ?", but : "Does the Divine exist ?". This intention calls into being the "fuzzy"
set called "Divine", encompassing all possible supernatural entities (like the Abrahamic
God, Hindu, Jain, Shinto, Taoist, Shamanist Divinities, etc.), as well as all natural entities
with unequivocal supernatural capacities (like the Buddha, Guru's, Masters, etc.). Logical
concerns thus invite the non-casual use of the word "God", suggestive of historical
monotheocentrism and religious philosophy (cf. the "God of the Philosophers").
Hence, the words "Divine" and "Divinity" will cover monotheism, henotheism and
polytheism, yes, even non-theist Buddhism. The complete fuzzy set of the Divine is
targeted when we ask : "Does God exist ? Do Gods exist ? Does the Buddha exist ?", in
short : "Does the Divine exist ?" Atheism then, is the denial of Divine existence, exceeding
the rejection of the Abrahamic, sole God Alone, but covering the whole range of mystical,
religious and spirito-communal phenomena in all religions of all times. To better identify
the contents of this fuzzy set, let us distinguish between four historical theo-ontological
models of the Divine :
1. Semitic model : God is One and Alone. He, the sole God, is an unknown and
unknowable Divine Person, Who Wills good & evil alike (cf. Judaism & Islam),
calling man to do good ;
2. Greek model : God is a Principle of principles, the best of the best (Plato), the
unmoved mover (Aristotle), the One even ecstasy does not reveal, impersonal
and in no way evil or tainted by absence or privation of being (Plotinus), the
First Intellect (Ibn Sina), a "God of the philosophers" (Whitehead). This abstract
God figures in intellectual theologies, in humanism & in atheism. In the latter,
by the "alpha privativum" of the Divine, as in a-theism, an absolute term is
produced, but this time by negation instead of by affirmation ;
3. Christian model : God is One essence in Three Persons : God the Father
revealed by God's incarnated Son, Jesus Christ, because, in and with God the

§ 3
deifying Holy Spirit. A God of Love, never impersonal, always without evil (pure
of heart) and sole cause of goodness ;
4. Oriental model : God, The All, is One sheer Being present in every part of
creation in terms of a manifold of impersonal & personal Divine Selfmanifestations
(theophanies), as we see in Ancient Egypt, Alexandrian
Hermetism (gnosis), Paganism, Hinduism (Vedanta), Taoism & Hermeticism.
Also in science, the problems posed by skepticism had to be addressed. Especially since
Kant, the question "What can I know ?" has been crucial. The apory between "realism" and
"idealism" (cf. Chapter 2) is also without final result. The foundational approach favored
since the Greeks has caused a pendulum movement between two criteria of truth
(consensus versus correspondence). To move beyond this, the antinomic problems of
justificationism (foundational, fundamentalist thinking within science) must be clear : if, on
the one hand, real "sense data" are the only building-blocks of "true" knowing, as realism
maintains, then why is the definition of the word "sense datum" not a sense datum ? Also :
how can a "naked" or "raw" sense datum be observed if our mental framework coconstitutes
our observation ? If, on the other hand, ideal linguistic symbols and speechsituations
are the exclusive arena of truth, as idealism maintains, then how can knowledge
be knowledge if it is in no way knowledge of something (i.e. a "res" and not only "flatus
voci") ?
A focus of truth "behind the mirror" (as Kant put it) comes within reach if and only if both
perspectives, experiment (correspondence, objectivity) and argumentation (consensus,
intersubjectivity) are used together, and this in a regulative, non-constitutive
(unfoundational) way. The criterion of truth is not justified by a sufficient ground outside
knowledge, but by discovering the normative principles governing all possible knowledge.
The latter are bi-polar but interactive and never exclusive, as 19th century, Newtonian
scientific thinking claimed. Insofar as either realism or idealism are accepted, the logical
problems of science's truth claim do not exceed the religious criterion of truth. It cannot
escape the apory as long as it identifies with objectivity at the expense of subjectivity and
intersubjective symbolization (as in logical positivism, materialism, scientism,
instrumentalism, reductionism and epiphenomenalism) or with subjectivity and
intersubjective symbolic activities with disregard for entities independent of the human
sphere (as in spiritualism). Facts are not only experimental and not only argumentative.
Empirico-formal object-knowledge is always the product of two vectors at work
simultaneously. Not because of some ulterior reason, but because it must be so and has
always been so.
Kant's epistemology is a attempt to adhere to the postulate of foundation, for synthetic
judgments a priori are rooted in the cognitive, categorial apparatus of the subject of
experience, without which no thinking is possible. These categories hold true for the object
of experience insofar as this object is constituted in observation by our capacity of
observation and knowledge. For Kant, scientific knowledge (empirico-formal propositions)
does not deal with reality-as-such, but with reality-for-us. However, as relativity &
quantum mechanics disagree with the principles of Newtonian physics Kant thought to be
anchored in our minds, it becomes clear these categories are not absolutely certain and not
a priori. Kant's attempt to anchor science failed.

It took more than a century before the antinomy between realism and idealism was
critically superseded by a normative theory on the possibility and the production of
knowledge. In contemporary scientific practice, scientific facts are the outcome of two
simultaneous vectors, on the one hand, objective experiments and their repetition, and, on
the other hand, intersubjective communication between the community of signinterpreters.
Logic provides a few a priori conditions, related to form, clarity and elegance
of the symbols of the theory. Epistemology adds a few objective and intersubjective criteria
and the local research-unit will foster a series of a posteriori rules of thumb. Nevertheless,
despite all possible care, scientific knowledge cannot be absolutist or radical, but instead
delicate, prudent & provisional.
Hence, empirico-formal knowledge, or knowledge of facts, is conditional, relative,
hypothetical and historical, although a clear theory, explaining lots of phenomena will
(provisionally) always be called "true", meaning "very probable", not "certain". A set of
such theories will constitute a tenacious scientific paradigm, covering entities which "kick"
and "kick back". But things may change ...
"It is an hypothesis that the sun will rise tomorrow : and this means that we do not know
whether it will rise."
Wittgenstein, L. : Tractatus Logico-Philosophicus, 6.36311.
§ 4
Historical atheism, the proposition denying the existence of the Divine, has attacked its
counter-thesis on several fronts :
1. theology :
There are conflicting revelations and faiths. This makes every fundamental
theology trivial ;
2. theodicy :
If the Divine is deemed good, then the massive amount of evil history records
could not exist, so the Divine is nonexistent ;
3. irrationality :
The theologies of the world evidence triviality, lack of elegance, inefficiencies,
major contradictions and apories, absence of fact & poor argumentation, in
short : irrationality ;
4. criterion of truth :
A religious criterion of truth cannot be justified, for the attempt will always
entail a circular argument ;
5. logic :
It can logically be demonstrated the existence of the Divine is either an empty
set or untrue.
6. science :
The existence of the Divine is not corroborated by contemporary science.
Contra 1
In a philosophical context, fundamental theology is unnecessary. The revelations and their

dogmatic theologies are not the only possible superstructures of direct spiritual experience.
Conflicts between superstructures prove the point of mysticology : the phenomena of
spirituality have to be put in the center, not their symbolization. Fundamental theologies
are indeed trivial. Moreover, they are the origin of fanaticism, closed mindedness,
reactionary reflexes and misplaced conservatism. In the context of monotheism, they have
been the cause of too many bloody conflicts. Religious philosophy in tune with reason is
deeply "protestant", and thus against the canonization and eternalization of spiritual
symbolizations, instead promoting the idea of permanent revolution and personal
experience.
Contra 2
Directed against Christianity, this argument is valid and strong. The goodness of God
cannot be reconciled with the massive presence of evil and death, despite Christ.
Tertullian's "Credo quia absurdum est" is the only escape for Christian philosophy, for all
the rest is vanity. The just order of the good God and the NAZI death camps form an
eternal conflict. Unfortunately, the latter were real.
A religious philosophy in harmony with reason will necessarily have to accept the evil, dark
side of the Divine. Divine wrath cannot be avoided if we wish to understand why
omnipotence allows us to suffer as we do. To acknowledge this dark side, does not negate
the possibility of Divine goodness. Instead of the Platonic "agathon", a balance of Divine
attributes prevails. To confess a theological impasse, no "mysterium inequitatis" needs to
be invoked. The inability to escape this dead-end, causes a spiritual standstill, a dangerous
deadlock in which most world religions fossilize.
Contra 3
Irrationality implies an open conflict with reason. This can be in terms of the norms of
thought, affect and action, trivial complexities, multiplication of entities or operators, lack
of elegance, inefficient paraconsistency, major contradictions and apories. Irrationality may
also manifest as absence of fact and/or poor argumentation.
Unfortunately, in terms of the questio facti, the religions have indeed excelled in
irrationality. This has many causes. A religious philosophy has to pose the questio iuris,
and first investigate the possibility of a possible knowledge of the Divine. The fact most (if
not all) world religions failed to ask about their proper limitations, does not imply religious
philosophy has to follow their example, quite on the contrary. The challenge is this : is true
religious knowledge possible ? If we limit ourselves to history, the answer will surely be
negative.
Contra 4
As long as this argument is raised in the context of the foundational view on science, it
may cause harm in all forms of religious knowledge, for its logic is flawless. Circular
arguments cannot justify knowledge, but nothing can. If this is not understood, and reality
(or ideality) is deemed the rock bottom of knowledge, i.e. a sufficient ground to stop the
chain of justification ad hoc, then the circular arguments of fundamental theology are
considered inferior to those of science. Then science becomes the only game leading up to
true propositions, either as "real facts" or as "ideal symbols". Epistemology has made null
the pretence to absolute knowledge, i.e. the complete identity between "real" and "ideal",

etween "experiment" and "theory".
Scientific knowledge is a system of empico-formal propositions involving "facts" produced
by an experimental set-up and a chain of dialogal processes, both strategic and
communicative. Besides scientific knowledge, metaphysics speculates to arrive at a global
perspective on the world. Being no longer the foundation of science, metaphysics aims to
understand the world and man, feeding its arguments with scientific facts, the
condensation of the activity of objective and (inter)subjective principles, norms & maxims.
Situated "next" to "physics" (or science), speculative philosophy is meta-physics, the
inescapable background of all possible scientific knowledge. The demarcation between both
is clear, for science is testable and arguable, whereas metaphysics is only subject to the
laws of logic and argumentation. Metaphysics is speculative and argumentative, but never
experimental and factual.
We define "rationality" as the set of cogitationes uniting 3 subsets :
1. normative philosophy :
the normative disciplines delving up the principles governing thought
(epistemology), affect (esthetics) and action (ethics) ;
2. scientific knowledge :
all empirico-formal propositions which are probably true in most tests
(regulated by the idea of correspondentio) and for most concerned signinterpreters
(regulated by the ideal of a consensus omnium), but never
absolutely true ;
3. metaphysics :
all speculative propositions which have been the subject of a dialogal &
argumentative process (argued plausibly, i.e. backed by arguments).
Religious knowledge is not necessarily anchored in a sufficient ground. If so, circularity
ensues. Like scientific knowledge, it is the outcome of objective and subjective states,
conditions and symbols. Just as scientific knowledge changes and evolves, so may our
insights of the spiritual world grow and emancipate.
Contra 5
If the existence of the Divine is kept outside the set of facts (the "world" in scientific
terms), then it is deemed exclusively apophatic, or object of un-saying only. For to those
accepting the definition of rationality as the union of normative, scientific and metaphysical
knowledge, this exclusive apophatism holds the thesis of the meta-rationality of religion.
Then, even metaphysics would be unable to say anything sensible about the Divine,
making religious philosophy impossible.
"How things are in the world is a matter of complete indifference for what is higher. God
does not reveal himself in the world."
Wittgenstein, L. : Tractatus Logico-Philosophicus, 6.632.
The thesis of the meta-rationality of religion can never be put to the test, for according to
the thesis, there will never be a fact (in the world) able to objectify the Divine. Likewise,
nothing can be said about the Divine, and so no argumentation is possible. The "thesis" is
thus not even metaphysical. Logically, this implies the Divine and the empty set are

identical. If such exclusive apophatism is maintained, the conclusion of logical atheism is
indeed inevitable : the Divine does not exist, for this fuzzy set is not a normative principle
(it is not clear how the denial of the Divine involves a contradictio in actu exercito), not a
fact of the world, nor a possible concept in an argumentative metaphysical discourse.
Even ps-Dionysius paired apophatism with the kataphasis of the Divine in the world. For
the mystics of many religions (but not so for theologians and fundamentalists), Divinity is
simultaneously far and near, remote and close. This bi-polarity, the two "eyes" of the
Divine, makes logical atheism impossible. Of course, the burden of proof now falls on
religious philosophy to demonstrate how the presence of the Divine in the world, Divinityas-fact,
can be a valid hypothesis one may put to the test and argue about.
The theologies accept the katapathic side of the polarity, for otherwise they have nothing
to reveal. They eternalize a series of propositions and negate all other possible
theophanies. To succeed, they must believe to possess a superior revelation. Even if they
accept other (conflicting) revelations (i.e. the Divine as experienced by other believers),
they must eventually consider theirs as better and the last word to be said about the
matter. This is the hallmark of fundamentalism.
If, avoiding logical atheism, we accept to give factual contents to the Divine, then religious
philosophy is burdened to provide the answer to the question : How are Divine facts
produced ? If no experiments are possible and/or dialogue is always power-driven, then it
is clear that, for the time being, we act "as if" the proposition "The Divine does not exist."
is true. For, ex hypothesi, the Divine is not only a speculative object of metaphysics, but
also part of the world as a radical experience "totaliter aliter". If conflicting theological
foundations may lead to the same spiritual datum, then how to (in the stage of theory
formation) isolate genuine spiritual facts and define the Divine in terms remaining close to
the phenomenology of its direct experience (mysticism) ? These terms are not to be
derived from religious superstructures, although they can never be completely devoid of
theoretical connotations. Perhaps religious philosophy may provide a minimal framework
derived from the principles of participant observation and critical hermeneutics ?
Suppose the Divine is nowhere found. What does this imply ? Only that for the moment
science finds it highly unlikely for the Divine to exist. Just as it is improbable for the Sun
not to rise tomorrow. This is something else than certainty, which is not provided by
scientific knowledge. As we do not know for certain the Sun will rise tomorrow in the same
way as we know it rose yesterday, another question is : How is the Divine probable ?
In short : the factuality of the Divine negates logical atheism, placing the burden of proof
on all spiritual people. If the latter are unable to back their musings, based on the
fundamental proposition ("The Divine exists."), then religion is not an absolute untruth,
but, insofar as our knowledge goes, relatively untrue. In the latter case, we can only
confirm (for the time being), that the ideas and practices of religions are indeed
insignificant and silly. As such, they should not be allowed to play their games, especially
politically and education-wise.
Contra 6
So even if the hypothesis stating the disclosure of the Divine is found to be not (yet)
factual, we never absolutely know Divinity not to exist, nor whether some day the Divine
may indeed become factual. In the supposed case, we only take a bet on a high probability,

nothing more.
"Progress in truth -truth of science and truth of religion- is mainly a progress in the framing
of concepts, in discarding artificial abstractions or partial metaphors, and in evolving
notions which strike more deeply into the root of reality."
Whitehead, A.D. : Religion in the Making, 1926.
The overall probabilism of science has weakened the position of historical atheists persuing
the last line of attack, especially the pretentious roarings of logical positivists and
materialists. If no certain foundation is given, then no certain conflict with it can be
ascertained, and so the thesis of Divine existence cannot be absolutely negated, only
relatively. This does not diminish the obvious fact worshipping an entity that very probably
does not exist is rather silly and in conflict with scientific rationality. If so, then in no way
must this fictional belief be granted constitutional powers or way of law. This does not take
away the right of the most bamboozling of faiths to become a pressure group and influence
the democratic process.
In short : atheism's proposition ("The Divine does not exist."), if well argued, is as likely as
the rising of the Sun tomorrow. But this is not the same as to know for certain and
eternalize the nonexistence of the Divine. This certain knowledge falls outside the domain
of normative, scientific and metaphysical knowledge, i.e. outside reason. Hence, dogmatical
atheism is impossible. But, it is to the spiritualists and a possible religious philosophy to
argue why this position is meta-rational rather than irrational (speculative arguments) and
how the experience of the Divine can be produced (experiments).
In what follows, the following main ideas recur :
1. the traditional & revised proofs a priori of God are flawed ;
2. because of the intrinsic limitations of human cognition, no absolute proof
(justification) or disproof of any proposition of fact is possible, not in science,
ethics or religion, and this a priori - there is no certainty, only probability ;
3. a relative, genetico-cognitive justification of knowledge is the applied
epistemological corollary of this ;
4. it is possible to justify the existence of the conserving architect of the world by
means of the argument from design and the argument from conservation ;
5. spirituality is impossible without un choix fondamental ;
6. the experience of the Divine is dependent of a specific, rather unique psychic
mechanism ;
7. it is possible for the experience of the Divine to be triggered by sustaining this
fundamental choice over a long period of time, along with the systematic
application of spiritual exercises aimed at the development of the special
psychic mechanism of spirituality ;
8. Yoga is a non-Western, historical example of a testable and arguable spiritual
research-unit, operating a meditative protocol rooted in factual neurological
knowledge ;
9. the principles of the scientific study of mysticism are participant observation
and the delineation of religious symbols.

HISTORICAL WINDOWS
1. Windows on the traditional proofs of God.
"The proofs of God have an impressive tradition. The greatest minds of humanity have
been concerned with this. Their foundations were laid with the 'pagans', Plato and
Aristotle ; they became acclimatized in Christianity, particularly through Augustine ; then,
in the Middle Ages, extensively systematized by Aquinas ; and freshly thought out in
modern times -in connection with Anselm's 'ontological' argument- by Descartes, Spinoza,
Leibniz and Wolff ; but, after that, they were all involved together in a radical crisis and
replaced by Kant with a moral 'postulate', eventually reinterpreted speculatively by Fichte
and Hegel and finally restored by neo-Thomism in neo-Scholastic form."
Kung, H. : Does God exist ?, 1980, III.
§ 5
In the West, since Christianity turned imperial (in the first half of the 4th century), the
truth of revelation was no longer in doubt, and fideism became the leading mode of
thought, enforced de manu militari. Augustine (354 - 430), the bishop of Hippo, affirmed
the continuity between rationality (identified with Platonism) and faith, in casu, Christianity.
Without (the Christian) God, reason leads to the worship of idols. For him, reason and faith
are not in conflict and should not be separated : "itinerarium mentis in Deum". But, the
gospels have no philosophy to offer. They provide no rational system, but a proclamation of
the "Kingdom of God" (in the Incarnation of Jesus Christ). If the former is a Greek ideal like
"agathon" or the unmoved mover, the latter is a revelation of the Divine : a Divine datum.
The tensions are obvious. Is reason equipped enough to arrive at a comprehensive
explanation of what works ? If so, then no "eye of faith" needs to be postulated. For
Tertullian (ca. 220 CE), Christianity abrogated reason, or "worldly wisdom". The folly of
faith ?
In the course of Western philosophy, four major positions between "reason" and "faith"
came to the fore :
1. continuity : faith is the accomplishment of reason, the pyramidal capstone
finishing its construction ;
2. separation : faith and reason each belong to separate domains of human
knowledge, the former revelational (meta-rational), the latter rational ;
3. conflict : faith and reason are in conflict, for the former is empty and/or untrue ;
4. harmonization : meta-rationality and reason are stages in the geneticocognitive
development of the cognitive apparatus, the former being a highorder
texture based on stable low-order distinctions or rational categorizations.
Contra 1
Cognitive architecture is not devoid of crucial "leaps", and the considerable differences
between reason and meta-rationality (the factual component of "faith" explored in religious

philosophy) also point to the fact meta-rationality initiates, besides affectional and
volitional novelties, a new cognitive standard of measurement (comparable with the
bracketing of the context in the step from pre-operative proto-rationality to operative,
rational thought). To do this, the spiritual data were cause of the irreversible crisis and
disequilibration of the system (to trigger an autoregulative response). The genesis of
human cognition is not a continuity, but a stratified texture, completed in steps and jumps.
Contra 2
If meta-rationality is completely outside rationality, then it lacks an object. Also : the
continuum of human knowledge is "broken up", with an enduring polarity between dogma
and fact.
Contra 3
Accept, for the sake of argument, science evidences the non-factual nature of the Divine.
This means science, by a consilience of inductions, or convergence (quasi verisimilitude) of
certain propositions about the order of the world and the place of man in it, considers the
existence of the Divine as very unlikely. This statement of probability is not a priori, but a
posteriori. These empirico-formal propositions are not based on any sufficient ground, but
solely on the product of test and argument. The way we observe the world co-determines
how we observe the world, but how the world truly is, so must we think, also feeds our
senses. The fact thus ascertained are never absolute or in any way eternal and definitive. It
can not be excluded in an absolute way the Divine is not a fact, for scientific knowledge is
not certain knowledge but probable knowledge. Moreover, suppose a Divine datum can be
isolated, then surely a lower probability has to be calculated and a spiritual researchprogramme
initiated ? Have scientist not dismissed the hypothesis because they considered
non-spiritual theories to have given an exhaustive explanation of spirituality ? What if these
theories have missed the point ?
Pro 4
Affective, cognitive and moral development happens in stages, as explained elsewhere.
Meta-rationality, the stage of Self-actualizing spiration, is not a priori in conflict with
reason, but, ex hypothesi, entertains a larger perspective. Because of this aspired
openness, unconditionality and continuous possibilities, reason may continue to develop,
for a new horizon is always presented and the mental attitude of the beginner is never lost.
To seem to return from behind the horizon, from behind the surface of the mirror, is the
inspiring and heuristic Pharos of intuition and its intellectual perception (the intellect
witnessing itself). Of course, given the criterion of testability, the spiritual datum must be
repeatable. This must go hand in hand with a clear and concise theory on spirituality.
Otherwise spirituality is a mere fiction (like Hamlet saying : "To be or not to be ...").
De iuris, reason cannot reject high-order distinctions, although the post-rational stages of
human cognition always involve un choix fondamental, i.e. the fact of freedom. There is no
coercion in religious philosophy. A rational system cannot function properly without choice.
But for each choice there is a price to pay, and is the price for rejecting the amor
intellectualis Dei a mental handicap (the "dry bones" of the "nature morte", the horizon of
the pigeonhole) ? Logics of finity function properly in imperial, Fregean calculi, but are
inefficient, marginal or too static when non-linear, dissipative systems are studied.

This harmony between reason and meta-rationality implies their distinction as well as their
being part of the stratification of the proposed modes of cognition (cf. mythical, prerational,
proto-rational, formal, critical, creative and nondual).
§ 6
Regarding the justification of its truth claim, science developed its argument in three
stages :
1. uncritical & foundational : true knowledge corresponds with real, repeatably
observable objects (naive realism under the guise of materialism) or true
knowledge is the object of an ideal theory (naive idealism under the guise of
spiritualism or ideology). In both strategies, the error consists in the implicate
use of the contra-thesis. Real objects are also co-determined by the theoretical
connotations of their observers. Ideal objects are always also a "something"
outside the grasp of a theoretical discourse. The foundation of science is
objectified : the "real" world "out there" or the "ideal" theory of reason ;
2. critical & foundational : asking for the limitations of human knowledge, Kant
rooted cognition in the cognitive apparatus (cf. the Copernican Revolution). In
this way, the foundation sought was interiorized and its a priori categorized. By
making the ego cogito (the "I Think" or factum rationis) the foundation of
knowledge, Kant succeeded in making reality-as-such fall outside science !
Likewise, for Kant, meta-rational knowledge (intellectual perception) was denied
to science, which, divorced from any contact with "das Ding an sich", seems
trivial. The foundation of science is subjectified (not in an idealism but in a
transcendentalism) ;
3. critical & normative : in the previous century, the foundational approach was
relinquished and in this way, the aporia threatening justification was avoided.
Science produces empirico-formal propositions treated "as if" they represent a
high probability, but never a certain truth. This likelihood is posited by
repeatable tests and the intersubjective dialogues and argumentations of all
involved sign-interpreters. The end result is fallible knowledge, although highly
probable. The existence of the Divine is (very probably) a fact or not. But even
if today the Divine is not a fact, It may be one tomorrow.
With the end of foundational thinking, the time of confrontation between incompatible
foundations (reason versus faith) is over. Scientific knowledge is probable, historical and
relative. Facts may change over time, and nobody is able to predict for certain what the
future will bring. Moreover, scientific investigations are always conducted against the
background of untestable information. Insofar as the latter is arguable, metaphysics is
possible. But the latter is never testable. Finally, who decides who the "involved signinterpreters"
are and/or when a certain threshold is "critical" ? In order to define these and
other matters, science evokes a series of a posteriori conditions representing the
idiosyncrasies of the local research-unity, the "opportunistic logic" of their fact-factory and
the style of their pursuit of scientific, factual knowledge.
Science has no longer a reason a priori against the existence of the Divine. It may, and
does move against it a posteriori. If it finds no evidence for Divine existence, then it is

entitled to dismiss the hypothesis as very unlikely, and consider Divine worship as silly
insofar as it is not deemed fictional (like art). However, "worship" and "fiction" are
incompatible. He who worships, truly believes to worship something more than a personal
fiction, more than just sacral art. It is this "something more" which religious philosophy
must isolate and make available. For it to do so, philosophy and science should remain
open and postpone their final judgments. Both must be totally recuperated from the hangover
of their shameful foundational history over the last two millennia. The only role of
science is to confirm or deny probable fact. Is "modern" education not meant to dictate the
futility of meta-rational knowledge in the light of independent, rational thought ? Suppose it
can be demonstrated such bias is precisely what hinders the emergence of the spiritual fact
(just as the rejection of independent thought halted science) ?
§ 7
In the Abrahamic faiths, God as Adonai, God as Father and God as Allah is intensely
personal and immanent, either in terms of His elect (Israel), of His Son Christ or of His
Koran. This One God Alone is omniscient, omnipotent, omnipresent, transcendent
(supernatural), creative and personal (a "He"). He differs from the henotheist "Amun" of
Ancient Egypt or the "Brahman" of Hinduism because He is singular (like the Aten of
Akhenaten). He does not manifest as other Gods or Goddesses, nor are their appearances
His many theophanies. There is no God, but the God.
This monotheocentrism is monolithic. Theology is a petrified entity struck with the
unveilings of God. Revelation is a truth of God and hence final. Nevertheless, in order to
develop an individual spiritual superstructure or a solid apology to win supporters, rational
arguments are necessary and so the need to provide "proof" or "evidence" of God becomes
unmistaken.
In what follows, a series of windows are described. Although as such these philosophical
speculations are outdated, in each, a "nugget of gold" is isolated and added to the technical
apparatus. Together, these assist the argumentation developed in the second and third
section, proposing one revised a priori and three a posteriori proofs of the Divine.
1.1 Aristotle on the Supreme Being.
"We hold, then, that the God is a living being, eternal, most good ; and therefore life and a
continuous eternal existence belong to the God ; for that is what the God is."
Aristotle : Metaphysica Lambda, XII.VII.9.
§ 8
In chapter 1 of his Metaphysica Lambda (or twelfth book of his Metaphysics), shortly
written after Plato (428 - 347 BCE) died, Aristotle (384 - 322 BCE) tries to demonstrate the
existence of two physical beings and one unmoved being. These three beings, or meanings
of the word "ousia", are : (a) physical and eternal (planets), (b) physical and moved
(plants & animals) and (c) a "first" being beyond physics and eternal ("the God"). The first
two beings are the objects of physics. The last is not and demands another approach
coming "after" and/or next to physics, or metaphysics, a word Aristotle did not coin.
"Metaphysics" appeared as a separate discipline only after the Aristotelian corpus was put
together by Andronicos of Rhodos (ca. 40 BCE). He used to place the books on metaphysics
"next to" those dealing with physics.

In book 6, the existence of the "first being" is discussed. Although physical considerations
are also "wisdom", they are not "first". Instead of thinking this eternal being as a
transcendent "idea" (as Plato had done), Aristotle tries to develop its meaning by
radicalizing his ideas about the physical world. Physics, as conceived by Aristoteles,
discovers an eternal movement.
"time seems to be a circle"
Aristotle : Physica, 223b 29.
In Ancient Egypt, creation was also deemed cyclic and eternal. The deities (or natural
differentials), except for Osiris, were born, culminated, died and reborn after the model of
the Solar cycle. This "time" was called "neheh" or eternal repetition, and contrasted with
"djedet" or eternal sameness or everlastingness. This eternal repetition was the "motor" of
rejuvenation, as evidenced by the Amduat. The influence of Egyptian thought on certain
pre-Socratics was discussed elsewhere. It cannot be excluded the Egypt of Alexander the
Great (356 - 323 BCE), influenced Aristotle, although not in the Afrocentric measure
evoked by James (1992).
Indeed for Aristotle, there is no creation at all, no autogenous act in precreation, as in
Heliopolitan theology. No "Atum" sui generis splitting in space, life and order (Shu and
Tefnut), emerging spontaneously from the primordial matrix of endless possibilities (the
Nun). The world is eternal. There is no beginning of time. No exploding singularity (cf. the
"Big Bang" theory, remaining silent about what happened at t = 0). Both the poets of the
gods (like the Egyptians), who claim the world rose "from the night" (or nonexistent
precreation) and the philosophers of nature, who say all things are simultaneous, are
wrong.
In De Caelo, Aristotle writes :
"The actualization of the God is immortality, in other words, an eternal life. Hence, it is
necessary that there is an eternal movement in the God. Because heaven is of that nature -
for it is a Divine body- therefore it has a circular body, by nature always moving in a circle."
Aristotle : De Caelo, 286a 9 - 12.
His demonstration of the Divine involves the justification of this eternal movement (of the
world), and this in a necessary and thus not-contingent way. In terms of the famous
Peripatetic pair potency versus actuality, this means "the God" is devoid of latency, fully
awake, conscious and actualized. As it is possible to think potency as nonexistent, the
principle of movement must be "pure" act, or realization without potency and without
matter. The principle sought is immaterial & spiritual. It is not necessarily transcendent, as
the Stoic "pneuma" proves.
In book 8 of his Physica, the existence of a first mover is justified by considering an
infinite, horizontal series of mediating causes cannot be accepted. If every thing moved is
caused to move by something else, then the first mover moves itself. This is the concept of
the unmoved mover. This mover is not a point of beginning in time, but the sufficient
ground of all movement. In De Anima, we read how the "Nous poiètikos" (430a 18) or
"active intellect" stands on its own, cannot be influenced, is unmingled and in essence
realization (pure actuality). It is inevitable to accept this unmoved mover, not only by the

necessities of our mind, i.e. in order to arrive at abstractions and "theoria", but also to
provide a sufficient ground for physical reality.
Greek concept-realism is not critical. Hence, the foundational approach is cherished and the
"essential tension" of the aporia of reason appears : realism versus idealism. In the
Platonic system, "anamnesis" is possible and by its own efforts the mind arrives, by
contemplating the world of ideas, at Divine, eternalized truth. There is a "spiritual eye"
enabling us to "see" the world of prototypes ("paradigma"). By means of this "intellectual
perception" avant la lettre, absolute knowledge is within reach (a similar thesis is proposed
by intuitionism). For Aristotle, knowledge derives from the senses, but abstractions are
impossible without a Divine active intellect.
For these most influential of Greeks, theoretical knowledge is certain, eternal and sufficient.
Plato thinks the "chorismos" or separation between the "world" of ideas and the "world" of
becoming, Aristotle does not divide the world in two, but the soul. The Platonic difference
returns in his psychology, namely to distinguish between "passive" and "active" intellect.
Grosso modo, identical problems will be at work in later, modern, pre-Kantian rationalism
and empiricism, albeit in a different conceptual framework and adjacent historical situation.
Like the latter, Greek conceptual rationality is entrapped by the Münchhausen-trilemma.
Greek concept-realism, discovering the antinomic logic of the sufficient ground (Plato in
ontology, Aristotle in psychology), did not yet make this study the focus of its attention. In
Medieval philosophy, the issue of the existence of the Christian God would become of first
apologetic importance. Reason was there to serve theology and accommodate the diffusion
of faith. Was the God of Christ this sufficient ground ? Could the existence of the Divine be
demonstrated a priori ? The answer to these questions was linked with the status of
universal concepts, or, in terms of the Medieval dialectica, the position of genera and
species in the logical category of substance ("ousia"). For the Augustinian Platonists, the
world of ideas, revelation and intellectual perception interlaced. For the Thomists,
knowledge only derived from the senses, and so the idea of God could only be acquired a
posteriori.
1.2 To battle over universals.
"This universe would never have been suitably put together into one form from such
various and opposite parts, unless there were some One who joined such different parts
together ; and when joined, the very variety of their natures, so discordant among
themselves, would break their harmony and tear them asunder unless the One held
together what it wove into one whole. Such a fixed order of nature could not continue its
course, could not develop motions taking such various directions in place, time, operation,
space, and attributes, unless there were One who, being immutable, had the disposal of
these various changes. And this cause of their remaining fixed and their moving, I call God,
according to the name familiar to all."
Boethius : The Consolation of Philosophy, Book 3, Proza XII.
§ 9
Medieval philosophy is defined by the tension between Christian "revelation" and Pagan
"philosophy". It may be divided in three stages :
1. fideist (IVth - XIth) : before the XIth century, science and philosophy serve

theology (cf. Gerard of Czanad's "ancilla theologiae"), and "knowledge" is a gift
of the Holy Spirit. Thanks to the Carolingian Renaissance (IXth century), the
seven "artes liberales" (or pillars of wisdom) emerged : logic, grammar, rhetoric
(trivium), and geometry, arithmetics, astronomy and music (quatrivium). These
are contrasted with the "artes serviles", being directed to the satisfaction of a
need. Because of political disintegration, the decay of monastic and
ecclesiastical life, the degradation of the Papacy, and the attacks of the
Norsemen in the ninth and tenth century, the fruit of this renaissance did not
come to maturity. Of Greek philosophy, little was known. Part of one dialogue of
Plato and only Aristotle's logic were attested. Neo-Platonism was studied
through Augustine. Besides the Bible, an intellectual read the works of the
fathers of the church. Philosophy was reduced to logic (dialectica). Education
was meant to confirm the futility of independent, rational thought and to give a
teaching rooted in fundamental theology. Dialectici as Anselm of Canterbury
(1033 - 1109) tried to understand the contents of the revealed truths of
scripture and to defend it against heretics ;
2. philosophical (XIth - XIIIth) : in the West, about 1150, Latin translations of
unknown Greek philosophical texts become available. Among them, the
complete works of Aristotle, as well as the extensive writings of his influential
Arab commentators, Avicenna (980 - 1037) & Averroes (1126 - 1198).
Aristotelism caused a major crisis. These teachings formed a coherent whole,
explained nature and articulated a vision of the world and of man contradicting
the tenets of fundamental Christian theology (creationism contradicted the
concept of an eternal world). From Padua to Paris, intellectuals debated, and
although philosophical knowledge was deemed "according to reason" and not
the absolute knowledge of revelation, radical thought slowly emerged. Perhaps
reason could provide a comprehensive explanation ? Perhaps revelation could
be set aside ! It would take three more centuries before intellectuals dared to
openly reject fundamental theology. Meanwhile, Thomas Aquinas (1225 - 1274)
was first to address these new sources and harmonize them with Christianity ;
3. via moderna (XIVth - XVth) : with the assimilation of Aristotle, a new vision on
reality and knowledge emerged. Strict nominalism, with William of Ockham
(1290 - 1350) as its protagonist, broke away from Classical Greek and
Scholastic thought. Only particulars exist, and universals are not rooted in a
sufficient ground, neither inside (Platonism) nor outside (Aristotle) the mind.
Universal concepts are nothing but a common name ("nomen") given to
different particulars sharing a certain similarity. In this way, thought is more
and more considered an empirical phenomenon, and the possibility of
transcending a particular physical reality to intuit (or abstact) its essence is
questioned. Statements are terministic, not necessary.
After three centuries, the "spirit" of the European Renaissance broke down the dogma of a
revealed God known by faith alone. From within (Reformation and Contra-Reformation) as
well as from without (natural science, in particular physics & astronomy) the Feudal model
of Christianity came under severe attack. Modern science emerged in the XVIIth century,
and in philosophy, the fideist context was eliminated by René Descartes (1596 - 1650) and
his clear and distinct intuition "cogito ergo sum" (cf. infra).

§ 10
In Late Hellenism, and particularly in Stoicism, language became an independent area of
study. Logic was not longer embedded in metaphysics, but a science of language, or
linguistics. Physics studies things ("pragmata" or "res"'), whereas dialectica and
grammatica study words ("phonai" or "voces"). This is the approach of "the first scholastic
and the last Roman", Boethius (480 - 524 or 525). He created the term "universalia" (the
translation of Aristotle's "ta katholou") to denote the logical concepts genus and species.
The original metaphysical apory between Plato's Ideas and Aristotle's immanent forms is no
longer part of the Stoic context. A reduction took place which brought logic & linguistics to
the fore (cf. Chapter 2).
The problem of universals touched the foundation of thought, in particular fideism, which
tried to identify general names (like "God") in the mind with universal objects in reality. On
the one hand, there is the ultra-realistic position, or "exaggerated realism", found in the De
Divisione Naturae of John Scotus Eriugena (ca. 810 - 877) and the work of Remigius of
Auxerre (ca. 841 - 908), who taught that the species is a "partitio substantialis" of the
genus. The species is also the substantial unity of many individuals. Thus, individuals only
differ accidentally from one another. All beings are thus modifications of one Being. A new
child is not a new substance, but a new property of the already existing substance called
"humanity".
On the other hand, and very early, heretics in dialectic rose. For Eric (Heiricus) of Auxerre
(841 - 876), general names had no universal objects corresponding to them. Universals
concepts arise because the mind gathers together ("coarctatio") the multitude of
individuals and forms the idea of species. This variety is again gathered together to form
the genus. Only individual exist. By the process of "coarctatio", many genera form the
extensive concept of "ousia" ("substantia"). In the same line, Roscelin (ca. 1050 - 1120)
held that a universal is only a word ("flatus vocis") and so "nihil esse praeter individua" ...
§ 11
The nominalism of Peter Abelard (1079 - 1142) is a denial of ultra-realism in epistemology,
i.e. against the adualism between "vox" and "res". He does not refute Platonic "ideae"
preexisting in the mind of God, but understands these as the metaphysical foundation of
the real similarities in status between objects of the same species, and not of the objects
(as Platonism insists).
For Abelard, universals were by nature inclined to be ascribed to several objects. They are
only words, not things (against the "reales"). When identified with words, universals are
not reduced to mere "sound" (which is also a "res"), but to the signifying power of words
(against the "nominales"). This "significatio" of words is not a concept accompanying the
word (a mere contents of mind, i.e. exclusively subjective), but gives expression or
meaning to the objective status of the word (semantics). This status is a human convention
based on real similarities between the particulars, but these real "convenientia" are not a
"res", not "nihil" but a "quasi res" : it is not the substance "homo" that makes human
beings similar, but the "esse hominem".
Summarize these positions with the distinctions introduced by Avicenna :

1. universale ante rem : the universals exist before the realities they subsume :
Platonism ;
2. universale in re : the universals only exist in the realities ("quidditas rei") of
which they are abstractions : Aristotelism ;
3. universale post rem : universals are words, abstact universal concepts with a
meaning attributed to them by human convention, giving expression to real
similarities between particulars. The latter are not "essentia" and not "nihil", but
"quasi res".
1.3 Anselm of Canterbury's ontological proof.
"But if through your eternity You have been, and are, and will be ; and to have been is not
to be destined to be ; and to be is not to have been, or to be destined to be ; (then) how
does your eternity exist as a whole forever ? Or is it true that nothing of your eternity
passes away, so that it is not now ; and that nothing of it is destined to be, as if it were not
yet ? You was not, then, yesterday, nor will You be tomorrow ; but yesterday and today
and tomorrow You are ; or, rather, neither yesterday nor today nor tomorrow You are ; but
simply, You are, outside all time. For yesterday and today and tomorrow have no
existence, except in time ; but You, although nothing exists without You, nevertheless do
not exist in space or time, but all things exist in You. For nothing contains You, but You
contain all."
Anselm : Proslogion, XIX.
§ 12
Usually depicted as a transitional figure between monastic and scholastic theology, the
Benedictine Anselm of Canterbury (1033 - 1109) was a protagonist of the Augustinian
tradition. Philosophy is dialectica and part of theology. Nevertheless, his position within this
movement is rationalistic, for he seeks the "rationes necessariae" of the existence of God,
but also for revealed data as the Holy Trinity and the Incarnation of Christ. However, his
rationalism is provisional, for Anselm believes so he may understand ("credo ut
intelligam"), but does not seek to understand in order to believe. The context in which he
operates, does not allow him to make the distinction between philosophy and theology, and
so, even if he was unable to find the necessary reasons for Divine existence, he would not
reject the existence of God. Perhaps is it fair to say Anselm is the most dialectical pole
within the Augustinian movement and its fideism.
Anselm's Platonic theory of truth contains four pillars :
1. universale ante rem : universals are the "essentiae" of the particular
individuals ;
2. the universals are real : universals exist independently of the particulars
participating in them ;
3. independence of truth : truth is independent of statements and of things, for
every being comes after its truth or "rectitudo", each being "has its truth" ;
4. summa veritas : truth exists in the ideas of God. These are what they are "per
se", i.e. by themselves. They are the causes of the essences and their truth.
In the Monologium, Anselm develops two a posteriori arguments of the existence of God,

defined as the best, the greatest and the highest being, namely the argument from
goodness and the argument from greatness.
1. argument from goodness : The fact good things, despite their differences, are
identical in goodness, implies they are good "per aliquid", i.e. not of
themselves, but by a cause exterior to them. To avoid an infinite regression of
causes, we have to posit a best "per se", a good possessing goodness by itself.
This highest and greatest good is the best. And God is the best. Summarized :
as there are good things and better things, there must be a best thing and this
is God ;
2. argument from greatness : beings exist not of themselves, but because of a selfdependent,
uncaused, sufficient ground "per se". Because what exists by itself
is greater than what exists by something else, it is "maxime omnium", the
highest being outside all possible hierarchical series, being-of-itself in which all
participate, or God.
Here, the common feature is the argument from perfection, for both arguments apply only
to perfections which do not of themselves involve limitation and finiteness, like quantity.
Two "outer" sets of arguments have to be introduced, depending on (a) the study of the
order of creation and (b) the Platonic context, dictating that when various beings have one
feature in common (receive the same predicate), an exterior cause must be present for
that "truth" and self-possess this feature "per se", i.e. by itself and without any other. The
autarky & autonomy of this exterior cause is deemed self-evident and ideal. Hence, the
argument from perfection is complex, and composed of chains of various arguments a
posteriori. In accord with his Platonic streak, Anselmus sought for a more simple proof, one
necessitating no empirical study, but only logic.
§ 13
In the Proslogium, the ontological argument a priori is developed. After long, obsessive
concentration on the issue, one evening, during night service, Anselm's faith in God's
existence suddenly found the "insight" ("fides quaerens intellectum", the original title of the
Proslogium).
Anselms defines "God" as "something than, which no greater can be conceived", or "aliquid
Quo Majus Nihil Cogitari potest", "QMNC", Anselm's concept of God. This is not an
analytical, self-evident proposition, but a description which may also have meaning to nonbelievers.
The proposition "God exists" is not self-evident, as later Thomists will say ("per
se notum").
Moreover, faith is not a necessary condition to understand the meaning of this concept of
God. The argument is directed against those who deny Divine existence, but affirm to know
God's nature if God would exist (like the atheist claiming God is good and denying His
existence because of the evils of creation). Anselm adds even a fool understands QMNC,
proving its existence "in intellectu" and making this concept of God a psychological reality.
How to demonstrate QMNC necessarily also exists "in res" ? The proposition "God does not
exist." is a contradictio in terminis if (a) "God" is defined as QMNC and (b) it is "greater" to
exist "in res" than "in intellectu" only. The steps of the argument are as follows :

1. Major Premiss : God is QMNC ;
2. Minor Premiss : It is greater to exist in reality than only to exist in ideality ;
3. Conclusion : QMNC exists in reality and in ideality, so God exist in reality and in
ideality.
4. Lemma : If QMNC only exists in ideality, then something than which no greater
can be conceived is something than which some greater can be conceived
(namely that which exists in both orders), which is a contradiction, hence QMNC
not only exists in ideality but also in reality, ergo God exists in reality and in
ideality.
Plantinga (1974) gave another, more sophisticated version, namely a reductio ad
absurdum, based on the acceptance of QMNC :
1. God exists in the understanding, but not in reality.
2. Existence in reality is greater than existence in the understanding alone.
3. God's existence in reality is conceivable.
4. If God did exist in reality, the He would be greater than He is (from (1) and (2)).
5. It is conceivable there is a being greater than God (from (3) and (4)).
6. It is conceivable there is a being greater than the being than which nothing
greater can be conceived (from (5) and QMNC).
7. It is false it is conceivable there is a being greater than the being than which
nothing greater can be conceived.
8. ERGO : It is false God exists in the understanding but not in reality ((6) and (7)
contradict).
9. ERGO : God exists in the understanding and in reality.
In this reductive form, the argument proves that either (1), (2), (3) or (7) are untrue. For
Anselm (1) was untrue because (2), (3) and (7) belong to the structure of the argument.
Historically, only (2) and (7) prove good candidates for refutation, although Duns Scotus
(ca. 1266 - 1308) objected against (3).
(2) What is "existence" ? Either existence "in thought" and existence "as such" are
differentiated (cf. Thomas Aquinas), or "existence" is not considered to be a predicate (cf.
Kant).
(7) Has QMNC meaning ? If QMNC has no meaning, then how can this meaninglessness be
made clear ?
§ 14
Historically the argument has attracted two major problems :
1. QMNC : What is the meaning of "greater" ? Clearly qualitative greatness is
intended, i.e. "more perfect" in the Platonic sense, i.e. something with a higher
degree of being. The truth of the argument thus depends on the ability to
compare realities in an absolute sense (implying an absolute being transcending
the order of the world). In the world, a being can never be that "great" that no
"greater" can be found. Like the concept "greatest number", QMNC has no
concrete value in the order of reality. It is a limit-concept, and so the meaning

of the word "existence" is not the same for QMNC as it is for other objects. For
Anselm, QMNC had a "special" status. His critic, the Benedictan monk Gaunilo of
Marmoutiers (1033 - 1109), in his On Behalf of the Fool, constructed an
ontological argument for the existence of the perfect island. He argued as
follows : it is enough to conceive the most perfect island for it to exist, for it
would not be the most perfect if it would only exist "in intellectu".
Anselm replied such a most perfect island only exists in the world and so its
"perfection" is relative, not absolute. QMNC is the concept of something
absolutely the greatest, outside or beyond the world. But this answer means
Anselm already presupposed the existence of God before he proves it (a fact he
accepts), and QMNC is the projection of this. Hence, the statement "QMNC
exists" has no meaning. Neither has "QMNC does not exist". Indeed, if the same
kind of "existence" of God needs to be demonstrated as the "existence" of
objects of the world, then absolute greatness should not be introduced. But if
this is not the case, then the argument fails ;
2. "existence" is not a predicate : for Kant, inconsiderate of the specific
background of Anselm's thought, "existence" is not a predicate as "great,
beautiful or good". The fact something exists "in res" is not an additional quality
next to what it is "in intellectu", for otherwise the concept would be incomplete.
Anselm may answer that only in the unique case of QMNC "existence" is
analytically contained in the concept of God. If we define the logic of "existence"
as positing a subject-for-predication, then a proposition as "Dragons do not
exist." means the subject "dragon" does not function as a subject of predication
in reality. But QMNC could then be reformulated : "to function as a subject of
predication in a proposition about reality is 'greater' than to function in
propositions referring to fiction, imagination or concepts".
Apparently, Anselm's argument is not easy to undermine, and several authors have
reformulated QMNC in order to counter the attacks by Thomas Aquinas, Kant and others. It
"works" against semantic atheists who accept the concept of God having meaning but
refuse God any existence. For logical (positivist) atheism, the proposition "God exists." is
not equivalent with "Dragons do not exist." (for "in intellectu" the subject is meaningful like
all shared fictional objects), but rather with "Square circles do not exist." Logical atheism
asserts "God" and "QMNC" are meaningless, i.e. just a series of nonsensical sounds or dots
on paper, equal to the empty set. However, if Anselm is bound to show the "meaning" of
QMNC, then his opponents must prove QMNC meaningless. Hence, the logical atheist is
compelled to demonstrate how the things within our empirical experience are necessarily
the only things (a logic of finitude). But if only non-foundational a posteriori arguments are
available, then such a feat may prove to be impossible. At best, it may be probable QMNC
is meaningless but not certain. QMNC may be semantically richer (and less complex) than
the supposed proof of the "greatness" of empirical knowledge at the exclusion of all other
types of knowledge : revelation, faith, the Platonic eye, intellectual perception, intuition,
gnosis, meta-rational knowledge, mystical experience etc. Is a logic of finitude possible
without infinity ?
Anselm's ontological argument makes one crucial point clear : one cannot at the same time
state "God exists." has meaning and is untrue. The possibility excluded by the semantic

atheist realizes itself precisely when the latter denies God's existence ! This atheism is autodestructive.
Logical atheism is impossible without a terministic proof of the fact empirical
experience is the only possible reality. Certainty can hardly be given, except by the
entrapment of knowledge by the Münchhausen-trilemma, stopping the series of final
justifications ad hoc, presumably in some form of materialistic and reductionist realism.
1.4 The "quinque viis" of Thomas Aquinas.
"For from the greatness and beauty of created things comes a corresponding perception of
their Creator."
Wisdom of Solomon, 13:5.
§ 15
In accord with Aristotelian thought, the provisions of the proof of God made by the
Dominican Thomas Aquinas (1225 - 1274) differ from those of Anselm of Canterbury.
Although the latter does not consider QMNC (God is "aliquid Quo Majus Nihil Cogitari
potest") to be an analytical statement of a self-evident, intuitive idea, the existence of God
is proven to be self-evident if (a) QMNC is accepted and (b) existence "in res" is considered
"greater" than existence "in intellectu" (cf. supra). In his Monologium, the Platonic
"methexis" or essential connection between the order of existence and the order of ideas is
presupposed. This is precisely what Aristotle rejected, as does Aquinas. Also
epistemologically this fundamental difference ensues. For Aquinas, truth is "adaequatio rei
et intellectus" (ontological realism), for Anselm truth is "rectitudo sola mente
perceptibilis" (ontological idealism).
Thomas Aquinas rejected the ontological argument a priori. Firstly, he took Anselm to be
arguing the self-evident existence of God, which was not the case, and denies everyone
understands QMNC. Secondly, he distinguished between "existence" in thought and
existence as such. The jump from existence "in intellectu" and existence "in res" is illicit. At
best, Anselm proves only we must think God, defined as QMNC, as existing. But this does
not prove God exists "in res", outside the mind. The argument may be structured as
follows :
● Proposition 1 : Circles must be thought as round.
● Proposition 2 : God must be thought as existing (Anselm).
● Conclusion 1 : Round circle do not therefore necessarily exist.
● Conclusion 2 : God does not therefore necessarily exist.
Did Aquinas grasp QMNC ? Apparently he did not. For Anselm, this definition of God is a
description, not an immediate intuition, per se notum, as Thomas thought. Moreover, this
description and the conclusion a priori drawn from it, fit only one Being, namely God as
QMNC. Although valid for all other objects, Thomas' counter-argument does not work for
"God" defined as "QMNC", for God is the only Being (•!x) that is its own existence, and so if
it is possible for such a Being to exist "in intellectu", then it must also exist "in res". In
other words, the Being than which no greater can be thought is the Being existing
necessarily "in intellectu" and "in res". It would indeed be absurd to speak of a possible
necessary Being, i.e. a Being who's essence is existence but somehow only "in intellectu".
Of course, only God is a Being that must exist, round circles and other analytical
(tautological) statements do not.

In Thomas' view, we cannot come to know God as He is in essence ("quid sit"), but only
that He is or exists ("quod sit"). The idea of God's existence is not, as such, an innate idea,
nor is "God exists." a statement with no conceivable opposition (analytical or a priori). John
Damascene (676 - 749) had asserted the knowledge of God is innate in man. Bonaventure
(1221 - 1274) recognized an initial, implicit awareness of God to be made explicit by
interior reflection alone.
Aquinas accepts man's natural desire of happiness (beatitudo), to be found in God alone.
But between this "natural" desire of happiness and the realization of God's existence (as
happiness), stand powerful side-tracking sensual and imaginal forces (pleasure, wealth,
power), making the innate idea of happiness too vague to sufficiently lead to God. To be
made explicit, the existence of God has to be elucidated. The proofs given by Thomas will
therefore proceed by way of the (outer, exterior) world. This means they are all a
posteriori. Can reason, by radicalizing his ideas about the physical world, come to the
proposition "God exists." ?
This position is in accord with his Peripatetic premiss : Nihil est in intellectu quod non prius
fuerit in sensu (there is nothing in the intellect which was not before in the senses). The
human intellect is confined to knowing corporeal entities and can thus not, while on Earth,
transcend the world of sense-experience. However, this orientation does not stop the
intellect from producing general statements, and if physical objects bear a discernible
relationship with a transcending cause, then the intellect can know such a cause exists.
Nevertheless, corporeal objects are and remain the natural object of the intellect.
The way to proceed then, is to study God's effects in the world. But because God is infinite
and material causes finite, there is an absence of proportion between cause and effect
making every a posteriori argumentation indeed imperfect. So although we cannot reach a
perfect knowledge of the cause, we nevertheless can come to know its existence, and this
is the issue at hand. If we move from effect to a cause in such a way the effect can only
proceed from a certain kind of cause, we argue to the existence of a cause of that kind.
§ 16
Aquinas argues in favour of five "paths" to God. In fact, these are not logical deductions
leading to certain conclusions, but statements every believer would accept, for they
correspond with what is said about God ("et hoc dicimus Deum"). Thomas' arguments
intend to proof the "praeambula fidei" (steps before faith) or "motiva credibilitatis", but not
to convince atheists.
(1) argument from motion :
Found in Aristotle (cf. supra), Maimonides (1135 - 1204) and Albertus Magnus (1206 -
1280), the patron saint of scientists, the argument, called by Thomas "manifestior via", the
more manifest way, points to the fact all things are on the move, or, in Aristotelian terms,
they evidence a reduction of potency to act. This reduction is always caused by something
already in act, for every moving thing is moved by another thing. Since an infinite series
cannot exist in a finite world, in the end, an unmoved mover is arrived at.
With "infinite series" is meant an endless succession in the horizontal (sequential) order of
actually depending causes. But, the series as a whole is finite. To be able to give an

ultimate and adequate ontological explanation of this experienced world of causal chains,
the series must depend on something outside the series. This would be lacking if one would
never come to a full stop, and envisage an infinite, historical series. But, in this case, a
comprehensive ontology could not be arrived at. Science and philosophy are then
impossible.
(2) argument from efficient causes :
Used by Avicenna (980 - 1037) and Albertus Magnus, it focuses on the series of efficient
causes. As nothing can be the cause of itself (if not, it would exist before itself), every
thing is caused by another thing. Ergo, rejecting an infinite series of efficient causes in a
finite world order, a first cause must exist, which all men call "God".
(3) argument from necessity :
This argument, found in Avicenna and developed by Maimonides, brings the contingent
nature of all things to the fore. They come into being and perish, they rise and fall. Every
thing can be or not and hence no thing is necessary. If it would be otherwise, it would
never stop being or pass away. But it does. To understand why such unnecessary beings
come into existence, there must be a necessary being, for otherwise nothing at all would
exist, nothing could ever have been reduced from potency to act, and actuality would never
have been. There would only be nonexistent potency. Ergo, a being, not itself dependent,
exists. A necessary being exist, whom we call "God".
(4) argument from perfections :
This argument was favored by Platonists like Augustine and Anselm. It starts from the
degrees of perfection, implied by making comparative statements about various actualities,
like beauty, truth, goodness etc. If we assume the difference between beautiful and more
beautiful has objective foundation, then the most beautiful, the best, the most truthful, etc.
must exist and this is the supreme being ("maxime esse"). This a relative best, for there
must be one being or several beings which are comparatively supreme. But, what is
supreme in beauty, for example, is supreme in all things. Ergo, there must be a supreme
Being, which is the cause of all perfections in every other being, "et hoc decimus Deum".
(5) argument from design or finality :
The observed order of inorganic objects cannot come into being by chance, but is the result
of intent. Objects without knowledge can not tend towards an end unless directed like "the
arrow is directed by the archer". Ergo, there exists an intelligent Being directing all natural
objects to an end. The natural world is composed of different objects with conflicting
qualities. Nevertheless, these work together towards the realization of the one order. Ergo,
this must proceed from an intelligent cause or Providence, and this is what we call "God".
§ 17
A first point. The outstanding logical factor in these a posteriori arguments is the presence
of an "infinite series" in the finite ontological order of dependence. Thomas is convinced the
world can be explained in an adequate ontological way. For him, this implies the transition
from cause to effect refers to a sufficient ground outside the subject of experience (cf. his
metaphysical realism), to wit : the reality of the existence of God (taken for granted). For

Kant, this refers to the subject of experience (cf. Copernican Revolution), for all rules
regarding this transition refer to possible experience only and are categorial. They are valid
nowhere except as referring to the object of the world of sense. Hence, there is no "bridge"
available for reason to move from a finite "chain" or series of conditions to the existence of
a purely, infinite intelligible Being, as Aquinas claims. Hence for Kant, the existence of a
transcendent God cannot be inferred, because all the rules involving the argument are
meant to work with sense objects and with nothing else. They certainly are not meant to
move from the immanent order of causes to the transcendent order of Divinity. The safe
route supposed by Thomas is just not there. Instead, there is an unbridgeable gap,
necessitating a leap. Hence, the a posteriori arguments are invalid to demonstrate God as
QMNC.
Secondly, a necessary supreme Being, intelligently directing the world, unmoved mover &
first cause, is not yet the God of Jesus Christ, but this is less a problem for religious
philosophy than it was for Thomism and its audience. Indeed, for if the last proof of
Thomas Aquinas is valid (in this or another form), then the atheist thesis stating the
impossibility of the Divine fact (as effect) is refuted, as will become clear when studying
Kant's objection.
"... I say that the properties of the infinite being which refer to creatures are either of
causality or of pre-eminence. Those of causality in turn are twofold, the properties of
efficient and final causality. What is added about the exemplar does not involve another
cause different in kind from the efficient, for then there would be five kinds of causes.
Wherefore, the examplar cause is a certain kind of efficient cause, namely an intelligent
agent in contradistinction to a natural agent ..."
Duns Scotus : De Esse Dei, Articulus Primus.
Thirdly, for Thomas, the first proof was the "via manifestior". But, in his Oxford
Commentary, the Franciscan monk John Duns Scotus (1265/6 - 1308), argued that it is a
more perfect and immediate knowledge of the first being to know it as a necessary being
than as the first mover. The argument from motion cannot transcend the physical world. As
the cause of all motion, the first mover cannot be conceived as the cause of all beings, but
only as a necessary hypothesis to explain physical motion. In his De primo principio, he
reworks the argument from necessity (contingency), and considers it as more
comprehensive than the arguments from motion or causal production, both dealing with
specific cases. The argument from necessity asks : Why is there something rather than
nothing ? In Aristotelian terms : Why has potency ever been reduced to act ?
If A is the cause of a contingent object, it must either be caused or uncaused. As
contingent objects cannot be uncaused (for if so they would not exist), A must be caused.
If contingent being is caused, it is caused by nothing or by itself or by another thing. As it
cannot be cause by nothing or by itself, it is caused by another thing. Eventually, we arrive
at the first cause, and we find what we are seeking. The Doctor Subtilis is right : we cannot
proceed for ever in the ascending, vertical order of dependence (as we can in the
horizontal), or in the words of Scotus : "Infinitas autem est impossibilis in ascendendo."
Suppose otherwise. Granted the possibility of an infinite horizontal series of successive
causes, then the whole chain needs to be reasoned. This reason must be outside the chain,
for every object in the chain is caused and so contingent, making the whole series
contingent. Therefore, only by postulating a vertical, transcendent cause, can the totality of
ordered effects ("causatorum") be understood. This final cause is no longer directed to any

more ultimate causes. To postulate an eternal world is of no avail either, for the eternal
series of contingent beings is itself in need of a cause. This is a necessary cause, outside
the eternal world.
1.5 Ockham's first Conserver.
"All the conserving causes simultaneously concur for the conservation of an effect ; if,
therefore, in the order of conserving causes we go on ad infinitum, then an infinite number
of things would be actually existing at the same time. This, however, is impossible ..."
Ockham : Questionis in lib. I Physicorum, Q.cxxxvi.
§ 18
For William of Ockham (1290 - 1350), who took the equipment to develop his terminist
logic from his predecessors, empirical data were primordial and exclusive to establish the
existence of a thing. The validity of inferring from the existence of one thing to the
existence of another things was questioned. He distinguished between the spoken word
("terminus prolatus"), the written word ("terminus scriptus") and the concept ("terminus
conceptus" or "intentio animæ"). The latter is a natural sign, the natural reaction to the
stimuli of a direct empirical apprehension. Only individual things exist. By the fact a thing
exists, it is individual. There cannot be existent universals, for if a universal exists, it must
be an individual, which is a contradictio in terminis (for universals are supposed to
subsume individuals).
This focus on the objects which are immediately known, goes hand in hand with the
principle of economy to get rid of the abstracting "species intelligibiles". What is known as
"Ockham's Razor" was a common principle in Medieval philosophy. Because of his frequent
usage of the principle (cf. the Franciscan vow of poverty), his name has become indelibly
attached to it. In Ockham's version it reads : "Pluralitas non est ponenda sine
neccesitate." (plurality should not be posited without necessity). In general terms, this
principle of simplicity or parsimony is to always prefer the least complicated explanation for
an observation.
Radical nominalists, like Nicolas of Autrecourt (ca. 1300 - ca. 1350), who belonged to the
faculty of arts, would say no inference from the existence of one thing to the existence of
another thing could be demonstrative or cogent, but only probable. Hence, necessity and
certainty, idolized by the foregoing metaphysical systems, were gone. No demonstration of
God's existence was possible. Such matters have to be relegated to the order of adherence
to revealed knowledge or faith. At this point, theology and philosophy separate and the
latter becomes a "lay" activity. This is not yet apparent in Ockham, who remains a
theologian seeking to find a way to rethink the "proof" of God's existence in merely a
posteriori terms.
§ 19
Against his predecessors, Ockham accepts "being" as one concept common to creatures
and God, meaning "being" is predicable in a univocal sense of all existent things. Without
such a concept of being, the existence of God could not be conceived. But, this does not
mean this concept acts as a bridge between empirical observation of creatures and sense
data about God (cf. supra : positing the series and then transcending it). Nor can we form
an abstract concept of being and then deduce the existence of God, as Anselm thought.

The concept of being is univocal in the sense this concept is common to a plurality of
things, neither accidentally or substantially alike (thus avoiding pantheism). The proofs of
God's existence given by his predecessors are all rejected. Not to feed skepticism, but
because they are not logically conclusive.
Embodied nature is the primary mental object. No direct, natural apprehension of God's
essence is given. "God exists." is not a self-evident proposition. God's existence can
therefore never be proved with certainty. God is not an object of demonstrative science. Is
the existence of God probable ?
Against the first mover, Ockham shows how the basic premiss of the argument is neither
self-evident or demonstrable. Angels and the human soul also move themselves. Such
exceptions show the alleged principle is not necessary, and so not a sufficient basis for a
certain proof. It cannot be proved an infinite regress in the series of movers is impossible.
Perhaps infinite objects exist. Perhaps the world is not finite but infinite, not temporal but
everlasting. As it is more probable there is a first unmoved mover than no first unmoved
mover, the argument from movement is only probable. A first mover probably exists.
Against finality, Ockham argues as follows. In the case of things acting without knowledge
and will, they act because of a natural necessity, with is not the same as to say they act
"for an end". In the case of intelligent agents of will, voluntary actions are rooted in their
own will. Only if one presupposes God's existence, can one speak of things acting for ends,
but God's existence is not a given.
The only way to prove God's existence would be as efficient cause of all things, remaining
within the finite order. Indeed, Ockham stops at the first efficient cause. The reasons for
this move also explain his rejection of the arguments of necessity and perfections. Infinite
transcendence is thus avoided. But to identify this cause with God is not possible, for this
cause could be a heavenly body (Quodlibet). It cannot be proved this supposed heavenly
body is caused by God, for we have only immediate and mediate sense data of corruptible
things, not of any transcending concept.
Against the semantic pattern of previous arguments, Ockham argues the difference
between Divine attributes like omnipotence, infinity, eternity, absolutely supreme, perfect,
unique, the power to create out of nothing, which cannot be demonstrated, and "God" as
the first conserving cause of this world. Although we have no certain knowledge about its
nature, one can prove its existence as probable. This is Ockham's argument from
conservation, a subtle form of the argument from efficient causes (and developed in the
commentary on the Sentences). The existence of God as the unique and absolute supreme
being cannot be demonstrated, but the existence of the first conserving cause can, and this
existence is probable and wholly immanent.
§ 20
The core of the argument favors the move from (vertical) conservation to Conserver, rather
than from (horizontal) product to Producer. In this way, the infinite regress is avoided, for
this infinite series is conceivable in the case of efficient causes (existing one after the other
and so forming an infinite world), but impossible in the actual order of conservation "hic et
nunc". If not, actual reality would be inflated to an actual infinity, which is it is evidently
not, as everybody agrees.

In the traditional argument from efficient causes, it is assumed an infinite regress in causes
of the same kind is not possible. The world was deemed finite and the world of ideas
infinite. In Christianity, the former was associated with "fallen nature" and the latter with
the Dionysian angelic choirs. To say the world was infinite was sheer blasphemy, for it
ruined the strict line drawn by the theists between a finite creation and an infinite Creator.
In such a context, free natural inquiry was repressed. The "via moderna" is no longer
devoted to apology. For Ockham, the finitude of the world cannot be strictly demonstrated.
Maybe an infinite series exists, maybe not. All previous proofs presupposed the truth of the
proposition "The world is not infinite.", but this is not necessarily so. Nevertheless,
probabilities may be assessed and calculated.
To avoid the question of the infinite ingress in time, i.e. as a sequence of interacting and
interdependent efficient causes, Ockham jumps to the actual, vertical order of events "here
and now", i.e. as they are happening in every moment. By doing so, he avoids an infinite
regress, for it is a solid premiss to affirm the world is not infinite in each actual moment.
As a contingent thing coming into being, is conserved in being as long as it exists, its
conserver is dependent, for its own conservation, on another conserver or not. As only
necessary beings conserve themselves and the world contains contingent things only, every
conserver depends on another conserver, etc. As there is no infinite number of actual
conservers "hic et nunc", there must be a first Conserver. An infinite regress in the case of
things existing one after the other (like horizontal causes of the same kind) is conceivable.
But an infinite regress in the actual, empirical world here and now would give an actual
infinity, which is absurd. Indeed, to avoid the first Conserver, actual reality would become
infinite ! Ergo, the first Conserver probably exists.
This elegant proof of the first Conserver is completely a posteriori. It avoids the order of
infinity, and considers the world finite. No limit-concept is invoked, no transcendent being
deduced. The "essence" of God cannot be known, lies outside reason. The existence of God
cannot be demonstrated by necessity, but argued by probability, for the finite order of
contingent beings cannot be conserved without a first Conserver. So, according to Ockham,
in the order of rational, empirical knowledge, natural necessity and a first Conserver is all
philosophy can infer as proven, probable knowledge. Nothing which is really God can be
known by us without something other than God being involved as object. There is no
simple concept proper to God mirroring the essence of God adequately. We are left with
the first Conserver, and can advance no further (cf. infra, Kant and the architect of the
world).
In Late Medieval thought, the ultimate reduction introduced by Ockham was the final organ
point closing the process of (1) the assimilation of the new sources in the dialectica, in
particular Aristotelian thought, Arabic science and the "Orientale Lumen", and (2) their
subsequent rejection. With radical nominalism, a conceptual framework was set in place
describing the logical and epistemological conditions for the study of nature that was to
follow. Platonism and hylemorphism were rejected. Knowledge derived from direct, actual
experience is deemed valid. All other knowledge is constructed. Propositions in which
universals operate, may be certain or probable. Logic deals with certaintly, but scientific
knowledge is probable. The world is a contingent, corporeal whole. The existence of God
lies outside reason, as an object of faith. Natural necessity and a first Conserver of the
world are the two pillars of natural theology, based on probable knowledge.

1.6 Cusanus and the coincidentia oppositorum.
"What other, O Lord, is Your seeing, when You look upon me with the eye of mercy, than
Your being seen by me ? In seeing me, You, who are Deus absconditus, give Yourself to be
seen by me. No one can see You except insofar as You grant that You be seen. To see You,
is not other than that You see the one who sees You."
Cusanus : De visione Dei, chapter 5, 13.
§ 21
Nicolas Cardinal Kryfts or Krebs (1401 - 1464), born at Cusa, was a Renaissance
philosopher, a transition-figure between the traditional Catholic & Scholastic way and the
first, pre-critical stadium of modernism, characterized by humanism, philosophy of nature
and empiricism. Clearly, his interest in our knowledge of God and the world's relation to
God reflects a strong Medieval root. But, this remarkable system integrated preceding
thought and combined it in such a unique way that it looked ahead and stood by itself. He
often quotes ps.-Dionysius the Areopagite (4th, 5th or 6th century), and was influenced by
Eriugena (ca. 810 - ca. 877), Meister Eckhart (ca. 1260 - 1327/8) and mystical Platonism.
He inspired Leonardo da Vinci (1452 - 1519) and influenced Renaissance thinking, in
particular the philosophy of nature of the priest Giordano Bruno (1548 - 1600), who
developed his ideas far beyond the convictions of Cusanus. Was Nicolas of Cusa the first
Christian pan-en-theist, thinking both transcendence & immanence in an overarching
harmonious unity ?
The philosophy of Cusanus aims at unity as the harmonious synthesis of differences, both
in nature as a developing and self-unfolding whole, and in God, who transcends the world
but also includes the distinct perfections of creatures. This ideal of unity without the
suppression of differences accepts comparison, similarity, dissimilarity and distinction hand
in hand with the absolute eternity of God.
§ 22
In De coniecturis, three degrees of knowledge come to the fore : sense-perception, reason
("ratio") and intellect ("intellectus"). Senses only confirm, never deny. Reason confirms A
and denies B, while the intellect denies both A and B disjunctively and together (not A, not
B, not A and B). The Peripatetics, so we read in De docta ignorantia, are right to deny the
actual, real existence of universals, for only individual things exist and universals belong to
the conceptual order. Members of the same species have a common nature, existing, in a
contracted state, in each of them as an individual nature. But no individual realizes the
perfection of its species, and each member has its own individual features. Discursive
reason cannot penetrate the nature of God. We rather know that He is than what He is.
Hence, insofar as positive knowledge is concerned, our minds are in a state of "learned
ignorance", which is not absence of knowledge of God, but comes from realizing God's
infinity and transcendence.
As such, the intellect, a superior activity of the mind, grasps God as the "coincidentia
oppositorum". But, we cannot have a positive understanding of this. Reason is
approximative (like an ever increasing polygon inscribed in a circle) and so only conjecture.
The highest possible natural knowledge of God cannot be attained by this kind of discursive
reasoning. However, intuitive knowledge can never be stated in language, for the latter is

the instrument of reason only. So, to express the contents of the intellect, the mind is
bound to suggest meaning rather than to affirm, or state it.
The creation of the world, the "explicatio Dei", is unity contracted into plurality, infinity into
finitude, simplicity into composition, eternity into succession, necessity into possibility.
Here the doctrine of Eriugena shines through. The universe "vero est ipsa quidditas
contacta", and so God is the absolute essence of the world. The world is God in a state of
contraction. Hence, God is in the world and the world is in God. In De visione Dei, God is
declared as invisible in Himself (as He is in essence), but visible "uti creatura est". This is
no pantheism, for man, the microcosm or a certain human world (uniting attributes found
in separately in other beings) deemed a representation of the Divine coincidentia
oppositorum, is but a human God ("humanus est igitur Deus"), not God in an absolute,
essential way. In De docta ignorantia, the world is "infinitas contracta" and "contracta
unitas", but in Apologia doctae ignorantiae, Nicolas explicitly rejects pantheism, for the
contraction is not the essence.
The universe is one and composed of finite things. But, as Plato said, time is the image of
eternity. Indeed, before creation there was no time, so it proceeded from eternity and thus
participates in eternity. The world is eternal but not eternity. Time is a measure of motion
and intrinsic to the world. Without motion, no time. The universe has no bounds and so in
way is spatially infinite. It has no fixed centre and every point is its centre. God may be
called the centre of the world because He is everywhere or omnipresent, and, as its
circumference, nowhere by local presence.
Up and down are relative. The Earth is not the centre of the world, nor has the Sun any
privileged position, for everything moves. As there are no fixed point, there is no absolute,
universal frame of observation. A man in a boat on a river unable to see its banks or the
moving water, would assume the boat was stationary. All observation is relative and so all
knowledge is approximate.
The universe does not exist apart from the things in it and so these individual things
embody all the perfections of its species. The absolute greatness, the "absolutum
maximum" or God is never contracted or rendered "concrete". The "concretum maximum"
is hence a Being uniting all levels of created existence and also God. This mode of union is
a mystery. This Being, the perfection of the universe, is both the "maximum concretum"
and the "medium absolutum", the unique and necessary means by which human beings
can be united to God. For Cusanus, in De visione Dei, that being was Christ Jesus, and the
Roman Church His Body.
Regarding Divine nature, he stressed an infinite object is not an empirically given object.
Instructed ignorance is precisely the realization of God's transcendence. God alone is
"possest", for He is in act what He can be, He is His own definition, He defines everything
else, He alone is the source and conserver of all things (cf. De possest, De veneratione
sapientiae). Apart from God, the world would not exist, but nothingness would. But the
contrary is true, for the world is a mirror of God. Nicolas thought the via negativa to God
superior to affirmative theology. The former posits the absence of positive affirmation
about the nature of the Divine not in need of any negative qualification. But, in his last
work, De apice theoriæ, God is called "posse ipsum", possibility itself or being able Himself,
Herself, Itself. This is a positive statement. As nobody would be ignorant of "posse", when
knowing that he can eat, run and speak, it would be absurd to ask whether one can do

something without the power to do so. Likewise, God as absolute "posse ipsum" is the
cause and conserver of all motion, of the world. Both perspectives, the transcendent and
the immanent come together in the idea of God as coincidentia oppositorum, of which man
is a finite representation.
§ 23
Before Nicolas of Cusa, the proofs of God (a priori as well as posteriori) focused on the
proof of the transcendence of God. This in accord with Christian theistic beliefs. Indeed,
fundamental theology (Augustinian & Thomist) avoided pantheistic associations, and so
exorcised God out of the world (even mystics like Jan of Ruusbroec was charged with
pantheism, a heresy). In a sense, this is also at work in the reduction of the fuzzy set
"Divine" to the theological "God" of the dialectics. Cusanus (and already earlier John Scotus
Eriugena), overcame this exclusive theism, for "God" is conceived as entering the world
(albeit in as Christ Jesus).
Indeed, Cusanus has a pan-en-theist perception of the Divine. Bi-polarity is acknowledged,
and "God" is absolute as well as relative, unlimited (as the circle) as well as limited (as the
polygon multiplying its angles within it), remote as well as near. Moreover, this polarity
forms an unconceivable unity, a vanishing-point of all distinctions. God contains all things,
He is "omnia complicans". At the same time, He is "omnia explicans", the source of all
things. The latter, because they exist, reveal something of Him. He contains them
complicative, and is immanent in all things explicative, for they are essentially dependent
on Him. He is both transcendent and immanent.
Nicolas brings both ways together in a copulative theology and does away with the "middle"
term invoked by the former dialectics. Pushed by logical technicalities (cf. the difference
between transcendence and the limit of the finite world at work in the a posteriori
arguments), they had construed a "tertium comparationis" between the transcendent God
and the finite world. This interstitial entity is then the "Anima Mundi", the Platonic demiurge
or some other intermediate between God and the world (like Christ). But, if God is truly a
unity, then this division is not ontological but only conceptual. And so although logically the
existence of a first Conserver is probable, ontologically this Conserver is none other than a
transcendent Being, although philosophically this can only be suggested, and never
demonstrated (not for certain and not in probability).
There is no stage between the actual infinite or transcendent God and the potential infinite
or created world. The latter is but a contraction or theophany of the Divine being.
While combining neo-Platonic and Peripatetic components, other parts of this remarkable
philosophy anticipate Leibniz (1646 - 1716), Schelling (1775 - 1854) and Hegel (1770 -
1831).
§ 24
The Medieval dialectics raised the question of the existence of God in terms of logic and
linguistics. Regarding the way of argument, two strategies were used : either Divine
existence is demonstrated from within (a priori), i.e. using the concept or idea of God one
moves to God's existence, or from without (a posteriori), i.e. from phenomenal experience
to an underlying Divine reality. As the foundational postulate was accepted by most, these
strategies are either Platonic or Peripatetic. The former is the "via antiqua", the latter the

"via moderna". Platonist invoke a nexus between empirical reality and the real world of
ideas, rejected by the Aristotelians. Hence, the latter do not develop an argument a priori.
Both these Platonic as well as Peripatetic "reales" oppose the "nominales", who, in their
radical format, cause the Peripatetic movement to turn into skepticism.
Regarding the arguments a posteriori, the arguments from efficient causes and design are
strong. But they do not prove a transcendent Being, the aim of theology, but make
probable a first, conserving and intelligent cause well within nature (cf. the Stoic
"pneuma").
It is interesting to note both Ockham and Cusanus stress the probable, approximate nature
of knowledge. In their writings, we can witness the first cracks in fundamental philosophy.
Although they would affirm the existence of a sufficient ground, they nevertheless deny
human knowledge the capacity to arrive at certain knowledge (an ideal cherished by
Platonists & Peripatetics alike). Ockham is critical of knowledge because of his insight into
the logic of demonstration. Cusanus thinks in approximations because he is convinced our
knowledge is but a contraction, a finitude in comparison with God's omniscience.
Medieval thought circumambulated God. This dependence made it impossible to arrive at a
more critical position, i.e. one not already assuming God's existence. This seems very
important, for atheism cannot be rejected a priori. It would take another three centuries,
largely filled with religious conflicts and wars, before the free study triggered by the
Renaissance gave birth to a new, human-centered beginning in Western philosophy.
"Man, being the servant and interpreter of Nature, can do and understand so much as so
much only as he has observed in fact or in thought of the course of nature. Beyond this he
neither knows anything nor can do anything."
Bacon, F. : The New Organon, Aphorisms (Book One), I.
1.7 The Cartesian proofs of God.
§ 25
To seek indubitable truth, René Descartes (1596 - 1650) turned to methodological doubt.
He left the Jesuit college of La Flèche and was ashamed of the amalgam of doubts and
errors he had learned there.
This discovery prompted Descartes to reject all prejudices and seek out certain knowledge.
Nine years he raises doubts about various conjectures and opinions covering the whole
range of human activities. Eventually, doubt is raised regarding three sources of
knowledge :
1. authority : as contradictions always arise between authorities a higher criterion
is needed ;
2. senses : maybe waking experience is just a "dream" or a "hallucination" ? Can
this be or not ? Also : the senses give confused information, so a still higher
criterion is needed ;
3. reason : how can we be certain some "malin génie" has not created us such,
that we accept self-evident reasoning although we are in reality mislead and in
fatal error ?

However far doubt is systematically applied, it does not extend to my own existence. Doubt
reveals my existence. I can doubt all objects of these activities of consciousness, but that
such an activity of consciousness exists, is beyond doubt.
Thus, the "res cogitans", "ego cogitans" or "l'être conscient" is the crucial factor in
Cartesian philosophy. Its indubitable, intuitively grasped truth ? Cogito ergo sum : I think,
therefore I am. That I doubt certain things may be the case, but the fact that I doubt them,
i.e. am engaged in a certain conscious activity, is certain. To say : "I doubt whether I
exist." is a contradictio in actu exercito, or a statement refuted by the mere act of stating
it. The certainty of Cogito ergo sum is not inferred but immediate and intuitive. It is not a
conclusion, but a certain premiss. It is not first & most certain in the "ordo essendi", but as
far as regards the "ordo cognoscendi". It is true each time I think, and when I stop thinking
there is no reason for me to think that I ever existed. I intuit in a concrete case the
impossibility of thinking without existing.
In the second Meditation, Cogito ergo sum is true each time I pronounce or mentally
conceive it ...
Having intuited a true and certain proposition, Descartes seeks the general criterion of
certainty implied. Cogito ergo sum is true and certain, because he clearly and distinctly
sees what is affirmed. As a general rule, all things which I conceive clearly and distinctly
are true. In the Principles of Philosophy, we are told "clear" means that which is present
and apparent to an attentive mind and "distinct" that which contains within itself nothing
but what is clear. Although he has arrived at a certain and clear proposition, he does not
start to work with it without more ado. Indeed, suppose God gave me a nature which
causes me to err even in matters which seem self-evident ? To eliminate this "very slight"
doubt, Descartes needs to prove the existence of a God who is not a deceiver. Without this
proof, what I conceive as clear and distinct, may in reality not be so.
§ 26
In the third Meditation, Descartes starts by examining the ideas he witnesses in his mind a
posteriori. He finds ideas referring to colors and other qualities which might have been
produced by himself. And as he is a substance, it is possible other modes of substance (like
duration, extension, motion) might be eminently contained in him. But if we define "God"
as a substance which is infinite, independent, all-knowing & all-powerful, the question is
whether this idea of God could have been produced by himself ?
Insofar as I am substance, I can form the idea of substance, but only as a finite substance.
I cannot possess the idea of infinite substance, unless it proceeds from an existing infinite
substance. Although I can negate finitude and arrive at infinity, the latter is not merely
negative, for I clearly see there is more reality in infinite than in finite substance. Hence,
the idea of the infinite must be prior to the idea of the finite. Otherwise I would be unable
to recognize my finitude, except by comparison with the idea of an infinite and perfect
being. As a blind man cannot form the idea of color, so a finite substance cannot possess
an infinite idea by itself.
Another way to come to this is to ask : Can I be the author of my being ? Or : can I
conserve myself at the present time ? If this would be the case, then the idea of a perfect
substance would be caused by my own mind. In order for this to be, I should have to be

God Himself. As this I am clearly not, infinity is before finitude.
Formally, the a posteriori argument has this form :
1. Major Premiss : it is a fact I have the idea of an infinite, perfect being in my
mind ;
2. Minor Premiss 1 : a finite being like myself cannot be the cause of the idea of
an infinite perfect being ;
3. Minor Premiss 2 : if the effect exists, the cause exist ;
4. Conclusion : the cause of this idea must be infinite and real.
Descartes also tries to prove God's existence without reference to the external world, i.e. a
priori. Let us formalize the argument :
1. Major Premiss : what we clearly and distinctly conceive as belonging to the
essence of A really belongs to this essence ;
2. Minor Premiss : after considering the idea of a perfect, infinite being, we clearly
and distinctly conceive existence as belonging to its essence ;
3. Conclusion : God must exist in reality.
Regarding 1
This is the fundamental postulate of rationalism and idealism. Spinoza (1632 - 1677) gave
it this form : "leges cogitandi sunt leges essendi", or : the laws of thinking are the laws of
reality. Hence, all things possible in the mind (i.e. without contradictions) are also possible
in actuality. Clearly, this postulate is a recuperation of the Platonists, albeit as far as
regards the preestablished nexus between the extramental and the mental.
Regarding 2
The premiss affirms the infinite perfection of God. Is this idea truly "clara et distincta" ? As
it cannot be derived from sense-perception, and differs from a mental fiction variable at
will, it must be innate in me, just as the idea of myself is innate in me. It is like the mark of
the workman imprinted on his work (third Meditation). This privileged idea is the image and
likeness of God placed in me when He created me. I am conscious of my imperfection only
because I already possess the idea of the perfect.
Descartes concludes God, who is perfect, cannot be a deceiver. Hence, those propositions I
see clearly and distinctly must be true. This certainty about God's existence enables me to
apply this criterion of truth universally.
§ 27
Two major problems undermine the Cartesian proofs of God :
1. the ego as substance : both in the Meditations and the Principles of Philosophy,
substance is demonstrated after proving the existence of God. However, the "I"
in Cogito ergo sum, is not a transcendental ego (a mere formal condition of
knowledge), but "me thinking". Despite various contents of thought, the thing

that cannot be doubted is not "a thinking" or "a thought", but a thinking ego
conceived as a substance. This ego is not formal, nor the "I" of ordinary
discourse, but a concrete existing "I". Descartes uncritically assumes the
Scholastic notion of substance, while this doctrine is open to doubt. Thinking
does not necessarily require a thinker, and the ego cogitans must not be a thing
which thinks, but a mere transcendental ego accompanying every cogitation (cf.
Kant) ;
2. a petitio principii : if the validity of the conclusion, namely the affirmation of
God's existence, is used to assure myself of the validity of the principles on
which it rests, then a circular argument is at hand. The circle can be specified as
follows : Descartes has to prove God's existence before using "clara et
distincta" as criterion of truth. But in order to prove God's existence, his
arguments incorporate the criterion. It is unlikely Descartes can escape this,
although he tried so by invoking the difference between what we perceive
clearly and distinctly here and now and what we remember to have perceived
so in the past. He then needs to prove the employment of memory is not
essential in proving God's existence. But, as he still needs to show God is not a
deceiver, how can he be assured this is the case if the latter rests on axioms
which are themselves subject to doubt until the conclusion has been proved ?
With Descartes, we witness the return of a Platonizing way of thinking. Of course, as the
focus of attention is on the conscious ego (and no longer on God), this feature is not
immediately apparent. The original intuition of Cogito ergo sum, the reduction of reality to
extension, the quest for a mathematical formula of the complete material universe and the
strict dualism between "res extensa" and "res cogitans" are the new themes of this
Platonizing rationalism. As was the case in Medieval philosophy, this idealism triggers its
counter-thesis, namely the realism of empiricism.
1.8 David Hume and the cause of order.
"Nature is always too strong for principle."
Hume, D. : Enquiry concerning the Principles of Morals, 12, 2, 128.
§ 28
In his Treatise of Human Nature (1739) and Enquiry concerning human Understanding
(1748), David Hume (1711 - 1776) seeks to develop a science of man. As Locke (1632 -
1704), he envisages a critical and experimental foundation.
"Perceptions" are the contents of the mind in general, divided in impressions and ideas.
The former strike the mind with vividness, force and liveliness, whereas the latter are faint
images of these in thinking. Impressions are either of sensation or of reflection. The latter
are in great measure derived from ideas.
Like Ockham, Hume is a nominalist. Real or ideal universals are not the foundation to erect
the science of man. Unlike Descartes, he is an empirist : the senses are the foundation of
knowledge. Two kinds of propositions are possible :
1. analytic : the predicate is part of the subject - these tautologies are universal

and necessary, but restricted to geometry and arithmetic. All a priori
propositions are analytic and have nothing to say about the world of fact ;
2. synthetic : the predicate is not part of the subject and an extramental reality is
implied. All synthetic propositions are a posteriori and have always something
to say about the world.
The extramental reality sought can be no other than the one offered by direct or indirect
empirical experience.
1. direct synthetic propositions : the predicate is attached to the subject because
of what is immediately empirically perceived here and now ;
2. indirect synthetic propositions : the predicate is attached to the subject because
we move from what be know to be a direct, given fact to a state of affairs which
is not (yet) empirically given. These propositions are problematic because a
necessary and objective connection between our idea of causality and real
events cannot be demonstrated. Moreover, logically the move from a finite
series of particular observations to an infinite, necessary law can never be
warranted (cf. the problem of induction in naive realism).
Suppose the observed psychological connection between fact A and fact B is continuous. Is
it necessary ? My (or our) witnessing the connection more than once, does not imply that it
will work tomorrow. Skepticism results. The universal value of scientific laws cannot be
demonstrated, neither can the reality of the world (within and without). Science is
restricted to statements of probability.
The Achilles Heel of this position is the status of the sense-data and the formation of
concepts. It is not clear how sense-data can be identified without some conceptual
connotation, which is not a sense datum. Moreover, sensation is introduced as a sufficient
ground. "Adequatio intellectus at rem" is presupposed (as in all forms of realism). Finally,
how can similarities between sense-data be observed ?
§ 29
And what about God ? Hume refused to accept the validity of the traditional arguments, for
he did not accept that God's existence is demonstrable. Hume did not profess himself an
atheist, but one can hardly call him a theist. He studied the argument from design, leading
to the "religious hypothesis". In the Dialogues, arguments drawn from the analogy between
human constructions and the world are rejected as anthropomorphic. But, Hume admitted
"organization" was at work in the world, in particular vegetable and animal life, instinct and
intelligence. We know the effects of their order and pattern by experience. And although
their principles remain mysteries, points of analogy between them exist. However, in this
"experimental theism", we can move no further than direct experience and probability.
Perhaps Hume would agree with God's existence if we mean to merely affirm a remote
analogy between the ultimate cause of order in the universe and intelligence. This is not a
full-blown intelligent Designer, but the minimal hypothesis arrived at in empiricism and
skepticism. To arrive at such a minimal hypothesis concerning such a critical issue as the
existence of the Divine is not trivial. Maybe Hume realized this and so was reluctant to
deny the existence of God in the unequivocal sense suggested by "atheism". It may be the

first step to a larger view if another, less restricted, and foundational framework can be
better argued. However, for Hume the strength of the argument from design is not its
rationality but its inevitability, grasped in terms of human passions and tendencies which
lead up to religion (cf. his Natural History of Religion and Dialogues concerning Natural
Religion).
With David Hume, we arrive at the final chapter of the apory between Platonic and
Peripatetic foundational thinking. In fact, Ockham had walked that path before, but he was
a theologian. Hume is no longer bothered by the dictates of religion, but his empiricism is
so strict the science of certainties is no longer possible. Instead, as Ockham and Cusanus
had emphasized, we are left with a science of probabilities and approximations.
In all previous approaches, the foundation of science was uncritically identified with an
external objectivity, i.e. a sufficient ground : Platonic ideas versus sense-data, idealism
versus realism, a perfect thought versus a correct observation. Each time, a special
antinomy appeared, for realism is unthinkable without intramental and intersubjective
similarities and idealism is unthinkable without extramental realities. For the Greeks, the
basic problem of pre-critical conceptual rationality involved the nature of the universal
ideas, forms or archetypes : transcendent or immanent. For the Medieval dialectica, the
division existed between the "reales", for whom the universals were real, and the
"nominales", for whom they were mental constructions. In modern thought, this "scandal of
reason" (Kant) was the apory between rationalism (Descartes) and empiricism (Locke),
ending in skepticism (Hume).
1.9 Kant and the Architect of the world.
"We thus see that all the wrangling about the nature of a thinking being, and its association
with the material world, arises simply from our filling the gap, due to our ignorance, with
paralogisms of reason, and by changing thoughts into things and hypostatizing them."
Kant, I. : Critique of Pure Reason, A394-398.
§ 30
The aim of Kant (1724 - 1804) was to find the conditions enabling statements of fact to be
universal & necessary, i.e. as binding as the analytics of mathematics. Hence, a universal
and necessary science is possible. Without apory, philosophy explained how the universal
physical laws of Newton are what they are. The scandal is over ...
With Kant, rational thought matured. Unlike conceptualism (Platonic or Peripatetic) and
nominalism (of Ockham or Hume), critical thought, inspired by Descartes, is rooted in the
"I think", the transcendental condition of empirical self-consciousness without which
nothing can be properly called "experience". This "I", the apex of the system of
transcendental concepts, is "of all times" the idea of the connected of experiences. It is not
a Cartesian substantial ego cogitans, nor an empirical datum, but the formal condition
accompanying every experience of the empirical ego. Kant calls it the transcendental
(conditional) unity of all possible experience (or apperception) a priori. Like the
transcendental system of which it is the formal head, it is shared by all knowers by
necessity.
"What can I know ?" is the first question asked. Which conditions make knowledge
possible ? This special reflective activity was given a new word, namely "transcendental".

This meta-knowledge is not occupied with outer objects, but with our manner of knowing
these objects, so far as this is meant to be possible a priori (A11), i.e. always, everywhere
and necessarily so. Kant's aim is to prepare for a true, immanent metaphysics, different
from the transcendent, dogmatic ontologisms of the past, turning thoughts into things.
The transcendental system of the conditions of possible knowledge (or transcendental
logic) is a hierarchy of concepts defining the objective ground of all possible knowledge,
both in terms of the synthetic propositions a priori of object-knowledge (transcendental
analytic covering understanding), as well as regarding the greatest possible expansion
under unity of understanding (transcendental dialectic covering reason). These
transcendental concepts are not empirical, but are the product of the transcendental
method, bringing to consciousness principles which cannot be denied because they are part
of every denial. They are "pure" because they are empty of empirical data and stand on
their own, while rooted in (or suspended on) the transcendental "I think", the "factum
rationis". For Kant, reason, the higher faculty of knowledge, is only occupied with
understanding, while the latter is only processing the input from the senses. Reason has no
intellect to inform it. There is no faculty higher than reason.
In his "transcendental dialectic", Kant deals with the negative, deceptive meaning of the
word "dialectic", namely as antinomy and paralogism. These scandals occur each time the
barriers given by our transcendental logic are not upheld and the ideas are changed into
things, which is far worse than a mere mistaken use of the categories.
"I do not mean by this the transcendental use or abuse of the categories, which is a mere
fault of the faculty of judgment, not being as yet sufficiently subdued by criticism nor
sufficiently attentive to the limits of the sphere within which alone the pure understanding
has full play, but real principles which call upon us to break down all those barriers, and to
claim a perfectly new territory, which nowhere recognises any demarcation at all. Here
transcendental and transcendent do not mean the same thing."
Kant, I. : Critique of Pure Reason, B350.
When the landmarks are removed, transcendental illusion ensues, or reason forgetful of its
own, changing thoughts into things. This fundamental falsehood perverts the principles of
reason itself. This natural "dialectic" of reason does not go away once realized, but requires
to be removed again and again, for it "will never crease to fascinate our reason" (B354).
Human reason has a natural inclination to grossly overstep these limits, to give in to the
pull of the "unconditional" idea, to fill the gap between what we can know and what we
fancy to know, thereby regarding the transcendental ideas as real things, whereas they are
wholly subjective, only needed to organize understanding and have no meaning outside
this regulative, non-subreptive way. This reveals a fundamental demarcation or difference
in the use of the transcendental ideas : regulative (as it should) or constitutive (as
hypostases). In the latter case, they step outside the barriers of transcendental logic.
§ 31
In the Critique of Practical Reason, Kant defines the existence of God as a necessary
subjective condition to solve the antinomy between virtue and happiness. Together with
the existence of the person and the existence of human liberty, God is one of the three
postulates of practical reason. Even in the Critique of Pure Reason, the idea of God, derived
from the causal chain between things, is crucial to co-guarantee the unity and expansion of
understanding. Nevertheless, in the same work, he demonstrates how every rational proof

of the existence of a transcendent being like God involves an illegitimate use of reason.
Hence, just as Ockham had said before him, it is impossible to prove the existence of God
defined in transcendent, theistic terms. A natural theology of the transcendent God is
impossible.
Those who try to prove the theist God make the same mistake : they objectify beyond all
possible experience the unconditional unity of all possible predicates, fill the gap, pass
beyond the conditioned, and inevitably end their search for the most perfect being ("ens
perfectissimum") in a hypostatized "ens realissimum". Reason cannot cross the borderline
of the world. We cannot move outside it and experience the world as an object.
Kant reclassified the proofs of the existence of God as follows :
1. ontological : whatever our concept of an object may contain (for example, the
idea of the "ens realissimum" as the idea of an absolutely necessary being), we
must always step outside it in order to attribute existence to it. Existence is not
a predicate and adds nothing to an object, not even in the unique case of the
most perfect being. To say something "exists" is to posit the subject with all its
predicates. To say "God does not exist." is to annihilate all the predicates, not
just "existence" ;
2. cosmological : this proof will always complete the series of phenomena in the
unconditioned unity of a necessary Being, and by doing so, overstep the
boundaries of reason, for the categorial principle "everything contingent has a
cause" is only valid in the realm of sense-experience (the world) and it is only
there it has meaning, never outside it (cf. the arguments from motion, efficient
causes, perfections & necessity) ;
3. physico-theological : this proof of finality, aim or design is based on an analogy
from human adaptation of means to ends. We can move from the idea of design
to the idea of a Designer, but not from the latter to the transcendent Creator of
the world. This would again involve a misuse of the transcendental ideas of
reason, a crossing over of the ring-pass-not of pure reason.
Kant retained a real respect for the argument from design, being the oldest, clearest and
most in conformity with reason. It can prepare the mind for practical theological knowledge
and give it "a right and natural direction" (B665). Moreover, it gives life to the study of
nature, "deriving its own existence from it, and thus constantly acquiring new
vigour" (B649).
To posit a necessary and all-sufficient Being means it is so overwhelming and so high
above everything empirical and conditioned, we never would find enough material in
experience to fill such a concept. If it is part of the chain of conditions, it would require
further investigation with regard to its own still higher cause, but if it stands by itself, it is
outside the chain and thus a purely intelligible Being. But then, "what bridge is then open
for reason to reach it, considering that all rules determining the transition from effect to
cause, nay, all synthesis and extension of our knowledge in general, refer to nothing but
possible experience, and therefore to the objects of the world of sense only, and are valid
nowhere else ?" (B649).
With regard to causality, we cannot do without a last and highest Being, but such a

transcendental idea, although agreeing with the demands of reason, would only give a faint
outline of an abstract concept (emerging when we represent all possible perfections united
in one substance). It would favour the extension of the employment of reason in the midst
of experience, guiding it towards order and system, and would not oppose any experience.
But this is not the same as proving the existence of a necessary and self-sufficient God and
Creator.
The inference, proceeding from the order and design observed in the world as a contingent
arrangement (one with a possibility of happening) to the concept of a cause proportionate
to it, teaches us something quite definite about this first cause, namely that it is a very
great being of an astounding and immeasurable might and virtue, but not what the thing is
by itself. Or, in other words, the harmony existing in nature proves the contingency of the
form, but not of the matter or the substance in the world (we grasp the form, but do not
observe the matter). To prove the contingency of matter itself would require us to show
that in the substance of the things of the world, the product of a supreme wisdom exists.
But the latter is not part of the world and thus no object of the senses. The conclusion is
clear :
"The utmost, therefore, that could be established by such a proof would be an architect of
the world, always very much hampered by the quality of the material with which he has to
work, not a creator, to whose idea everything is subject. This would by no means suffice
for the purposed aim of proving an all-sufficient original Being. If we wished to prove the
contingency of matter itself, we must have recourse to a transcendental argument, and this
is the very thing which was to be avoided."
Kant, I. : Critique of Pure Reason, B653.
This argument, although using a variant terminology (rooted in the transcendental method)
is in tune with Ockham's first Conserver (of each entity hic et nunc). In the vertical order
of simultaneity, the a posteriori series (of conservers) has to be stopped before exiting the
order of the world. Hence, the apex reached is well within the world and at the top of the
chain. The first Conserver too is a cause proportional to the arrangements within the world,
and does not step outside the world.
§ 32
In the previous century, neo-Kantianism, doing the exercise all over again, reconstructed
Kant's system. A series of rules could be inferred. What can I know ? is answered without
presupposing synthetic proposition a priori are possible. The science of certainties is
replaced by the science of probabilities and approximations.
The Münchhausen-trilemma is avoided by stopping to seek an absolute ground for science.
The categorial system is not absolute, although some of its general features are necessary
in a normative way (for we use them when we think). Object and subject of thought are
fundamental critical concepts. Experiment and argumentation are crucial for scientific
method. Realism and idealism are the proposed transcendental ideas of reason.
In the domain of science, producing empirico-formal propositions, the idea of the real and
the idea of the ideal are both necessary and operate simultaneously. Likewise, science is
the product of two vectors : objective observation (experiment, test) & intersubjective
dialogue (argumentation). In the concrete research-unity, these a priori rules are
complemented by a posteriori rules of thumb or practical, opportunistic hypothesis

assisting the efficient functioning of the research community. On this level, the difference
between what should and what is (between theoretical epistemology and the sociology of
science) is felt most ... Indeed, like the rest of us, scientists are not perfect.
In accord with Ockham's terministic probabilism and Cusanus' view of all knowledge as
"approximative", contemporary criticism finds comfort in the fact no certain knowledge is
possible, and no sufficient ground for the possibility of knowledge needs to be found. This
position is open and so free to investigate all possible expansions of knowledge. Dogmatic
and ontological fossilizations are excluded from this safe but narrow point of view.
§ 33
So, after these historical windows, where do we stand ?
On the one hand, the problems of the a priori argument evidence the unlikelihood of
moving from the concept of God to the reality of God. On the other hand, the traditional
form of the argument makes clear semantic atheism (of those who accept the concept of
God has meaning but refuse God any existence) is as unlikely.
Take the case of logical atheism. If God equals the empty set, the proposition "God exists."
is not equivalent with "Dragons do not exist.", for fictional objects are poetically
meaningful, but rather with "Square circles do not exist." Words like "God" or "QMNC" are
meaningless, i.e. just a series of nonsensical sounds or dots on paper. How to prove QMNC
or for that matter any concept of the Divine (whether theist, pantheist or pan-en-theist)
meaningless ? How to demonstrate the things within our empirical reach are necessarily
the only ones, except by axiomatics or convention ? But, if only a posteriori arguments, in
which the Münchhausen-trilemma is avoided, are available, then such a feat may prove to
be highly unlikely. If so, then the attribution of meaning to the concept of God is not
illegitimate.
Moreover, how to refute the claims of those who do understand the word "God" to have
meaning ? They are not few, despite the fact modern science and virulent atheism have
become fashionable. Indeed, the sociological fact of religion can not be denied and needs
explaining. Even the most educated of individual may give meaning to the concept of God.
How is this possible ? Can an atheist explanation of the fact of religion be given ? Is it
possible to have a natural antenna (like the God-spot in the brain) but no broadcasting
source ?
My position is clear. The Divine is not meaningless. Hence, a few results of the ontological
argument may be used to back the central hypothesis : "The Divine exists." Although the
Kantian arguments against the ontological argument are accepted, because "existence" is
truly not a predicate, in section two, the logical possibility of a revised ontological proof,
based on the aporic axiom existence adds something to an object, and the phenomenology
of being are given way.
Together with Ockham and Hume, the absurdity of natural (theist) theology is
acknowledged. An a priori proof of the existence of the Divine is highly unlikely. The
transcendent essence of the Divine is not an object of knowledge. It is not self-evident, not
factual and beyond argumentation. The religions believe it is an object of faith and invoke,
in grand Platonic style, an intellectual perception of this essence. But, this meta-rational
cognition is, as the mystics and Cusanus rightly observe, not propositional, not even

linguistic ! Nondual intuition cannot be spoken of, only shown in what one does and what
one does not, which is ultimately rooted one's intention (cf. Abelard's "intentio").
The failure of the theology of theism does not exclude pantheism. If the Divine in the world
is not likely, then the logical atheist is right to say the fuzzy set of the Divine is empty. In
that case, the presence of religions can be explained à la Feuerbach, namely as collective
illusions soothing our fears, in Freudian terms, as sublimations of the Eros/Thanatos drive
or à la Marx, namely as systems devised by the upper classes to keep the masses stupid
and addicted to their own stupidity.
So at this point, distinguish between the Divine outside the world (transcendent) and the
Divine inside the world (immanent). The sterility of any demonstration of transcendence
does not by necessity affect the possibility to prove Divine immanence. Hence, the a
posteriori arguments, put into perspective in the third section and proceeding from
phenomena to their first cause, are crucial. They remain within the order of events and
articulate arguments drawn from the world.
§ 34
2. ARGUMENT A PRIORI
A revised ontological proof of Divine existence ?
We find, at the heart of the argument a priori, this conviction : pure concepts and
existence can be bridged. The "gap" between our experience (of the physical world) and
the transcendent reality (the absolute as it is) can be crossed. Hence, a rational approach
of Divinity is possible (cf. Graeco-Alexandrian intellectual mysticism). Why ? Because pure
concepts are conceived as connected with the "higher" world of being, deemed empty of
becoming. The world of sense is of "lesser degree" than the world of ideas. The latter
provides permanency, identity and essence to the contingent (the shadows of the
empirical). Without such Platonic presuppositions, the argument a priori is invalid.
Surely, as it is more difficult to argue the Platonic scheme than its negation, must we not
concede its failure ? Note this : if and only if, and this contrary to the critical way of
science, "existence" is allowed to play the role of predicate, positive results can be
obtained. But, the failure to prove the Divine a priori without calling in such controversial
axioms, entails the impossibility of a self-evident transcendent metaphysics. Positing a
Divine transcendent ad hoc, turns out to be explicative either as meta-rationality or
irrationality. As the former is not conceptual, the philosopher (not the poet) is left with
silence & namelessness.
2.1 Kant and the ontological proof.
"Being is evidently not a real predicate, or a concept of something that can be added to the
concept of a thing."
Kant, I. : CRV, B626.

§ 35
If we define God as "existent, omnipotent, omniscient ...", and say "God is not existent.",
then we contradict ourselves. Just by the meaning of its subject-term, the proposition "God
is existent." is true. So, the proposition is analytical, necessary and tautological. This is
how Kant reads the ontological argument.
"Existence can no more be separated from the essence of God than can its having three
angles equal to two right angles be separated from the essence of a triangle ..."
Descartes, R. : Fifth Meditation.
The word "exist" is a verb describing what things do, and, like all the rest, "God" is also a
(possible) "thing". "Existent" is not a determining predicate belonging to the set of
predicates defining the concept of a subject. "Being" cannot be added to the concept of a
thing, for it is not a property, nor a quality. Neither does it report any detail about it. At
times, this verb and its variants behave as predicates, like in : "Unicorns don't exist.", and
then seem to report something not done by unicorns, namely "existing". In fact, each time,
the verb is only qualified as a grammatical or "logical" copula.
For Kant, "existence" only instantiates, designates or posits the concept. So when the
"existence" of something or someone is thus posited, the totality of known predicates of a
thing or an individual is affirmed, adding nothing to it. When this existence is denied, the
whole set of predicates vanishes and the referent with it. An object is what can be ascribed
to it, nothing more. To affirm the set A "exists" is to instantiate (posit) its concept, but
does not instantiate the richer concept "existing A". Every statement of existence ("there
is", or "there are"), says about a concept it is instantiated, rather than it exists. Any
legitimate existential statement must be built out of propositions of the form : "There is an
A.", where "A" stands for a determining predicate.
In general terms, Kant rejects the ontological argument because a pure concept, or
transcendental (not transcendent) idea of reason, like God, regulates our objectknowledge,
but never constitutes it. Hence, the speculative argument from mere concepts
devoid of contact with any perception of facts, cannot provide a safe "jump" to existence as
such, i.e. as it were transcend the domain of possible knowledge (the world) to
demonstrate God's existence ! One cannot soar above all possible experience on the wings
of mere ideas ...
Kant's core axiom is the logical identity between a predicative and an existential
(ontological) use of the copula "being". Science, using synthetical propositions only, affirms
there is such a thing as "x" or "•y (y = x)", i.e. empirico-formal knowledge articulates a
mere connection between an object and a predicate (cf. the scholastic "esse"). Now
determining object x has the property of existence, i.e. the affirmation of existence
("existit"), or "E!x", is deemed unnecessary, for this adds nothing to our knowledge of "x",
logically reduced to the set of determining predicates, of which "existence" is not part.
Saying "A exist." is asserting something instantiates the concept of A. It does not suggest
the richer concept "existing A", for existence does not add a property, nor a quality.
In this Fregean approach avant la lettre, the Platonic-Augustinian intuition of "being" as
"some thing" is completely replaced by an affirmation of instantiation by some observer.
Here the Copernican Revolution is complete : there is no conceptualization of being as such

possible, for only appearances are left. Not being as such is the origin of our knowledge,
but the transcendental ego and its categorial synthesis. Of course, this "transcendental
idealism" conflicts with its own premiss, namely the quasi-causal relation between being as
such and our senses (necessary to provide material contents to the transcendental motor)
as well as the problem of temporality (cf. supra). But these issues are of lesser importance,
for a neo-Kantian reconstruction of this part of Kantianism is possible, leaving being as
such totally empty and conceptually unreachable (like the ever-escaping horizon).
For those who make sense out of the a priori argument, it is this emptiness with regard to
the essence of being which is counter-intuitive and smacks of excessive constructivism. If
being as such is totally empty and we are left with appearances only, then it is doubtful
whether Hume's skepticism has been overturned. But if all concepts are relative and no
normative system exists, then all possible knowledge is trivial and our technological
advances cannot be explained, nor predicted in probable terms.
Against this forgetfulness of being, one may affirm saying "A exists." is both asserting the
concept of A is instantiated plus the fact A is "existing" or "in being". It is this return to the
things themselves which phenomenology investigates. Both in Husserl (1859 - 1938) and
Heidegger (1889 - 1976), the "Platonic" intent returns as the perception of the essence (or
"eidos") of something. After clearing the dross by successive reductions, the untainted core
of "being" is observed, and this is the rock bottom upon which to erect, ex hypothesis, the
true science of consciousness (Husserl) and being (Heidegger). These are clearly not
protest philosophies, sacrificing reason to irrational factors, like Schopenhauer (1788 -
1860), Nietzsche (1844 -1900) or Kierkegaard (1813 - 1855). They pay tribute to Kant,
retain a sufficient ground, but without the trappings of German idealism. How does this
approach work out ?
2.2 Phenomenology and the question of Being.
"Then if there is not some other substance ("ousia") besides those which are naturally
composed, physics will be the primary science ("proto episteme") ; but if there is a
substance which is immutable, the science which studies this will be prior to physics, and
will be primarily philosophy, and universal in this sense, that it is primary. And it will be the
province of this science to study being qua being ; what it is, and what the attributes are
which belong to it qua being ("eta on")."
Aristotle : Metaphysics, VI, I.12, 1026a.
§ 36
Making the things themselves pivotal is consistent with conceiving the coming into the light
of the immutable essence of being as prior to every possible understanding of the natural
composition of what is, i.e. presupposed by the actual entities investigated upon by the
empirico-formal sciences and their categorial classifications of entities and intersubjective
states. The latter answer the question What ? and so describe a specific behavior of the
human being, a game aimed at producing object-knowledge, or the sum total of limitations
or contractions of being exposing an actual entity, caught in this form of a particular actual
entity that is. This is being-what, a conceptual subset of the totality of the being in
question.
Metaphysics does not seek to produce propositional statements of fact. It is not limited by
what is actual, but by what is possible in thought. It has no research-cell in which

knowledge is produced, sold and exported. Because no actual, factual, contracted entity
can be its object, it is not a science. The study of being qua being is not a "study" in the
same way or in the same sense as this word is used in science. But, this inquiry into being
is not devoid of organization or arguments.
For Aristotle, a unique science was possible before those singling out some actual entity.
Only this speculative "science" (from "episteme", or "epi" + "histanai", to cause to stand)
differed from all other sciences, and this because of the extension of its object and because
it was deemed prior to all others. Aristotle tried to make this science stand, but because
the object aimed at, namely the Being which makes all actual entities be, is a supreme
generic concept, it can not be objectified. There is no standpoint outside this absolute,
sheer Being, no subjective stance or possible vantage point "outside" the all-encompassing
totality of all what is. Being cannot be equated with any object, and so Aristotle was in
error when he viewed speculative philosophy as a science. Metaphysics is not.
"There is a science ("episteme tis") which studies being qua being, and the properties
inherent in it by virtue of its own nature. This science is not the same as any of the socalled
particular sciences, for none of the others contemplates being generally qua being ..."
Aristotle : Metaphysics, IV, I.1, 1003a
In Ancient Greek, the "beyond" of something is expressed by "meta". To inquire into being
qua being is "meta ta physika" and goes beyond entities. It transcends the limitations of
science, which are the boundaries of the entities made public or unveiled by categories of
thought focused on the being-what of the physical world. Accordingly, the investigation of
being qua being is "peri physeo", concerns the being of the entity, not only its being-what,
and moves beyond the pre-Socratic concept of "physis". However, as Aristotle identifies
being with substance, and takes the latter as object of the first science, it is clear that
already in his case the inquiry into being remained unalterably a study of entities, i.e.
"physics". Aristotle missed the point, and had better isolated "ousia" from the categorial
scheme.
In The Twilight of Idols, Nietzsche called such "highest concepts " as being, "the last cloudy
streak of evaporating reality". For him, the study of being qua being is nothing less than
the "error of being". As the reversal of Plato, Nietzsche heralded the end of classical
metaphysics. This end does not silence the question of Being, for classical metaphysics was
a special kind of physics, but not "peri physeo". Although curtained by the diversity of
entities and their subsequent localizations in schemata or paradigms, the fact of being
remains the heuristic idea enabling the sciences to render their work existential. Although
quantum-phenomena appear only in mathematical categories, nobody doubts the atom in
some way is a part of what is. Although statisticians calculate probabilities on the basis of
abstract tables of frequency, they do not doubt the sum of all frequencies (the population),
stands for an actual social entity etc.
But can the question of Being be answered ?
The Wiener Kreis, and with them all radical nominalists, reduced the whole realm of being
to sense-data and their formalization in symbols. There is no such thing as "sheer Being"
besides the sum total of all observable entities, each predicated as a being-what.
Wittgenstein (1889 - 1951), Popper (1902 - 1994), Habermas (1929), Lakatos (1922 -
1974), Feyerabend (1924 - 1994) & Kuhn (1922) put into evidence the co-determining
influence conceptual connotations (or subjective viewpoints) have on the macroscopic

observation of the being-what of actual entities. In the subatomic realm, the Copenhagen
interpretation of the wave-equation of Schrödinger takes this influence of the observer on
the observed for granted. A particle is also a wave and subatomic entities become one or
the other only at the moment of measurement. Ergo, (inter)subjective constructions (like a
particular experimental setup or metaphysical background knowledge) are always part of
the formation of propositional statements of fact.
In a Platonizing phenomenology, object-knowledge, the product of an inquiry into the
What ? and Who ? of the entities of entities, does not escape the duality between the
reality-as-such of an actual entity (its contraction from Being) and reality-for-us (its
appearance as fact). The being-what of entities, disclosed by scientific knowledge, is then
but a disclosure veiled by the limitations of the discovered "what-ness" (by the type of
question posed) and by the form of the observer, his or her conceptual connotations.
By unveiling that Being which makes that there are things (and not what they are), no new
science is born. This being is not mathematical, physical or theological. The study of this
Being is logically prior to the sciences, but historically later. It is logically first, because the
being-what of entities is also a disclosure of being, albeit colored (as water is by the glass).
It is historically later, because there was a time when no humans existed to unveil it
through and in their true contraction from Being, or being-there.
"But all these sciences single out some existent thing or class, and concern themselves with
that ; not with being unqualified, nor qua being, nor do they give any account of the
essence. (...) And since physical science also happens to deal with a genus of being (for it
deals with the sort of substance which contains in itself the principle of motion and rest),
obviously it is neither a practical nor a productive science."
Aristotle : Metaphysics, IV, I.1, 1025b
Being is glimpsed by posing the question of Being and unveiling the essence of Being in the
questioning. This exceptional, extraordinary and profound human question is the true guide
of those who are perplexed by the variety of changing oppositions between the actual,
existing entities. The wondrous homeland of Being stands always & everywhere erect in
every conceivable actual entity, for the latter limits itself to its being-what instead of
revealing its truth, rectitude or being-there, its contraction from Being itself.
"Indeed, the question which was raised long ago, is still and always will be, and which
always baffles us - 'What is being ?' - ("ti to on") is in other words 'What is
substance ?' ("tis eta ousia"). Some say that it is one ; others, more than one ; some,
finite ; others, infinite."
Aristotle : Metaphysics, VII, I.7, 1028b
What is Being ? We experience entities or beings and ask ourselves then Why is there
something ? For the moment, we do not question this question, nor the questioning. And
this deliberate, primordial choice of the intellect is crucial if the philosophy of being has to
come into the light and overcome any departure from this permanent question &
questioning. By accepting this fundamental meditation on Being and its flow, every actual
entity is made object of the process of questioning, for there is no thing that is not covered
by the fundamental question : Why is there something ?
"The question aims at the ground of what is insofar as it is."
Heidegger, M. : An Introduction to Metaphysics, Yale University Press - New Have, 1959, p.3.

The pull of the entities is the tendency of differentiation between the beings, making
entities to be categorized unequally. The account of the being of the entity as such eclipses
the fundamental Why being-there ? The question of Being is therefore the most difficult of
questions, for to really ask it demands not a bracketing (one does not need to move away
from the natural world), but a onefold union with what stands as being qua being in all the
entities of the natural world. We need to be present in the presence of the essence of
entities, namely in their being-there. We have to realize entities, despite our absence,
disclose Being.
But also, and foremost, realize all entities pull our consciousness towards the affirmation of
their limitations without standing in these limitations. For if the latter were the case, the
Being, which the fundamental question elucidates, would be unveiled by the What ? of the
entities alone. But this is not so. Science cannot answer the question of Being. The beingwhat
of the beings makes consciousness return to the particularities which the Why ? tries
to supersede. In returning, we forget the Being of the entity as such, its being-there, and
the entity as a whole is closed to us. For to affirm entities in their limitation, is only given
to being-there.
To ask : Why is there something ? opens the possible ground of every thing, including the
Why ? of the Why ? Indeed, why ask this question ? For some, the question itself is
pointless and the word "Being" empty. Do they realize the fundamental contradiction-in-theact
present in this conceptual performance of theirs ?
The act of questioning is truly the first initiation and exordium into being, for repeated
questioning allows the pull of the entities to be firmly countered by a concentrated
conscious act of coming forth or engagement for Being, which always implies a functional
gathering of consciousness in consciousness. Those who never seriously pose themselves
the question of Being are lost to being-there. They have, by their own hands, murdered
their father and resorted to useful categories. They threw, in the clear pond of their own
consciousness, the pebble of ego and made their tiny ocean fluctuate, like turbulence in a
glass of water. They wander about from limitation to limitation, forgetful of the very breath
they breathe while its vital being feeds their mental caprices. If they would reflect upon
their scattered and dislocated positions or loosen their panic-stricken hold on physical and
social being alike, their innate humanity would be able to reflect the light of being, the
natural light of the "ens in genere" which falls upon all entities, and the disclosure of which
is the sole task of metaphysics, not as a "higher" discipline, but "next to" all possible
sciences. Indeed, the proper name for this discipline is thus not "metaphysics", but rather
"metascience".
The reader reads a text. The text is "before" the reader. It is an object, an entity, a thing
that is. The text is written on a medium. That too is an object, with its particulars.
Everything our sciences may know about the text and its medium does not encompass the
complete object. For the first preoccupation, which can never be the object of any science,
is the primordial, original fact the text and the medium stand in themselves, are there in
their being-there, in their own essence. The variety of categories aroused by the What ?
does not explain us why anything is in the first place. Why is there something ? How to
understand this Being making all beings be ?
§ 37

"Gott ist, aber er existiert nicht."
Heidegger, M. : Was ist Metaphysic ?
"Existence" refers to the Latin word "ex-sistere", or "ex" : out of, from, free from +
"sistere" : to stand, "stare", to stand (cf. in Greek "histasthai" : to stand or "histanai" : to
cause to stand, set). In the present phenomenology, "essence" and "existence" present
their being-there as mutually exclusive. From this point on, the word "existence" shall be
mutilated (as did the Ancient Egyptians with the demonsnake Apophis) to protect us
against ek-sistence. This phenomenology is thus not an existentialism. Neither is it a
humanism. Being and essence are the sustenance of being-there. Ek-sistence is the
departure from being, which causes an entity to be singled out insofar as its accidental
properties, attributes or names (categories) or being-what are concerned.
We do not ask : Why is there ek-sistence ? The question of Being makes Being and eksistence
depart from each other, Being to the immutable, ek-sistence to the ever-changing.
With Being, we aim at the ground, essence, foundation, support & sustenance of all
possible entities. Their standing in themselves is not an arising or standing-out-of, as in
science, but an enduring, permanent ground, covered, veiled or curtained by the
multiplicity of ek-sistence. So what is ek-sistence else than the affirmation of this
singleness which allows us to transport every single entity in one of the categories of
science ?
Ek-sistence is the exclusive domain of the entities, the beings caught in their ek-sistential
thrownness, the manifestation or contraction of Being as being-what (things) and beingwho
(individuals) solely. Each actual entity is a variable, a spatio-temporal bundle of
accidental events and happenings, i.e. ek-sisting actual entities, permanently coming to
pass, ceasing and rising again & again in universes (worlds of worlds) ending, disappearing
and appearing again & again. This is the great wheel of ek-sistence, which never stops
turning and which transforms every entity into every other. But this intellectual perception
is not made. Instead, spatiotemporal ek-sistence is experienced as constantly moving and
changing like the water of a swiftly flowing river.
The same goes for the empirical subject and its ego. Physical, psychological and
sociological dispositions and acquired attitudes, prejudices, beliefs, norms, expectations,
values and the countless experiences of an entire lifetime together constitute the eksistence
of the sense of ego. As soon as our mind has acquired to say : "I", an ex-istential
quantifier is positioned by asserting there is at least one value of a variable. But the eksisting
"I" is a fiction, an explicitation of the implicate hidden variables of Being which
encompass the whole and interpenetrate every entity, ek-sisting to be accessed or opened
up by each and every entity given to its being-there, which is the polishing of the mirror of
Being, sullied and dulled by ek-sistence.
Ek-sistence is not exorbitant. It respects the limitations, boundaries, forms, frontiers and
bridges of all possible entities insofar as they appear, rise and outwardly project their
fiction of aloneness & personality, a dreamworld which can always be allocated to the
categories of ek-sistence, to which they are gladly chained. Hence, ek-sistence is precisely
that What ? which has to be annihilated for Being to step into the light and grant us the
bliss of the joy of Being. By utterly destroying ek-sistence, being-there is brought before eksistence
and the openness of the latter manifests. Being-there transcends the thrownness
of ek-sistence by confronting it with the essence of Being which stands within and without

the natural limitations or own-form of every entity.
This openness for Being is out of order, moves beyond the orbit & scope of ek-sistence. It
can never be an object of science. Scientific statements never disclose the essence of the
totality of beings, neither the Being of any singled out actual entity. In other words, science
does not raise nor answer the question of the sense of it all, nor of the sense of any
instance. Science is senseless, but not useless. It pertains to ek-sistence, its entities and
their accidents or categorial allocations. To properly pose the question of Being and find
ways to understand it adequately (the question, the questioner, the questioned) is not the
object of religion, bound by its "summum ens increatum".
Only descriptive philosophy inserts ek-sistence in the possibilities of essence. This radical
conflict decenters ek-sistence and unmasks it as an illusion, which can not be taken away,
but which can be stopped deceiving us. Entities which ek-sist are the fictions of Being. They
are the false doors closed by being-there alone. In this process of reaching Being,
philosophy is a midwife (care) and a jester (cunning). The final end of the deception of eksistence,
the bottling of the evil jinn in its lamp, coincides with the active use of the false
doors, which, because of this process, become gateways and ladders to the invisible and
subtle essence of Being. Opened up, each and every actual entity is constantly and
everywhere being transpierced and interpenetrated by the Being standing there. This beingthere
is like an infinite, indiscriminate, endless light burning in the core of the purest
diamond, eclipsing its facets by the dazzling Sun of sheer Being.
This fundamental questioning, which reveals Being to being-there, may endure as a
permanent revolution, a perpetually turning around and away from the changing
positionings dictated by the categories of the sciences. This revolution never ends, for the
science of chaining entities to what they are and not to that they are, the need of being
pulled by the gravitation of the beings to the center of common consciousness, namely the
demon of ek-sistence, the blinding of the awareness of the underlying ground revealing
itself through the fundamental question, will continue to darken the meaning of Being and
make human cultures decline. There is never a station in which the question of Being is
finally put at rest. The highest revelation is therefore a station-of-no-station, in which
revolution endures, as does the revelation of being. Human culture shines in this presence
of eternal change only.
The fundamental question is the most daring of questions. This perpetual revolution is a
turning around and away from ek-sistence, revealing that this light which allows us to
witness entities is unstable and changing. The light of the Sun makes the Sun to be seen.
The light of the sciences eclipses the immutable essence of Being. The circle described by
the revolution defines an area in which this dark light of ek-sistence can not conceal the
bright light of Being, witnessed as standing upright in the torrents & turbulences which
present entities as singular, local, individual instances of a general category of being-what,
which, as such, have fallen out of Being. This darkening activity of common being,
exemplified in the sciences, is a wasting away, constant misinterpretation and repression of
the most daring question and thus leads to active demonism, the glorification of the
mediocre and the cult of death.
"Pourquoi il y a plutôt quelque chose que rien ?"
Leibniz, GW : Principes de la nature et de la grâce, 1714.
Why is there something, rather than nothing ? In this Leibnizean format, "nothingness" is

introduced and opposed to the things themselves, the self-evident principle of all principles
(Husserl). Nothingness seems overcome by this Being of the things. Nothingness is made
into nonbeing, absence of Being. However, the elucidation of nothingness is impossible. It
runs against the concept itself, for by positioning nothing one makes it into a predictable
something. To understand nothingness one has to stop objectifying it. The process of Being
entails nihilation (of Being by ek-sistence) and annihilation (of ek-sistence by being-there).
Everything happens as part of the perpetual great wheel of sorrow, death and
transformation. This is the being-there of the nothingness of ek-sistence which can not be
compared with what traditional metaphysics had to offer. Leibniz' formulation is the first
step towards the nihilation of Being. This tendency to reshape metascience into a science is
detrimental to the authentic philosophical inquiry intended in phenomenology. The
fundamental question of Being is wholly focused on the Why ? of Being.
Something ek-sists ! Why ? The fact something ek-sists is confirmed. Something ek-sists !
Then, simultaneously, this ek-sistence of an entity is annihilated by standing in its
limitation after having asked : Why does it ek-sist ? Thus Being comes into perspective by
the light of being-there. The entity opens up its Being because being-there posits itself,
stands there as endurance, permanence and fundamental groundless ground of this
particular ek-sistence. In the finite entity an infinite possibility is disclosed. Ek-sistence
becomes, within the limitations of the entity, the epiphany of the unlimited essence of
Being.
§ 38
Can this phenomenology, which does not really convince, be more than a sophisticated
philosophical mysticism ? Does it convey a small spark of its fundamental Platonic
intuition : to "be" is more than the sum total of determining predicates ? This "more" is
being-there in the world. It cannot be articulated, for it exceeds the sum total of
predicates, even if the latter are only abstract, and never instantiated (for I am not yet the
person I will be tomorrow). This essential face, own-form or contraction from Being, may
be shown or suggested, but never identified. It is not an occurrence, but a sempiternally
given.
Considered in this light, the essence of sheer Being implies its existence. Only the All
necessarily exists, for otherwise there would be nothing. This Platonic inspiration runs
through the arguments of Anselm and Descartes and returns in phenomenology as the undisclosure
of the truth, suggestive of the contraction of Being, or being-there. For Kant,
and later Frege (1848 - 1925), existence is nothing more than instantiation, the
confirmation or positing of a concept or set of predicates. Existence is not a real predicate
because it adds nothing. Being-there is something posited, not contracted or revealed.
Hence, it does not differ from being-what. With such presuppositions, it is impossible to
appreciate the fine tuning of the ontological argument on the basis of the property of
existence, i.e. by affirming existence ("existit"), or "E!x".
Consider the two-step program of metaphysics, of which only one can be completed within
the boundaries of reason :
In an immanent metaphysics, staying within the limitations of possible experience, the
world is all there is and existence is only instantiation. Science observes and argues a
series of predicates ascribed to objects, and pours these connections in non-eternal,
probable, approximative synthetic propositions a posteriori. No necessary Being can be

inferred. Meta-reason is empty. The highest being to be inferred a posteriori, the "Anima
Mundi" and Her burning Word, although implying intelligence and freedom (cf. infra),
remains proportionate to the world. But, the existence of the Divine Architect of the world
can, with high probability, be inferred from facts. An immanent natural theology is possible.
In a transcendent metaphysics, there is more than the world, for the latter, in
phenomenological terms, i.e. as revealed by the things themselves, is the theophanic
contraction of absolute Being. Hence, each fact reveals more than the series of predicates
ascribed to it, for each fact is (also) an epiphany. To supersede the world, is to stand in
one's own essential Being or being-there. The a priori arguments aim to posit this
transcendent Being as an existing Being analytically, thus including the finite world in
infinite Being. They fail to deliver this. "The Divine exists." is hence not self-evident. A
transcendent theology devoid of ineffable meta-rationality is impossible.
2.3 The logic of the revised proof.
"Meinong supposed that whatever can be thought about is an object, and he believed that
something is an object if it satisfies some such principle as the following : x is an object if it
corresponds to a definite or indefinite description (one having the form 'the F' or 'an F')
appearing in a grammatically correct sentence having a truth value."
Crittenden, Ch. : Unreality, Cornell University Press - London, 1991, p.4.
§ 39
Proper names, seemingly failing to refer, such as "Santa Claus", "Atlantis", or "Hamlet",
pose difficult problems in semantics and metaphysics. If "Santa Claus does not exist." is
true, then "Santa Claus" does not refer. So the sentence is about nothing. But then it
seems the sentence should be meaningless, and so not true after all. Consider also a
typical utterance like "Hamlet does not exist. He is just a fictional character". The utterance
"Hamlet is just a fictional character." seems to be true. If it is true, then (it seems) there
are fictional characters. But what are fictional characters ? Moreover, if there are fictional
characters, then (it seems) fictional characters exist. But then the utterance of "Hamlet
does not exist." is false. To be or not to be ?
A possible logical reading of Anselm's Proslogium II turns on the difference between, on the
one hand, affirming there is such a thing as "x" or "•y (y = x)", i.e. the articulation of a
mere connection between an object and a predicate ("esse"), and, on the other hand,
affirming x has the property of existence or "E!x", i.e. the affirmation of existence
("existit"). Note "•!x" is the quantifier asserting uniqueness, whereas "E!x" is the existence
predicate. This distinction exploits the difference between quantifying over x and predicate
existence of x, allowing for nonexistent objects and their logic. Some assert there are nonexisting
objects. Hence, the existence of x or E!x entails the being of x or •y (y = x).
(1) E!x » •y (y = x)
Anselm reflects the same difference as a regimented use of "in the understanding" and "in
reality". Hence, in the argument, the notion of being (expressed as quantification or "•")
corresponds with "being in the understanding". "Being in reality" is covered by the notion of
existence, a property of x or "E!x". For argument's sake, (1) is accepted. Although critical
thought adheres to the Kant-Frege view, the logic of nonexisting objects has found

applications in the study of fiction (Crittenden, 1991).
With this in mind, we also accept the regimented use of "being" and "existence" replaces
Anselm's regimented use of "in the understanding" and "in reality". This allowance is made
to let the argument gain in simplicity.
§ 40
Query : Does God (G d ) exist ?
A. The factors of the argument to be defined beforehand are :
● denotation of being :
•y (y = x) : there is an x
● description of being :
•xφ : there is an x such as φ
● denotation of existence :
E!x : there is an x with the property of existence
● denotation of conception :
Cx : x can be conceived
● denotation of magnitude :
Gxy : x > y : x is greater than y
This gives the formal outline of the query :
Either E!G d or ¬ E!G d must be true.
B. The logical tools of the argument are :
Premise 1 captures the expression "there is a conceivable object x such that nothing
greater can be conceived" (there is no object y greater than x and there is no object y
conceivable as greater than x), or :
(2) P1 : •x {Cx ^ ¬ •y (Gyx ^ Cy)}
with φ1 = Cx ^ ¬ •y (Gyx ^ Cy)
with ¬ •y (Gyx ^ Cy) = "there is no y ( ¬ •y) conceivable (Cy) as greater than x (Gyx)"
The added clause ¬ Cy makes explicit any such object y is itself inconceivable.
To work with Gxy or Gyx, following axiom is introduced : either x is larger than y, y larger
than x or x equal to y, or :
(3) A1 : Gab v Gba v a = b
Lemma 1 proves if something satisfies (2), then this something uniquely satisfies it :
(4) L1 : •xφ 1 » •!xφ 1
Description theorem 1 : Let δxφ be a definite description of x such that φ. Then it can be
determined that if condition φ is uniquely satisfied, then δxφ is guaranteed to have a
denotation :

(5) DT1 : •!xφ » •y (y = δxφ)
Let the definite description "δxφ 1 " be the proper formalization of Anselm's key phrase
"something than which no greater can be conceived" ("aliquid quo majus nihil cogitari
potest") and the formal definition of "God" :
(6) Def : G d = def δxφ 1
with P1 : φ 1 = Cx ^ ¬ •y (Gyx ^ Cy)
Anselm gives a second premise when he writes "For if it is at least in the understanding
alone, it can be imagined to be in reality too, which is greater."
Premise 2 : if that than which none greater can be conceived does not exist (in reality),
then something greater than it can be conceived.
(7) P2 : ¬ E!δxφ 1 » •y (Gyδxφ 1 ^ Cy)
Description theorem 2 : if there is something that is the Q-thing, then it must have
property Q.
(8) DT2 : •y (y = δxQx) » QδxQx
C. The ontological argument :
Given (1) E!x » •y (y = x)
given (2) P1 : •x {Cx ^ ¬ •y (Gyx ^ Cy)}
with φ 1 = Cx ^ ¬ •y (Gyx ^ Cy)
it follows by (4) : •!xφ1 it follows by (5) : •y (y = δxφ1 )
it follows by (2) and (8) : Cδxφ1 ^ ¬ •y (Gyδxφ1 ^ Cy)
Now by reductio, assume the negation, or ¬ E!δxφ1 , then by P2 it follows : •y (Gyδxφ1 ^
Cy), contradicting ¬ •y (Gyδxφ1 ^ Cy), hence : ¬¬ E!δxφ1 or E!δxφ1 it follows by (6) : E!Gd God exists.
QED
2.4 Process philosophy and God.
"Speculative philosophy is the endeavour to frame a coherent, logical, necessary system of
general ideas in terms of which every element of our experience can be interpreted."
Whithead, A.N. : Process and Reality, 1929, part I, section I, chapter I.
§ 41
Alfred North Whitehead (1861 - 1947), the mathematician who, together with his ex-pupil
Bertrand Russell (1872 - 1970), wrote Principia Mathematica and converted to philosophy,
developed a system of thought no one will ever succeed in writing a short account about.

His work evidences shifts of opinion and in the course of his long life, he developed many
loose and at times obscure expressions, producing desperation in anyone trying to be his
chronicler. Hence, Religion in the Making (1926) and Process and Reality (1929) are
fundamental, while dispensing with the technicalities. He is an important figure because he
integrated mathematics, biology, relativity and quantum physics into his thought (cf. his
The Principle of Relativity, 1922).
In his The Concept of Nature (1920), we learn about his view on the philosophical ideal in
general, and metaphysics in particular, as the attainment of "some unifying concept" able
to unify science. The metaphysician has a descriptive role to play. He seeks to understand
the general characteristics of reality, setting these up tentatively as categories. This
description of the most general features of experience is not argumentative, but rather in
accord with the "I'm telling You !" method.
Four concepts provide an entry into his complex but interesting system of thought, always
circumambulating the relatedness of things, namely the "self model", "creativity", "eternal
objects" and "God".
§ 42
Whitehead seeks to introduce a new "ontological principle" able to think becoming and
change. The "ousiology" of past thinkers was unable to do this, for it was based on the
changeless, permanent nature of the essence and its identity (cf. the Platonic "eidos"). In
this traditional view, only accidents change and the "ousia" remains identical with itself.
This creates a difference between a "supposed but unknown support" (Locke) and the
subjective accidents of predication, returning in Cartesian thought as the polarization
between "res extensa" & "res cogitans". Whitehead disagrees with this distinction and
seeks to integrate it on a higher level.
The Cartesian "ego", which is ontological (as Kant also stressed), is also rejected. To
distance oneself from substantialist thinking means to deobjectify all elements of
metaphysics. Being more radical than Kant, Whitehead underlines the subjective nature of
reality. He does not need the "fuel" of "objective" sensations to turn on the "engine" of the
categories. On the contrary, all is subject. Hence, reality (nature, the world) is a subject.
So the whole is an organic unity of those elements disclosed in the analysis of the
experience of subjects. We cannot go further. We cannot pull ourselves outside ourselves.
Knowledge is subjective, for nobody escapes his or her own form of definiteness.
This "subjectivist principle" is another way to state the principle of relativity. All things are
qualifications of actual occasions and there is nothing else. The Platonic world is unmasked
as the root of all ousiological constructs. The world is a unity of actual entities and without
the latter there is nothing. There is no transcendent world, no ontological stratum "above"
the world we observe. The exercise of metaphysics is immanent, not transcendent.
In this "self model", the "cogito" is thus the definition of actuality. Only "actual occasions"
of "actual entities" are the building-blocks of reality and the universe. Only entities exist.
An event is then a "nexus" of actual entities. Causality is also implied. If there are no
events, then there can be no causality. But events happen. If event A exerts its influence
on event B (or "causal efficacy"), then B cannot be totally explained by A. This because the
"novelty" of event B cannot be explained in terms of past initial events only. So, besides
efficient causality, he conjectures a "formal causality", which is the cause of the becoming

of the "novelty" incorporated in B. This formal causality aims at Self-realization and Selfcreation.
This Self-creation of the actual entities is the Self-constitution of an experience. In the
process of the non-I exerting an influence, something is experienced (this is the causal
efficacy). Besides, there is the "subjective immediacy" of the Self-experience, which
accomplishes a new synthesis between the multiplicity of the many influences and the own
form of definiteness. Hence, the actual entities are not solipsist (like monads), but
continuously enter in each other's Self-creation. "Being" is hence always to be in another.
Being (events) & becoming (Self-creation) imply the capacity to enter in another, new
actual entity. The universe is hyper social.
Whitehead understands being from the vantage point of becoming. He does not eliminate
the eternal, for not only does he wish to replace a teaching on substance with a teaching
on events, but he virulently reacts against the "vicious separation" between "flux" and
"permanence". This distinction introduced the bi-polarity between temporality (becoming)
and eternity (being) and the adjacent aporic pendulum-movement between the two (the
same dyad returns in all areas of Greek, scholastic and pre-Kantian thought and influenced
most religions).
"Undoubtedly, the intuitions of Greek, Hebrew, and Christian thought have alike embodied
the notions of a static God condescending to the world, and of a world either thoroughly
fluent, or accidentally static, but finally fluent - 'heaven and earth shall pass away'."
Whithead, A.N. : Process and Reality, 1929, part V, chapter II.
Traditional metaphysics conceptualized being and identity and so construed a static God,
an "aboriginal, eminently real, transcendent creator". Instead, metaphysics thinks
"permanency in fluency, fluency in permanence". This slogan reminds us of the philosophy
implied by the Taoist Tai Chi symbol, by Buddhism, as well as Bohr's famous
complementarity inscribed in his Kopenhagen interpretation of the Schrödinger waveequation.
Although becoming is the sole point of view, one cannot grasp the ultimate nature of the
universe without simultaneously thinking both the changing world of events and the eternal
realm of pure potency. The dyad remains, but devoid of possible substantialist antagonism.
The universe is dual, for it is both transient and eternal. Each actual entity is both physical
and mental. There is nothing "outside" the universe.
§ 43
Although nothing except actual entities exist, the world of events is not the whole world.
Although there is no world "behind" the world of events, and this changing, phenomenal
reality is all there is, one is able to think (conceptualize) the eternal and the permanent.
This is not an ontological realm, source of being, transcendent sufficient ground, "prima
materia" or pre-creation initiating a "creatio ex nihilo", for actual entities are the only real
things. In separation from actual entities, there is nothing, merely nonentity. A "category of
the ultimate" can and should be thought. The actual entities are "real" (concrete,
immediate), except for God, who is "abstract" (universal, without spatiotemporality).
In Religion in the Making, three "formative elements" are called in to guarantee order &
novelty in the actual world :

1. creativity realized in actual entities : thanks to creativity, the real actual world
lapses into a new world order. The dynamism of the universe of actual entities,
grasped by the senses, implies novelty, for the unity of experience here and
now is an original concrescence of previous experiences and my own form of
definiteness and determination. Ultimately, the creativity of the actual universe
demands everything influences everything, bringing multiplicity to unity. The
actual course of events is not self-evident. The sheer ongoingness of the
universe speaks of permanent creativity, from the smallest subatomic particle
to God's eternal valuation of possibilities. Creativity is the "natural matrix of all
things" and actual (real) when realized in an actual entity. The Self-creativity of
the entities is an instance of this creativity, which itself is not a substance, nor
an entity, nor a reality. It is a "category" qualifying (determining, limiting) all
actual entities ;
2. potential eternal objects forming actual entities : the "perpetual perishing" of
actual entities cannot be "saved" by something which is itself an entity, for all
entities are "on the move", all what is real changes. Next to (not behind, nor
underneath) the world of actual entities, Whitehead postulates a world of pure
potency and possibility. This abstract world is the domain of "pure potential for
the specific determination of fact". These eternal objects are implied by the fact
no two actual entities are completely identical although similarities can be
determined. The latter point to a "form of definiteness". These forms participate
in the becoming of actual entities, but are themselves not actual or real. Neither
are they unreal, but potential, i.e. indicative of possibility. Because they remain
identical with themselves, these objects are called "eternal". They escape the
permanent change of the real world, and so because they are in no way
"subject", i.e. an actual, real entity, they are called "objective" and "grasped"
by mental "prehension". Hence, the "objective" is not "the real" (for only actual,
subjective entities are "real"), nor is it "unreal" (as nonentity or fiction). The
objective is sheer potentiality ;
3. an abstract God harmonizing endless potentiality : the domain of pure
potentiality is per definition limitless. The eternal objects give form to actual
entities but are themselves without borders. By giving "graded relevance" to the
various endless possibilities, God harmonizes these different possibilities and so
orders the becoming of the actual entities from within, receiving form &
structure. The "key" used by God is called "harmony" and "beauty". God
embraces all possibilities but offers them as the esthetic possibility of Selfcreation.
God rules all possibilities and is also the principle of definiteness. God
grasps all possibilities and harmonizes them. God limits the limitless domain of
pure potentiality so something may enter actuality. Every valuation is
contingent, and without God no possibility can become actual. Because of God's
"vision of beauty", continuous pressure is put on all events. As God is not
creativity itself, God is not responsible for all what happens.
Among the formative elements, God is an actual entity, while the eternal objects are not.
God is the anterior ground guaranteeing a fraction of all possibilities may enter into the
factual becoming of the temporal world. Without God, nothing of what is possible, can

ecome some thing, change and create. The universe, its order and creativity are the result
of a certain valuation of possibilities. However, God is not the universe, nor its order
(derived from eternal objects) or creativity (at work in actual entities). These are real
actual entities, while God is an abstract actual entity.
1. real actual entities (the real) : all what exists in the world of facts and events ;
2. potential eternal objects (the potential) : selfsame, "pure" forms outside the
stream of actual entities, organizing them ;
3. abstract actual entity (the abstract) : God as the Artist who makes a beautiful
world more likely.
God is the instance grounding the permanence and continuous novelty characterizing the
universe. This primordial nature of God is completely separated from the actual world. For
although an actual entity, God's activity is "abstract", namely in the esthetic (artistic)
process of valuating possibilities, which are no fictions. God is engaged in the factual
becoming of the actual entities, but cannot be conceived as a real actual entity, a fact
among the facts. God is the only "abstract" actual entity possible.
§ 44
In this rather pantheist philosophy, idealism and realism are mixed in a remarkable way.
Whitehead is not an absolute idealist, although his "self model" is suggestive of Hegel's
"Geist". Indeed, by radicalizing Kant, we end up in relativism, relinquishing any hope to
ground the possibility of knowledge in a sufficient ground outside thought. Although
observation of fact is a constructed synthesis of, on the one hand, theoretical connotation
and, on the other hand -so must we believe- sense-data, it must be acknowledged that by
way of empirico-formal thought, reality-as-such is not known. Hence, all our knowledge is,
at best, intersubjective, but mostly highly subjective. Moreover, for Whitehead, only these
subjective, ever-becoming actual entities are real, which is in tune with the empirist
tradition. The eternal objects are only "potentialities" valuating reality, not reality. Neither
is God "real", but "abstract".
Nor can it be said Whitehead is a realist. Although there is nothing more than actual
entities, and creativity is the process of relatedness between them, objectivity is nothing
more than the potentiality and possibility of the eternal objects. The similarities between
actual entities, does not emerge from the process between them (as Hartshorne tried to
show), but demands a transcendent potency within the order of the world, namely that of
the eternal objects. Moreover, without an abstract but actual God valuating and directing
these unreal but virtual potentialities, nothing would enter becoming and no real actual
entities would exist. So although God is not a real actuality, this abstract entity is
necessary to let anything enter becoming. The sheer ongoingness of the world is impossible
without eternal objects and without an artistic God. God is "the organ of novelty, aiming at
intensification" ...
2.5 The a priori argument rejected.
"Time and labor therefore are lost on the famous ontological (Cartesian) proof of the
existence of a Supreme Being from mere concepts ; and a man might as well imagine that
he could become richer in knowledge by mere ideas, as a merchant in capital, if, in order to

improve his position, he were to add a few noughts to his cash account."
Kant, I. : KRV, B:627-630.
§ 45
The arguments deriving the existence of God from His essence depend on the inherent
connection between the universals (at work in the mind) and the Platonic ideas. Without
this implicate symbolical adualism between the name (or word) and its reality or "res", they
fail to deliver. Hence, existence is turned into a predicate, although by merely stating
something "exists", nothing is added to our knowledge. Intuitively, we may appreciate the
exclusive nature of God, and so understand why a non-existing most perfect being is "less"
perfect and hence not a most perfect being, but it is only possible to demonstrate this
logically if symbolical adualism is introduced as an axiom. This runs against what is
common in science since Kant, to wit : "existence" instantiates, but does not describe an
object. Ergo, the a priori arguments of the proof of God are not valid and so do not
demonstrate (nor even make probable) the existence of such a transcendent, necessary
Being. They make only some sense in a fideist context, i.e. one in which the existence of
the transcendent is already accepted (as in theism), or in a phenomenological discourse,
positing a "being" next to "existence" (cf. supra). Both are in conflict with the principle of
parsimony, for neither a belief in the Divine, nor a quasi mystical experience of Being
restrain the number of entities. Moreover, by their own principle, these efforts lead to
complete un-saying.
So far, the debate allows to distinguish between three possible options regarding the proof
of the Divine :
1. the transcendent approach : God is the sole necessary Being, posited outside
the world (theism) and given Divine Names such as "summum bonum",
omnipotent, omniscient, infinite, spiritual, etc. The latter do not convey His
essence, object of apophatic unsaying, but are katapathic affirmations derived
from the direct experience of God, either by meta-rationality (intuition or
intellectual perception) or by revelation (dogmatic theology). God is summoned
to create the world "ex nihilo" and to reveal to creation His intended Divine
mediation (a sacred history, a Son, a Book). This position integrated Platonism
and with it the identity between essence and existence insofar God or the
Divine ideas are concerned. In such a perspective, the concept of a necessary
Being must include Divine existence, for otherwise God would not be God. At
the heart of the a priori argument we thus find the ontological "nexus" between
the real, clear, distinct universals and the illusionary, vague and shadowy
particulars. This connection has been overthrown by science and so the a priori
argument fails ;
2. the immanent approach : the Divine is the subtle breath, fire and "logos" of the
cosmos (Stoicism), sustaining its operations according to natural laws
(pantheism). Because of the theist imperative dominating the West for nearly
two thousand years, this so-called heretical approach has been divorced from
Western thought. Hence, the a posteriori arguments always exceed their logic
and transgress the limitations of possible experience to once more arrive at a
transcendent Deity. To stop at the limit of the world and explain the

ongoingness of things in it with no other means than what the natural world
itself has to offer, is truly a "Pagan" exercise no transcendent theology will
persue. It belongs to religious philosophy to persue it ;
3. the unitary approach : the Divine is a unity of essence and existence, both
outside and inside the world (pan-en-theism). The essential nature of God is
unknown and remains so, for mind cannot step outside the world and observe
the Divine essence (apophatism). The proof of the Divine is two-tiered : starting
with the world and its becoming, a series of revised a posteriori arguments are
given. They do not prove the Divine to be a transcendent God, but only an
immanent conserving and intelligent first Conserver and Architect, to be
conceptualized by the mind as the "Anima Mundi". Next, the direct experience
of Divine immanence is approached and systematized in a spiritual protocol.
Finally, the idea of the transcendent God is derived from the universal
characteristics of the mystical experience. The latter does not prove the
existence of the transcendent, nor provide us with conceptual knowledge of it.
Stepping outside the world (transgressing the limits), the purifying, totalizing
and actionalizing experience of radical otherness may, Deo volente, only
suggest and point to God. Without poetry, this cannot be explained or
described. It is no object of science or philosophy, but of art. It also reflects in
each and every action a mystic does, adding sublimity to his or her exemplaric
morality.
The meta-rationality suggested by the mystics is wholeheartedly affirmed, and the mystics
are indeed the grand examples of religious philosophy (cf. Bergson). If we accept the
Divine as being continuous (which is not much to ask for if the Divine is thought of as One -
cf. Cusanus), then what seems to our rational minds, operating inside the world, as two
aspects (namely the immanent soul of the world versus God, the transcendent essence of
the Divine) are in reality, from this "impossible" vantage point attained in the state-of-nostate
outside the world (cf. Ibn 'Arabi), the One Thing. In this way, the entelechy of the
universe may be a stepping-stone to the realization of the meta-rational possibility pointing
to the unique transcendent essence of the Divine. A natural, immanent theology and
religious philosophy are possible and may be the proper preparations for such metarationality,
never contrary to reason, although beyond it. This does not involve a rational
elucidation, demonstration or conceptualization of God of any kind. Suggestion follows
poetic license, not empirico-formal science. Divine revelation is never literal or factual,
except in the poetic manifestation of Divine Presence.
§ 46
The failure to provide a valid proof a priori should be pondered upon. Foundational,
exclusive dogmatisms are in conflict with reason and science. As there is no formal
(architectonic) "nexus" between a "better" world and "this" world, whereas the world
ongoingly happening is the only actual occurrence there is, science & metaphysics are
silent about what lies beyond the "ring-pass-not" of the mind. In short : the "essentials" of
the Divine remain a priori veiled to reason. This makes any "revelation for all times" highly
unlikely, a thought undermining all contemporary religions of the Deus Revelatus ...
This fact also makes the distinction between science and organized religion, between
propositions containing a truth-claim about the world and revelations of a dogmatic

theology (like in the religions "of the book") important. Meta-rationality kept in tune by
reason is a suggestive, poetical discipline, like an object of art. But devoid of this corrective
bond, it is sheer irrationality. To delegate this to a separate domain and allow it to putrefy
on the dunghills of human folly and fundamentalism is dangerous. Not only can every fool
then use this waste to produce terror in the name of the Divine, or erect a brontosauric
monolith to be worshipped, but the presence of so much idolatric, idiotic, silly and
superstitious nonsense, in the light of so much science and metaphysics, is offensive to the
dignity of our spiritual intellect, hampered to extend its influence on the mind by this
unwholesome quantity of dross and circumstance, causing ontological illusion.
It is not because a possible religious philosophy found a tiny opening in the dense, pristine
forest enabling us to climb the mountain of the world and appreciate the panorama offered
by its soul, that some of the more grotesque positions of the religions, pretending to hold a
transcendent claim, are backed by this effort.
On the contrary, a possible religious philosophy can only underline the importance of a
renewed spiritual impetus and discard anything which could force the ship of our common
evolution to be stranded or shipwrecked on the deserts of human blasphemy. If the proof
of Divine existence is to be used to back the contradicting dogma's of the religions, then
nothing has been learned (as is often the case). A possible proof of the Divine, albeit a
posteriori, is not an apology for the existing religions, but a plea for a possible spirituality
of the future based on science and a metaphysics embracing science. This is not some kind
of atheist religiosity, but a philosophical religion. Indeed, the harmonization sought, does
not condone irrationality, neither avoids an open conflict with it. But, our cause is not
decided by way of arms, but with voice, pen and paper. Its intention is to reach the heart
of the intelligent, not to convert the stupid and the already convinced. With gigantic
compassion, over & over again, the latter must be (re)educated to better ideas & ends.
§ 47
3. ARGUMENTS A POSTERIORI
Towards an exposure of the Divine.
The trace of the Divine is observable and arguable in both nature and man. This is the core
of the approach a posteriori. This proof only takes natural phenomena, events &
happenings into account. The ongoing world-process is considered given and not
questioned. Access to this process is given by the senses and the mind. When facts are
cast in empirico-formal propositions, and rational object-knowledge is acquired, the natural
condition of possible experience has been satisfied. When the broader, speculative horizon
is argued in terms of these propositions, an immanent metaphysics is at work. Both
perspectives are part of the rational approach of the world, and define it, for observation
(testing) and communication (arguing) are the two vectors producing factual knowledge.
Because the proof limits itself to the natural perspective, it cannot demonstrate the
transcendent God. As no proof a priori is possible (cf. supra), the affirmation of the

existence of the transcendent God of theo-ontology can no longer be made probable and is
either an object of meta-rationality or the product of the fictional and the irrational. The a
posteriori proof, because it stays within the natural order (of which humanity is also a
manifestation), demonstrates the existence of a necessary Conserver, without which the
natural order could very probably not exist. Hence, natural religious philosophy studies
what can be known about this Architect of the world. Speculating about this first cause, a
complex network of concepts may be derived, expressing greatness, wisdom, power,
authorship, intelligence etc. This "stage of admiration", as Kant put it, is wholly religious
and spiritual. It also probes deeper into the natural mysteries of the Divine than does
atheist religiosity. It never crosses the "ring-pass-not" (containing the finite), and is
dedicated to the immanent view, albeit panoramic.
§ 48
Distinguish between speculative and experimental arguments a posteriori.
Composed of argumentative (not empirico-formal) propositions, speculative arguments are
part of an immanent metaphysics, a theoretical speculation on the presence and function of
the Divine within nature, and this starting in the atom and reaching out to the outer limits
of the observable universe, like in the case of efficient causes (at work everywhere).
Is the production of the Divine fact possible ? Can empirico-formal propositions objectify
the Divine ? Is there an experimental methodology, itinerary or protocol leading towards
the spiritual experience ? If so, then an experimental argument a posteriori can be inferred.
Finally, if the mystics give an exemplaric account of a bi-polar Divinity (transcendent as
well as immanent), then can we allow transcendent metaphysics to merely poetically
suggest the improvable existence of the absolute totality, entirely impossible on rational
grounds ? Can the religions, as institutions of poetry of a certain quality, be given new
meaning and momentum ?
In Kant's general argument in favour of the intelligent design of the world, the fitness and
harmony existing in the works of nature point to an Architect of the world. Although
intelligent, this being is always hampered by the quality of the materials used, but
nevertheless shows us the "right and natural" direction. For Ockham, contingent beings are
unable to conserve themselves and if we take the complete vertical chain of conservers hic
et nunc, we must conclude, hand in hand with natural necessity, the first Conserver exists.
Both positions are strong.
To make clear what an immanent perspective means, let us take the example of the
rejected a posteriori argument from necessity.
If it is legitimate to ask, which is not beyond doubt, how the world composed of contingent
objects was caused, then the totality of objects must have a reason external to itself.
Why ? This reason cannot be part of the contingent world (rise and perish), for then it
could not be a satisfactory explanation of the reality of the world (it would also rise and
perish). Hence, and here the category-mistake creeps in, a transcendent necessary being
exists, for an infinite series is deemed impossible. The arguments of motion, efficient
causes and perfections (cf. supra) also stop this infinite regress as hoc by "filling the gap"
and jumping outside the order of the world. Only the argument from design avoids this
problem. However, if Bertrand Russell is right, and the world is "just there and that's all" or
"actual process", as Whitehead thought, and together with Kant we reject any illegitimate

transgression in the use of the ideas of reason, then the "optimum" our reason arrives at,
is a strong form of pantheism, positing the concept of a necessary, first conserving, most
perfect, intelligent immanent Conserver of the world.
§ 49
The argument a posteriori calls forth the following witnesses :
1. the fact of design : the world is not the work of a blind watchmaker, but of an
intelligent Designer ;
2. the fact of spiritual experience : the experience of the Divine can be (re)
produced and its protocol transmitted ;
3. the possible entelechy of the world : the order and beauty of the world point to
a final end : to actualize all possibilities (which is an ongoing, endless process).
The fact of design can be demonstrated without the fact of spiritual experience. But, by
fulfilling the conditions to experience Divine immanence, one furthermore acquires the
necessary "form" or "spiritual attitude", a key to open the "doors of perception" (cf.
Huxley). Indeed, the direct, immediate observation of the Divine is not self-evident, nor
necessary. Self-realization is only triggered by a free intention. There is no "natural"
necessity to seek out, see and meet the soul of the world.
By a strong focus on orthopraxis, the problem of the production of the spiritual fact comes
into perspective. A direct plug-in or access to the supposed "soul" of the world must, ex
hypothesi, be given. Otherwise, the concept of an immanent Designer would imply
remoteness and inaccessibility, which is in contradiction with the relatedness shown in the
design. The Architect is not in one place, but in all places all the time. Moreover, if a plug-in
(a software) is postulated, then a material manager (a hardware) must be identified to
compute & process (execute) this own-form of human spirituality. This line of argument
boils down to the presentation of a spiritual protocol with minimal orthodoxy, one which is
all about doing, practice, discipline and constant devotion (a userware). This spiritual
methodology is then a series of actions, affects and thoughts producing at least a direct
experience of the immanent totality conserving the world-process, if not more. A "spiritual
reduction" enabling the prehension of the vastness of the universe in the limitations of a
single point of density.
3.1 The Münchhausen-trilemma in science & religion.
"... if the process of demonstration can continue to infinity, it would be possible for there to
be an infinite number of middles between two terms. This, however, is impossible, if the
series of predications has an upward and a downward limit."
Aristotle : Posterior Analytics, I. xxii.
§ 50
Grosso modo, the quest for an "Archimedic point" for knowledge, drove the epistemologies
of the last two thousand years to develop Platonic (idealistic) and Peripatetic (realistic)
methods to justify knowledge. In each, a sufficient ground was invoked to explain and
demonstrate that true propositions are true and wrong propositions wrong. Like the famous
"fulcrum" of Archimedes of Syracuse (ca. 287 - ca. 212 BCE), who also introduced the

concept of a center of gravity as the average location of an object’s weight, this fixed
ground or support on which a lever rests, was supposed not to constantly change. It is a
solid standpoint from which one could measure and lift the world. Likewise, the sufficient
ground of knowledge must be immutable or no certainty is possible.
In his Life of Marcellus, Plutarch (ca. 45 - 120 CE) tells us that Archimedes, in writing to
King Hiero, whose friend and near relation he was, had stated that given the necessary
force, any given weight might be moved. In his Book of Histories, John Tzetzes, a XIIth
century Byzantine poet and grammarian, quotes him saying : "Give me a place to stand
and with a lever I will move the whole world." In his Meditations On First Philosophy
(1641), René Descartes also mentions him : "Archimedes, that he might transport the
entire globe from the place it occupied to another, demanded only a point that was firm
and immovable ; so, also, I shall be entitled to entertain the highest expectations, if I am
fortunate enough to discover only one thing that is certain and indubitable." (Meditation
II). Hence, this solid rock-bottom could guarantee our knowledge to be eternally valid.
These foundational efforts may be categorized as idealism, realism & transcendentalism :
1. idealism : there is a world of ideas which never changes, the contemplation of
which enables us to intuit eternal knowledge. This is the Platonic line of
reasoning, which was nurtured by the scholastic "reales" and returned in
Cartesian thought as a series of innate ideas. The fulcrum lies outside the actual
world, in being as such ;
2. realism : there is a world of realities observed by our senses and independent
of our subjective states, providing the solid rock-bottom of reality as it is. This
is the Aristotelic line found in the writings of the "nominales" and influencing
empiricism and logical positivism (or, in more radical form, leading to
skepticism, as in Ockham and Hume). The fulcrum is the actual world, namely
becoming and process ;
3. transcendentalism : rejecting both previous foundations as stepping outside the
limitations of possible experience, Kant's "Copernican Revolution" situates the
unchanging ground in the subject of experience, namely as the categorial motor
(fueled by the senses) producing synthetic proposition a priori by virtue of the
cognitive activity of the transcendental unity of apperception, the "I think". The
fulcrum is the set of laws the human mind utilizes to know nature (as
appearance). Like Newton's laws, these are absolute and unchanging ...
Kant made the last effort to provide a solid ground for knowledge, but also failed. Indeed,
in the XIXth & XXth centuries, both mathematics & physics went through paradigmatic
shifts (relativity, quantum, chaos & string), bringing on the scene alternative synthetic
propositions (natural laws) regarding the world (thus reducing their status from a priori to
a posteriori, i.e. from universal and necessary to singular and contingent). This heralded
the final exposure of the postulate of foundation as an illusion. To root knowledge in a
sufficient ground was impossible, and epistemology was back at square one. How is
knowledge possible ? How can knowledge advance ?
§ 51
The "Münchhausen-trilemma", mentioned in Albert's Traktat über kritische Vernunft

(1958), is an elegant and conclusive thought-experiment to clarify why the various efforts
to root knowledge indeed fail, inviting a new concept of rationality, one without a fulcrum.
A justification of proposition P is a valid deduction with P as conclusion. How extended must
the deductive chain be in order to justify P ? When is a sufficient ground arrived at ?
1. regressus ad infinitum : P is justified by P', P' is justified by P", P" by P''' etc. ...
there is no end to this chain of justifications, and so no foundation is found :
skepticism is the outcome (knowledge has no foundation) ;
2. petitio principii : the conclusion P is part of the chain of deductions leading to P.
Circularity is a valid deduction, but no justification of P, for P justifies P, and no
foundation is found : again skepticism ;
3. abrogation ad hoc : the chain of justification is ended at P and the postulate of
justification (the condition to justify P by P') is abrogated ad hoc. The
unjustified sufficient ground P is then accepted as it stands because, as it is
deemed certain, it does not need to be justified : here dogmatism takes over.
For faillibilism asserts uncertainty, incompleteness, relativity, indeterminacy and probability
belong to every proposition. In the simile of Otto Neurath (1882 - 1945), we are forced to
rebuild the boat of science plank by plank while staying afloat in it. Indeed, there is no
external vantage point, no first philosophy by which to remodel it from outside. This boat is
never docked and crewless on dry land. Philosophers and scientists are like sailors forced to
repair the ship of rational knowledge while still at sea. This is a gigantic appeal to modesty,
away from the brontosauric monolith of foundational science, which considered rational
knowledge as superior and final (cf. Auguste Comte). Even Popper, who remained a realist,
wrote :
"Theories are built on piles driven down from above into the swamp, not down to any given
base, although they are really firm enough to carry the structure."
Popper, K.R. : The Logic of Scientific Discovery, 1934.
This non-foundational view on reason as fallible, joins nominalism, pluralism, hypothetism,
relativism, constructivism, methodologism, contextualism, "as if"-thinking and
verisimilitude. It goes hand in hand with logical simplicity, elegance, opportunism and
parsimony. The essential tension between the fundamental ideas of reason, namely "the
ideal" and "the real", is managed by a triplicity instead of by a duality. A trichotomic logic
avoids the confrontational, pendulum-swing problems of justificationism. Replace :
with :
Dualism
object of knowledge real versus ideal
is the real
"res extensa"
fact versus mind
res versus vox
subject of knowledge
is the ideal
"res cogitans"

"real"
(world)
reality
object of knowledge
"correspondence"
"my"
reality
"our"
reality
Triadism
"our"
theory
ideality
subject of knowledge
"consensus"
"my"
theory
"ideal"
(theory)
When knowledge is no longer certain knowledge, but at best only probable knowledge, then
the two criteria of truth, namely realistic correspondence and consensus do no longer
function as doors to either reality or ideality.
By shaping the unconditionality of the object of knowledge, the idea "reality" ("Ding-ansich")
guarantees the unity & the expansion of the monologous object-oriented conceptual
knowledge. By shaping the unconditionality of the intersubjectivity of knowledge, the idea
"ideality" (ideal subject) guarantees the unity & the expansion of the dialogal subjectoriented
conceptual knowledge.
Both ideas converge towards an imaginal point which, as an postponed horizon, shapes the
idea of a complete, universal consensus on the adequate correspondence between our
knowledge and reality-as-it-is. This is a heuristic fiction which suggests a position "beyond
the mirror surface", a "Hintenwelt" which never grounds (constitutes) but regulates the
possibility of knowledge. So, the idea "reality" regulates the objectivity of knowledge and
the idea "ideality" its (inter)subjectivity.
The imaginal, heuristic point of intersection between these ideas is a knowledge-leading &
knowledge-regulating fiction guaranteeing the progress of knowledge without ever
constituting knowledge itself. If not, it would mislead knowledge, thus curtailing its unity &
progress. The ideas of contemporary epistemology thus voice the fundamental property of
thinking, i.e. the continuous & permanent confrontation between "test" (objects of
knowledge) and "argument" (subjects of knowledge).
On the side of the objects of knowledge, we have to think the "Ding-an-sich" as knowable
(without being mentally equipped to know whether this is the case). Facts are both intralinguistic
(are co-determined by the theories of the subject of knowledge) and -so do we
fancy- extra-linguistic, i.e. the messengers of the "Ding-an-sich". Hence they correspond
with reality-for-us ("Ding-für-uns").
On the side of the subjects of knowledge, we have to think the "consensus omnium" as
possible (without us ever reaching it in fact). In this way the distinction between "my"
consensus (with myself), "our" consensus here & now (i.e. the agreement between the
users of the same language) and the "consensus omnium", the regulative idea on the side
of the subject of knowledge, ensues.
§ 52

Although we do not know whether a subatomic event is a particle or a wave before it is
actually measured, the probabilities given by the equation of Schrödinger are high, yielding
operational results and technological applications. However, the good results of quantum
theory do not eradicate the possibility of a better theory, one encompassing both relativity,
quantum and chaos (such as string-theory ?). The results of science are relative and
historical. What is held true today may be a falsehood tomorrow. Modesty does not pretend
to know more than possible. Science is not a triumphalistic ideology promoting direct
access to reality with a perfect key. Facts reveal the real but only partially. What vastness
is eclipsed by our preconceptions, presuppositions, prejudices and idiosyncratic pigeonholes
? With this in mind, the wise scientist does not indulge in final and certain
propositions. By knowing the limitations of reason, s/he ongoingly opens up endless
possibilities to be rationally known.
Likewise, the philosopher of immanence, bound to speculate on the basis of such fallible
propositions, has nothing more than logic to persue his activities. As such, he may study
the rationality of moral and religious needs, aware of the transient nature of his work.
Maybe he eventually transcends rationality all together and appreciates a direct insight into
the world and beyond. The examples of the mystics suggest the actuality of meta-rational
"intellectual perception", but critical reason can no nothing else but to regard direct
intuition as non-conceptual and non-propositional. Evidently, it cannot directly contribute to
our scientific knowledge.
As such, the indirect, exemplaric role of intuition, like all arguable (immanent or
transcendent) metaphysics, is heuristic, suggestive, innovative and spiritualizing. But, the
essence known by meta-rationality cannot be articulated but shown as an object of art or
given as holiness.
§ 53
And what about the religions ? In order to clarify the issue, a logical analysis of the concept
and its evolution is at hand, for a study of the process of justification in religious models
always shows an evolution of religious conceptualizations moving away from the original
mystical source of the religion to a constructed canon. Consider the process from singular
concept to tradition :
Axiom :
● concept C is a mental construct based on perceptions in time & space of a subject x ;
Given are :
1. a singular perception p of a particular fact f by x or p(x)f ;
2. a string of perceptions P of facts f, f', f"... f n in time (.dt) by x or P(x)f.dt = p(x)
f, p(x)f', p(x)f" ... p(x)f n ;
3. an ungoing process of perceptions in time (.dt), shaping a perception-bank B
concerning P(x)f.dt or BP(x)f (1 ... n).dt.

(1) each p(x)f is an elemental building block of C :
In p(x)f, f is not written as f(x), for no fact can be totally subjectified.
(2) Hence, p(x)f depends on fact f and the mindgrid mg of x or p(x)f = mg(x) + f which
also applies to string of perceptions with co-relative mindgrids : P(x)f.dt = mg(x) + f,
mg' (x) + f', ... mg n (x) + f n .
(3) the generalization C arrived at by a particular subject x on the basis of the given
perception-bank BP(x)f (1 ... n) .dt is a general notion which has been combined over time.
As it is not logically possible to justify when the jump from the particular to the universal is
to be made lawfully, the logical genesis of the concept remains a priori incomplete (cf. nonfoundationalism).
Comparison (i.e. convention) alone explains why singular perceptions
become strings. In fact the only thing we really know are singular instances, nothing more.
(4) The original concept C is communicated to other subjects and confronted with other
people's perceptions of facts. Through dialogue & argumentation a consensual,
intersubjective concept C (1 ... n) regarding f (1 ... n) arises. The movement from C to C',
C" ... C n is the evolution of a concept. If the process of perception stops, the evolution is
halted and gradually the meaning of the original C withers.
(5) Over a period of time the process of ungoing perceptions coupled with quasi permanent
intersubjective confrontations define a constellation of consensual general notions C (1 ... n)
regarding f (1 ... n) which form a tradition T(f (1 ... n) ).
Now consider the following rules governing the evolution present within the five major
religions (like Hinduism, Buddhism, Judaism, Christianity & Islam).
The basic mysticological rule is :
● a human subject x < >> the Divine (!)
(1) < or from subject x to the Divine : in 4 nominal dimensions of space-time x aspires to
transcend (cf. "ascendat oratio") and there exists a preparative spiritual protocol ;
(2) >> or from the Divine to subject x : more than 4 dimensions of space-time answer the
call (cf. "descendat Gratia") and this answer has objective validity ;
(3) < >> or the "crux", the experience itself : a direct, immediate, individual experience of
a paradoxical, ineffable, totalizing nature.
! : this rule is coherent
The theological set of rules added by the religions is :
(1 - 3) a human subject x = founder x < >> the Divine (!)
(4) the founder = the sacred symbol par excellence (?)
(5) subjects y, z, ... < the sacred symbol >> the Divine (??)
? : this rule is questionable but acceptable
?? : this rule is questionable & unacceptable
Ideally, the authentic poetical elocutions & actions of a founding mystic (1) become the

sacred symbols of the tradition initiated by the first direct witnesses or companions of the
founder (4). These symbols encompass a model of the world, a theory on man, ethics & the
afterlife and a salvic road, defined as the "right path". This superstructuring becomes
political when meant to organize a growing mass of believers (cf. (5) the stage of the
followers).
Mostly shortly after the founder's death, a large number of texts or parties see the light,
and a so-called "sacred" tradition ensues. A lot of this may be purely legendary & mythical,
evidencing composition, interpolation and borrowing from other sources for apologetic
reasons.
So after the physical death of the founder, corruption occurs, redundancy & conflicts rise,
schisms are proclaimed & battles are unleashed. In all five religions, differences operate
and continue to do so and hence the fundamental message of unity was and is -historically-
lost (each in its own way and with its own particular stories & intensities).
Mystical experiences are far more independent of the imaginations and conceptualizations
of the religious group than are religious experiences. The act of adhering to a religion is
impossible without assimilating a particular religious doctrine or code. This indicates
religious experience calls for a group standard (a totem, flag, waymarks). Mystical
experiences move beyond a particular religious doctrine, which does not mean (a) the
mystical individual has no theoretical superstructures or (b) he or she does not adhere to a
religion (the latter condition is however not necessary for the experience to happen). Selfcreation
and (to say the least), adherence to the longing satisfied by the unconditional
(absolute reality), often serve to prepare and to (afterwards) understand what is implied by
radical otherness. But also : these superstructures may (for example in the case of a social
mystic who reveals Divine signs in the different phases of an intense prophetic life) become
the dogmatic articulations characteristic of a particular religion, fideistically considered holy
and eternal.
Religious experiences are always mediated by doctrine. The latter is "invented" (in the
constructive sense) by those who claim to have witnessed the founding mystic and to have
collected the necessary information for posterity. They (at the stage of companionship)
formulate a common picture for the group to imitate (at the stage of the followers).
Unfortunately, the limitations of their religious experiences are such they are only
allegorically or metaphorically entitled to say anything about the contents of the founding
mystical experience (which is an exclusive, vertical matter between the founder & the
absolute). Hence, religious experiences, because they are more indirect than direct (i.e.
more determined by explicit or implicit religious dogma), are not radical.
This analysis raises the following points :
1. a gifted mystic has more or less an immediate access to the direct experience of
radical otherness and reveals this ;
2. the companions guided by the mystic collect (after his or her death) the stable
components of what they think (or have been told) the superstructure of the founder
looked like, changing it into a religious dogma or a particular canonical discourse on
radical otherness ;

3. those who adhere to the dogma -which usually calls for an imitation of some of the
practices of the founding mystic- may indirectly experience radical otherness through
the eye-glasses of the particular dogma, veiling & limiting the real thing. This is then
their religious experience ;
4. a religion is born if the soteriological (salvic) power of the dogma triggers the
formation of a solid spirito-social structure (i.e. the companions have followers). This
can only mean the eye-glass was strong enough to allow for a succesfull albeit
derived and indirect imitation of the founder's mystical experience, transforming it
into the religious experience of the followers and their disciples, who too claim to walk
the path of the original master ... ;
5. the more time has elapsed between the mystical experiences of the founder and the
religious experiences of the followers of the companions, the more likely the original
superstructures (of the founder) become intermixed with elements which are foreign
to the original direct experiences of radical otherness, moving the religion away from
the message of its founder (as has been the case in all world religions).
3.2 The genetic approach to knowledge.
§ 54
In Jean Piaget's (1896 - 1980) theory on cognitive development, two general functional
principles are postulated : organization & adaptation.
The former implies the tendency common to all forms of life to integrate structures
(physical & psychological) into systems of a higher order. The latter (to be divided in
assimilation & accommodation) shows how the individual not only modifies cognitive
structures in reaction to demands (external) but also uses his own structures to incorporate
elements of the environment (internal).
Organisms tend toward equilibrium with their environments. Centration, decentration
(crisis) & re-equilibration are the fundamental processes forcing this cognitive texture of
humans to complexify.
Mental operators are the result of the interiorization of this cognitive evolution. An original,
archaic sense of identity is shaped. After prolonged exposure to new types of action -
challenging the established original centration and its equilibrium- a crisis ensues and
decentration is the outcome. Eventually, a re-equilibration occurs because a higher-order
equilibrium was found through auto-regulation (re-equilibration, autopoiesis).
Over time, various different strands, levels, layers or planes of cognitive texture unfold.
The process may be analyzed as follows :
1. repeated confrontation with a novel action involving motor functions (original, initial
coordinations of actions) ;
2. action-reflection or the interiorization of this novel action by means of semiotic
factors : this is the first level of permanency or pre-concepts which have no
decontextualized use ;

3. anticipation & retro-action using these pre-concepts, valid insofar as they symbolize
the original action but always with reference to the initial context ;
4. final level of permanency : formal concepts, valid independent of the context of the
original action & the formation of permanent cognitive (abstract) operators.
In this way, Piaget defined four layers of cognitive growth :
1. sensori-motoric cognition, between birth & 2 years of age ;
2. pre-operational cognition, between 2 and 6 ;
3. concrete operatoric cognition, between 7 and 10 ;
4. formal-operatoric cognition, between 10 & 13.
In his Le Structuralisme (1970), he defines "structure" as a system of transformations
which abides by certain laws and which sustains or enriches itself by a play of these
transformations, which occur without the use of external factors. This auto-structuration of
a complete whole is defined as "auto-regulation". In the individual, the latter is established
by biological rhythms, biological & mental regulations and mental operations. These can be
theoretically formalized.
Piaget refuses to accept that "real" dialectical tensions between physical objects are the
"true" foundations of thought and cognition (its possibility, genesis & progressive
development), as in most other types of psychology and pedagogy. Piaget never fills in
what reality is like. He maintains no ontological view on reality-as-such, considered to be
the borderline of both the developing subject and its objective world, stage after stage.
The cognitive is approached as a process, for rationality grows in developmental steps,
each calling for a particular cognitive structure on the side of the subject. What reality is, is
left open. Why ? Every objective observation implies an observer bound by the limitations
of a given stage of cognitive development, i.e. a subjective epistemic form, containing
idiosyncratic, opportunistic and particularized information.
Neither did Piaget choose for a strictly transcendental approach. Conditions which exist
before cognition itself (like in Foucault) are not introduced. What Popper called the
"problem-solving" ability of man, can be associated with Piaget's notion on "reequilibration".
Popper introduced the triad : problem, theory (hypothesis, conjecture) &
falsification (refutation). In his dynamical and actional anthropology and psychology Piaget
introduced : activity, regulation, crisis & re-equilibration (auto-regulation).
§ 55
His psychogenesis (based on the observation of children) shows how knowledge develops a
relationship between a thinking subject and the objects around it. This relationship grows
and becomes more complex. Stages of cognitive development are defined by means of
their typical cognitive events and acquired mental forms. This development is not a priori

(pre-conditions), a posteriori (empirical) but constructivist : the construction eventuates in
its own process, in other words, the system has been, is and will always be (re)adapting
and (re)creating new cognitive structures, causing novel behavior & different
environmental responses, which may be interiorized, forming new internal cognitive forms,
etc. The foundation of this process is action itself, the fact its movements are not random
but coordinated. It is the form of this coordination, the order, logic or symbolization of the
pattern of the movements which eventually may stabilize as a permanent mental operator.
Two main actions are distinguished :
● sensori-motoric actions exist before language or any form of representational
conceptualization ;
● operational actions ensue as soon as the actor is conscious of the results & goals of
actions and the mechanisms of actions, i.e. the translation of action into forms of
conceptualized thought. These operations are either concrete (contextual) or formal
(decontextualized). The latter are identified with rational thought.
The last three decades has seen the rise of many applications of these crucial insights
regarding the functional, efficient (educative) side of the process of cognition. An example
is schema theory, at work across the fields of linguistics, anthropology, psychology and
artificial intelligence. Human cognition utilizes structures even more complex than
prototypes called "frame", "scene", "scenario", "script" or "schema". In cognitive sciences
and in ethnoscience they are used as a model for classification and generative grammar
(syntax as evolutionary process).
The schema is primarily a set of relationships, some of which amounts to a structure,
generating pictorial, verbal and behavioral outputs. The schemata are also called mental
structures and abstract representations of environmental regularities. Events activate
schemata which allow us to comprehend ourselves & the world around us.
The term is thus used to define a structured set of generalizable characteristics of an
action. Repetition, crisis & reformation yield strands of co-relative actions or stages of
cognitive development. Knowledge begins in the coordination of movement. Ergo, in
genetical sequence, these consensual types of schemata emerge :
● sensori-motoric, mythical thought (the notion) : aduality implies only one
relationship, namely with immediate physicality ; object & subject reflect perfectly ;
earliest schemata are restricted to the internal structure of the actions (the
coordination) as they exist in the actual moment and differentiate between the
actions connecting the subjects and the actions connecting the objects. The actionscheme
can not be manipulated by thought and is triggered when it practically
materializes ;
● pre-operatoric, pre-rational thought (the pre-concept) : object and subject are
differentiated and interiorized ; the subject is liberated from its entanglement in the
actual situation of the actions ; early psychomorph causality. The subjective is
projected upon the objective and the objective is viewed as the mirror of the
subjective. The emergence of pre-concepts and pre-conceptual schemata does not
allow for permanency and logical control. The beginning of decentration occurs and

§ 56
eventually objectification ensues ... ;
● concrete-operatoric, proto-rational thought (the concrete concept) : conceptual
structures emerge providing insight in the essential moments of the operational
mental construction :
(a) constructive generalization ;
(b) the ability to understand each step and hence the total system (1 to 2 to 3 ...)
and
(c) autoregulation enabling one to run through the system in two ways, causing
conservation. The conceptual schemata are "concrete" because they only function in
contexts and not yet in formal, abstract mental spaces ;
● formal-operatoric, rational thought (the formal concept) : abstract conceptual
structures positioned in mental spaces which are independent of the concrete, local
environment. Liberated from the substantialist approach but nevertheless rooting the
conditions of knowledge outside the cognitive apparatus itself ;
● transcendental thought (the critical concept) : abstract concepts explaining how
knowledge and its growth are possible, rooted in the "I think", the transcendental
unity of apperception (i.e. the transcendental Self) ;
● creative thought (the creative concept) : the hypothesis of a possible (arguable),
conceptual immanent metaphysics ;
● unitive thought (nondual & non-conceptual) : the suggestion of a possible, nonconceptual
but meta-rational transcendent metaphysics (or pataphysics).
These modes of thought contain two important demarcations : the lower threshold defines
the border between ante-rational thought (mythical, pre-rational and proto-rational) and
reason. The higher threshold declares the difference between reason (conceptual and
transcendental) & immanent metaphysics.
Each time a threshold is crossed, a crucial potential of the mind has been added to its
actuality, deepening the subtle complexity of the cognitive texture and enlarging its ability
to communicate with its environment and to continue to grow. Three important stages of
cognition emerge :
§ 57
● prenominal : mythical, pre- & proto-rational (instinctual) ;
● nominal : rational and transcendental (rational) ;
● meta-nominal : creative and unitive (intuitional, ex hypothesi).
In this genetico-epistemological corollary of a possible critical theory and practice of
knowledge and its growth, human cognitive growth is not halted at the level of reason. The

nature of things is the constant dynamism of mental forms, propensities and differences
(energies, particles & forces). As long as conflicts remain, the process continues. All actual
entities are dynamical. "Panta rhei !" (all things are in constant flux) is one of the more
famous sayings of Heraclitus (ca. 540 - ca. 480 BCE), the pre-Socratic Greek philosopher
of Ephesus quoted by Plato. In his view, as in Whitehead's, the world is all there is and all
of that is constantly changing. This ongoingness of the world-process or universal
dynamism does not deny the presence of architecture and lawfulness (forms of
definiteness). Without these (for example in the form of the constants of nature, the laws
of physics or biology), all this movement would have no order or coordination. Hence, no
forms would have come into actuality and nothing but the primordial soup would have
continued to exist.
Thinking change and an evolving cognitive texture, leads to inquire after meta-rational
states of cognition. Is a faculty of cognition exceeding reason possible ? This faculty of
creativity, exerts its efforts either on the totality of the universe, lacking facts but arguing a
totalizing intent (immanent metaphysics), or, as suggested by the most sublime art and
poetical harmony, tries to promote faith in the transcendent Being, encompassing -so do
His revelations tell- the complete contingent world-process. Clearly, this Supreme Being is
also the Supreme Witness and hence, at the end of the chain, the only Witness of whatever
there is to be witnessed.
Reason occupies the middle-ground between instinct and intuition, between, on the one
hand, multi-layered thought (a variety of different approaches) and, on the other hand, at
best, an arguable immanent metaphysics and/or the echoing suggestion or poetry of a nonconceptual,
transcendent mode of thought (rooted in the nameless One). Reason, as the
string of a violin, is stretched between affect and sublimity.
The exercise is to understand thought as both instinctual, rational and intuitional, i.e.
conjunctive rather than disjunctive. To properly think, the three stages of cognition need to
be integrated and functional. Although science must limit itself to rational, formal
structures, thought is not confined to these boundaries necessary to produce probable
empirico-formal object-knowledge. Thanks to science's modesty, instinct and intuition may
be checked and curtailed. Exceeding its own possibilities, science delegates instinct to the
realm of inferior tendencies (cf. the Greeks) and/or ridicules intuition (cf. the logical
positivists). Without limits, it becomes dogmatic and a perversion of reason (cf. Kant). But
staying within its domain, it exercises its crucial intersubjective and factual role and assists
the development of thought beyond its own domain. Intuition is possible but not contrary
to reason. In the tribunal of our cognition, mind is the defense (bringing in evidence),
reason the prosecutor (putting into categories) and intellect the judge (unifies the two
scales in one judgment). To separate them when they work together is essential to know
and continue to know.
§ 58
If the organization of the mind may be characterized as "dual" (sensoric versus categorial),
the overall logic behind reason as supreme faculty of consciousness, although layered, is
"monadic". Reason is prepared & equipped for the immanence of the intellect, but has to
give up its role of master and become a servant of the own-form of its own Higher Self.
This ontological necessity, in particular its constant negation, reflects on the creative
potential.

If variety & unity are active on the same level, reason is crippled. A schizoid fluctuation
between variety & unity is accommodated. Judgment is constantly postponed and
knowledge becomes anecdotal. Kant projected the inherent dualism of the mind on reason.
Nothing can be its own tribunal except in madness. Reason needs intellect to replenish
itself and acquire the intention of the beginner unhindered by the consequences of wrong
thought, unbridled affects and immoral actions.
The law of types is more fundamental to our prosecuting reason than the law of variety,
which is fundamental to our mind, the advocate of the senses. By working with the law of
types, reason invokes the intellect, who's role Kant tried to limit to the bare, formal
minimum necessary to make the mind work properly "for all times"... He eliminated the
notion of "own-Self", the specific, unique ontological form of actual definiteness
characterizing each and every individual and crucial to promote creative thought.
3.3 The argument from design - the anthropic principle.
"The transcendental idea of a necessary and all-sufficient original Being is so
overwhelming, so high above everything empirical, which is always conditioned, that we
can never find in experience enough material to fill such a concept, and can only grope
about among things conditioned, looking in vain for the unconditioned, of which no rule of
any empirical synthesis can ever give us an example, or ever show the way towards it."
Kant, I. : CRV, B646.
§ 59
The Platonic strategy of the ontological argument a priori favored by theism fails. Its aim
was to prove a necessary, absolute Being beyond nature, not a principle existing inside
nature. This peculiar immanence is not the ultimate, absolute cause, which is transcendent,
but exists within nature, as it were coinciding with her. The degree of perfection of this
cause lies within what is possible in experience, and so could be called the first immanent
cause. It explains the over-arching unity, order and harmony of the world without
advancing further, without stepping from this likelihood of immanent excellence to its
determining concept as an all-embracing Divine transcendence, as it were bridging the
broad abyss between immanent existence of actual entities and the necessary transcendent
Being. The cause advanced in the argument from design is not the absolute unity of a
transcendent Being beyond reason, but the peculiar unity explaining the skilful edifice, a
cause proportionate to the order and design everywhere to be observed in the world.
"This present world presents to us so immeasurable a stage of variety, order, fitness and
beauty, whether we follow it up in the infinity of space or in its unlimited division, that even
with the little knowledge which our poor understanding has been able to gather, all
language, with regard to so many and inconceivable wonders, loses its vigour, all numbers
their power of measuring, and all our thoughts their necessary determinations ; so that our
judgment of the whole is lost in a speechless, but all the more eloquent astonishment."
Kant, I. : CRV, B649.
The logical core of the argument from design is a procession from the observed contingent
order to the existence of a very great cosmic might, one making the peculiar unity of the
world possible, i.e. the first immanent cause. As no cause outside the world can ever be
definite, no rational principle of transcendent theology (the theist concept of a necessary

Being), forming the base of religion, can be given. But, if we can infer an immanent cause
of the world, then an immanent metaphysics can be used to construct a natural religious
philosophy, the pantheist ideal of a necessary being inside the world. Although such a
concept suggests a still higher cause, one explaining ultimate Authorship, no transgression
is allowed and so, from this natural vantage point, the concept of the Author of the world
remains empty.
Summarize the logical steps of the traditional argument from design as follows :
1. Major Premiss 1 : the world is an organized, contingent whole, evidencing
variety, order, fitness and beauty ;
2. Major Premiss 2 : it is impossible for this arrangement to be inherent in the
things existing in the world, i.e. the different entities could never spontaneously
co-operate towards definite aims ;
3. Minor Premiss : definite aims need a selecting and arranging purposeful rational
disposing principle ;
4. Conclusion 1 : ergo, there exists a sublime and intelligent cause (or many)
which is the cause of the world, not only in terms of natural necessity (blind and
all-powerful), but as an intelligence, by freedom ;
5. Conclusion 2 : the unity of this cause (or these causes) may be inferred with
certainty from the unity of the reciprocal relation of the parts of the world as
portions of a skilful edifice so far as our experience reaches. Ergo, the intelligent
cause or causes of the world forms or form a unity of design ;
6. Lemma : if this cause is projected outside the world to explain its activity, then
the domain of reason is left and the argument from design becomes the refuted
argument from necessity (cf. the cosmological argument). Ergo, the argument
from design does not prove an ultimate, but a proximate cause.
For Kant, the argument from design led to the "stage of admiration" of the greatness, the
intelligence and the power of the Architect of the world, who, unlike a Creator or Author,
who is self-sufficient, necessary and transcendent, is very much hampered by the quality of
the material with which to work.
This argument from design works well together with Ockham's revised a posteriori
argument from efficient causes :
1. Major Premiss : in the contingent order of the world nothing can be the cause of
itself or it would exist before itself ;
2. Minor Premiss 1 : an infinite series is conceivable in the case of efficient causes
(existing horizontally one after the other), but impossible in the actual (vertical)
order of conservation "hic et nunc" ;
3. Minor Premiss 2 : an infinite regress in the actual, empirical world here and now
would give an actual infinity, which is absurd ;
4. Minor Premiss 3 : a contingent thing coming into being is conserved in being as
long as it exists ;
5. Minor Premiss 4 : as only necessary beings conserve themselves and the world
contains contingent things only, every conserver depends on another conserver,

etc. ;
6. Conclusion 1 : ergo, as there is no infinite number of actual conservers, there is
a first Conserver ;
7. Lemma : if we suppose an infinite regress in the actual, empirical world here
and now, then an actual infinity would exist, which is absurd, ergo, the first
Conserver exists.
The conclusions of both arguments, given the terministic nature of logic, are not certain but
probable. This is in tune with our non-foundational epistemology. They support a
conserving cause of the world, intelligently pre-planning the universe in a design, like an
architect or demiurge, with a freedom limited by the own-forms of the actual entities "at
hand", working on the "tick" of the cosmic clock to conserve and maintain the universe.
Clearly such a very great being, possessing the highest natural wisdom, is not a final
concept. But immanent metaphysics cannot advance further.
The Intelligent Conserving Cause itself cannot be explained by ante-rationality, reason or
the creativity of immanence. A "desperate leap" across the "broad abyss" between the
unity of the world and the Author of the world may be attempted, but without any reason.
For it is all together a different thing to be creative thanks to casual intellectual flashes in
an airy, shaded room, than to be constantly a witness of the full blaze of the Sun and its
brightest light. As Ionescu (1909 - 1994), the founder of Absurd Theater, one may choose
to walk away from it ... To posit transcendence is impossible. This truth is the major
obstacle in any serious apology. Absolute totality can only be suggested by sublime poetry.
Religions are poetical constructs of a certain quality.
Transcendent meta-rationality (nondual intuition) is non-conceptual, like an intuition
without image, a merging without seed, a union without means, an experience of silent
namelessness. The meaning of grand poetry is the object of metaphysics. Arguments can
be presented. But in a transcendent metaphysics, these poetical forms become revealed
cosmogonies explaining the creation of the universe. In the deepest sense they try to
fathom the unconditional, and have, like koans, an exemplaric relevance. But to those who
adhere to them, they are windows to the transcendent God. Is this true ? No one can tell.
To solidify the argument from design even more, its pivotal second major premiss needs to
be studied and backed in more detail :
● Major Premiss 2 : the different entities composing the world could never
spontaneously co-operate towards definite aims.
Indeed, central to the debate (cf. Dembski & Behe (1998) and Hamilton (2002)), is the
question whether the organization of the universe and the emergence of life are
accidental ? Hoyle (1986) concluded random events and change occurrences are
insufficient to account for the complexity of living organisms. Since Prigogine (1917 - 2003)
wrote La Nouvelle Alliance (1979), a weak form of finality is gaining ground in science. He
suggested the return of finality in open, dissipative (physical, biological and social)
systems. Hoyle compared the likelihood of the random emergence of higher forms of life
with the probability of a tornado sweeping through a junk-yard ending up assembling a
Boeing 747 ! A highly unlikely event. He also seriously tried to show why Darwin's theory is
not supported by the mathematics of evolution. Perhaps the "grand story" of (neo-)

Darwinism is over too ...
Four analogies provide a strong backing for the case presenting the non-spontaneous
becoming of the actual world process. How to detect non-spontaneous "design" ?
1. design by analogy of human products : the proximate cause proportional to the
order, harmony, fitness & freedom observed in the world can be identified
(named) by following the analogy of products of human design. In doing so,
only the "form" aspect of the world is observed to identify design. In this way,
the "matter", or substance of the world, is not targeted, and it is no longer
necessary to prove in addition, that the things of the world, given the laws of
nature, were in themselves incapable of such order and harmony. Hence, to
avoid backing the premiss, it is accepted no supreme intelligence exists in the
material substance of the things of the world. In the traditional Peripatetic
account, four causes are at work in the world : material, efficient, formal &
final. By analogy of human products, the design involves the formal and final
causes only ;
2. design by analogy of outcomes in living organisms : all living things seem tailormade
for their function and appear to interact purpose-fully with their
environments : animals use camouflage, most parts of our bodies, down to our
DNA helix, are very delicately engineered, and large numbers of apparent
coincidences exist between various living organisms, etc. These highly ordered
biological schemata seem places of reference to back the premiss, for how could
such a complexity rise out of simplicity without a pattern of intelligent choices ?
The chances are small enough, given what science demands in other areas, to
dismiss spontaneous, random activity. Nevertheless, this study of outcomes
was seriously affected by the discovery of the Darwinian principle organisms
evolve by natural selection, adaptations and (random) mutations. If all
biological events can be explained by this principle (turned into a paradigm),
then indeed there is no "purpose" behind the grand natural symphony. Darwin
(1809 - 1882) and neo-Darwinism were able to explain much of the data of his
time and the first half of the previous century. Even societies could be studied
in terms of the survival of the fittest (Monod, 1970). But, recent studies show
how the theory has been unable to account for certain more subtle phenomena
uncovered by the biochemistry of the last 50 years, mostly related to complex
events such as protein transport, blood clotting, closed circular DNA, electron
transport, photosynthesis etc.
Progressive metamorphosis, with the emergence of increasingly complex and
intelligent species in a step-wise, sequential pattern was recently proposed (Joseph,
2002). Large-scale protein innovation (Aravind, 2001), "silent genes" (Henikoff,
1986, Watson, 1992), the precise regulatory control of genome novelty (Courseaux &
Nahon, 2001) and the overall genetically predetermined "molecular clockwise" fashion
of the unfoldment of the human being (Denton, 1998), underline the evolutionary
metamorphosis theory of life and intelligent design. So, beyond the grip of Darwin's
macroscopic view, on those more subtle levels of biology and biochemistry,
design may be detected and purposeful arrangement of parts suspected. A

evised analogy of subtle outcomes becomes thus again possible, leading to a
more comprehensive backing of the premiss ;
3. design by analogy of the forms of the laws of nature : Maxwell (1831 - 1879)
pointed to molecules as entities not subject to selection, adaptation & mutation.
The contrast between the evolution of species, featuring biological
changeability, and the existence of identical building blocks for all observed
actual physical entities is crucial. Given the effectiveness of Newton's laws on
the mesolevel (the inverse-square law of gravity being optimal for the becoming
of the Solar system), our knowledge of what happens in stars (in particular the
production of carbon and oxygen) and the cosmology of the Big Bang, then
calculate the odds of spontaneous emergence. A choice has to be made
between either an intelligent design (which does not offend except the ill
informed) or a monstrous random and blind sequence of accidents producing a
gigantic complexity, in other words either a natural higher intelligence or the
ongoing mathematical miracles of a blind nature morte. Indeed, ad contrario,
the form of the laws of nature underlines the presence of a deep-laid scheme,
representing an accurate mathematical descriptions of the natural order (both
in genesis as in effect). Although no "consensus omnium" has been reached,
the laws of nature likely accommodate biology ;
4. design by analogy of fundamental constants : the actual irreducible
mathematical presence of immutable natural building blocks such as the natural
constants, gives a palpable proof of the existence of something independent of
every human measurement (and its biological constitutive). These constants
define the fabric of physical reality and determine the nature of light, electricity
and gravity. They make particles come into existence and fundamental forces
work. They actualize the laws of physics by giving equations numerical quantity
and are necessary in the logic of physics. What can be said about the particular
values takes by these constants ? The conditions for order and eventually life to
develop have been found to heavily depend upon these constants. Indeed,
although mathematically, the equations of physics, representing the
fundamental architecture of the order of the world, also produce outcomes
when other quantities of the same constants are introduced, the world would be
lifeless and barren (instead of a haven for incredible complexity) if even a small
amount of these values would be changed. Ergo, the various values of the
constants of nature were designed, and pre-planned. An infinite number of
different worlds are possible, but only in one are order, fitness, beauty and life
actual. Only our universe has observers witnessing it.
§ 60
Instead of blind chance, the universe has "finality", i.e. an ultimate aim or purpose. This
"causa finalis" is the notion backing the "anthropic principle". For if any of the natural
constants were to vary from the fine-tuned values physics determined, life as we know it
would not be possible. This "weak" anthropic principle posits cosmological features
conductive to a universe tuned to and generative of life as we know it. Accepting life is
bound to be observed, the "strong" principle affirms the universe is bound to produce
conscious and intelligent beings. This addition of the observer or witness is a demand of

quantum theory, for to look at quantum events yields particles, whereas to look away
causes waves (interference). The observer is thus always part of the experiment. The
strong version argues for an immanent Architect of the world (explaining the unity of the
world).
● weak anthropic principle : the fabric of the world is conductive to life ;
● strong anthropic principle : the fabric of the world is conductive to the observation of
life and the continuum of all observations imply an immanent Witness of all possible
forms of life.
The order of the world proposed by science is no longer Newtonian, although most
equations of relativity can be made "classical" by eliminating the Lorenz-contractions
accompanying high speeds. To solve the equations covering most practical matters at the
mesolevel of the macroscopic, the Euclidian and Newtonian notions about reality are
adequate. But deep down, at the microlevel of physical reality, in the vast so-called empty
spaces between electron and atom core and within the core itself, potentialities and
propensities exist which are ruled by a different set of laws.
Besides the strange logic at work in classical quantum mechanics, the more "revolutionary"
zero-point physics, or free energy physics (Puthoff, 1989), understands the vacuum of
space as a "plenum", i.e. a fullness of energetic potentialities in balance. This equilibrium
prevents the enormous energy potentials from becoming actual, which therefore appears
as a void or a vacuum. But every point in empty space, is a locus of convergence of
humongous energies, coming from all directions simultaneously, balancing them out. At
any point where there is an imbalance or asymmetry in this omnidirectional canceling of
energies, there appears a disturbance known as matter. All particles of quantum physics
are various modes of asymmetry of the zero-point field of the vacuum with itself. This zeropoint
energy is seen as the result of the unpredictable random fluctuations, which, in
classical theory, are all zero. But, even at a temperature of absolute zero, where no
thermal agitation can have effects, the flux remains.
3.4 The "Anima Mundi" and the worship of Nature.
"... regarding the whole material universe he (Xenophanes) stated that the Unity is God."
Aristotle : Metaphysics, i. 5 986 b10.
§ 61
In Ancient Egypt and Presocratic philosophy, the Divine and cosmology were closely
related. The Divine order was invoked to explain the creation of the world. To think the
Divine without creation was pointless. The transcendent and immanent sides of the Divine
were not distinguished.
In Egypt's Old Kingdom (ca. 2670 - 2198 BCE), the virtual clause "n SDmt.f", i.e. "before
he has (had) ..." or "he has (had) not yet ..." (Gardiner, § 402), was used to denote a
prior, potential nonexistent state, namely one before the actuality of that state had
happened. To be nonexistent, precludes existence, but does not preclude the possibility of
becoming existent (expressed by the verb "kpr", "kheper", "to become", which also means
"to transform"). Nonexistence was not divorced of its transformation into something actual
or created.

Examples of this virtual clause are : "I am sorry for her children, I grieve for her children
broken in the egg, who have seen the face of Khenty (the crocodile-god) before they have
lived !" (in Discourse of a Man with his Ba) or "... do not rejoice over what has not (yet)
happened." (cf. "m Haw n ntt n xprt" in The Eloquent Peasant, a Middle Kingdom text).
There is something before every thing, before the order, the architecture and the life of
creation. The latter manifests as a transformation or change from a nonexistent, virtual
state of potentialities to an existing actuality. The virtual state is not actual, but confirms
possibility, latency and potentiality. As a potency anterior to creation, it is conceived as a
nonexistent object, before "form", i.e. anterior to space and time, and before the creation
of sky, Earth, horizon and their "natural" dynamics. In the Pyramid Texts (ca. 2300 BCE),
Pharaoh is said to originate from beyond the natural order, beyond creation of space (Shu)
and moist (Tefnut), sky (Nut) and Earth (Geb), life and order.
"I was born in Nun before the sky existed, before the Earth existed, before that which was
to be made form existed, before turmoil existed, before that fear which arose on account of
the Eye of Horus existed."
Pyramid Texts : utterance 486.
In Presocratic Greece, the "arch•" was also conceived before anything else. It too provided
a causal explanation for the world. It had not to be explained (like the Nun, it was a given).
Being a "beginning" for other things, it had no beginning itself. It was therefore deathless
("athanatos"), the Homeric synonym for a god. Surrounding everything, it contained the
whole and explained its direction. To this conceptual cluster were added : continuity,
pervasiveness, control, psychic vitality and mind. This cosmic Divinity was recognized as
non-anthropomorphic and characterized by an intellectual dynamism keeping the cosmic
structure moving.
For these early Greek philosophers, "theos" was not yet separated from the order of the
world, and "god" was foremost a cosmic Divinity, necessary to explain the order of things.
Thales of Milete (ca. 624 - ca. 545 BCE), speculated that all material is endowed with latent
life or "hylezoism" (from "hyle", matter, originally "lumber", and "zoe", life). He also
affirmed all things to be "full of gods", suggesting a mechanistic explanation of nature is
not enough. Theology and cosmology were confused.
"1. God is one, supreme among gods and men, and not like mortals in body or in mind.
2. The whole sees, the whole perceives, the whole hears.

3. But without effort he sets in motion all things by mind and thought."
Xenophanes : fragments (Clement of Alexandria, Sextus Empiricus and Simplicius).
Even for atheists like Xenophanes of Kolopbon (ca. 570 - ca. 475 BCE), rejecting the gods
of Homer (ca. 750 BCE) and Hesiod (ca. 700 BCE), the material cosmos is a unity. Later
approved by Aristotle, Xenophanes conceives a mind at work throughout the cosmos, a
cosmic intelligence : "a principle in things which is the cause of beauty, and the sort of
cause by which motion is communicated to things" (Aristotle : Metaphysics 984b17). This
principle causes existing things to be or become well and beautifully disposed, and it is
deemed unsatisfactory to commit such an important matter to "spontaneity and
chance" (984b15).
In the extant fragments of Parmenides of Elea (ca. 510 - ca. 450 BCE), said to have been
the disciple of Xenophanes, the word "theos" is never used. The two parts of his famous
poem, On Nature, of which only fragments are left, distinguish the way of truth from the
way of opinion and deception. The latter is the way of the natural world of plurality and
change. In doing so, Parmenides, defined a divide between reality (truth) & appearance
(falsehood), between unity & plurality, between rest & movement, between "what
is" (being) & "what is not" (becoming), crucial in later Platonism. For Parmenides, the
validity of logic is controlled by justice ("dik•"), invoked in the "prologue" as the speech of
a goddess. In the section dealing with cosmology, he introduces another female Divinity (a
"daim•n"). She "steers all things". The same metaphor as used for the Milesian "arch•" &
the Heraclitean "fire" :
"The narrower circles are filled with unmixed fire, and those surrounding them with night,
and in the interval, a portion of fire is found spread. In the midst of these circles is the
Divinity that steers all things. Everywhere is she principle, for she rules over all painful
birth and all begetting, driving the female to the embrace of the male, and the male to that
of the female."
Parmenides : On Nature, fragment B XII (Simplicius).
The Eleatics posit the "chorismos" between transcendent being and immanent existence.
Thanks to this, Divine immanence (the cosmic Divinity) can be defined devoid of
transcendent connotations.
Empedocles of Acagras in Sicily (ca. 490 - 430 BCE), a follower of Pythagoras of Samos
(ca. 574 - after 500 BCE), trying to counter the "dark opinions" prevalent about the gods,
conceived the elements of the world (water, air, fire and earth) as well as the principles
working on them all as Divine, while the "gods" were but longer-lasting combinations of
these elements. The Divine per se is mind alone :
"... holy and ineffable, darting through the whole cosmos with swift thought."
Empedocles : fragment 134 (Ammonios).
This new theology embraced the cosmos as a whole : the material substances in it, their
forms of life, the agencies bringing about these forms and the "holy mind" or "Nous"
darting through it.
His contemporary Anaxagoras (500 - 428 BCE), a pupil of Anaximenes (ca. 585 - 525 BCE),
rejected hylezoism and the Divine nature of the celestial phenomena, but still refers to the
activity of a cosmic intelligence or "Nous". His language is no longer theological, for "theos"

and its derivatives are avoided. The Nous is the "finest" and "purest" of the material
elements, and has no spatial or temporal limits. Independent and self-identical in the midst
of constant ongoing change and becoming, it recognizes the ingredients of the cosmos,
executing majestic power of initiation & conservation.
"The intellect has known all things, also those who are mixed together as those that are
dissociated and separate ..."
Anaxagoras : fragment 7 (Simplicius).
In his Phaedo (97b - 98c), Plato describes how Socrates (469 - 399 BCE) was delighted to
read about Anaxagoras "Nous" but quiet disappointed to find it was only introduced to start
the initial rotation of the cosmos (cf. deism), a solution, in view of the greatness of this
intellect, considered too mechanistic and reductionist. Socrates' interest in a just order,
associated the highest being with goodness. In Plato's thought, inspired by the former, the
ontological and epistemological difference between the two worlds is irreducible and
fundamental. Being and becoming are like day (Sun) and night (Moon). The latter only
reflects the light of the Sun.
"For the Deity, intending to make this world like the fairest and most perfect of intelligible
beings, framed one visible living being comprehending within itself all other living beings,
who by their nature are closely related to it."
Plato : Timaeus, 30d, my italics.
In the Timaeus, Plato introduced the notion of a "world soul". The atheists addressed by
the legislator in the tenth book of the Laws, are those sophists and physicists who identify
nature as the source of all things, and like materialists, derive soul from the physical world
as mere art ("techn•") and convention ("nomos"). This Plato cannot allow. To initiate &
conserve the world, the soul ("psych•") of the world must have cosmic priority over the
material bodies and their elements. The universe is constructed as an artifact. A craftsman
or "demiurge" imposes order on pre-existing disorderly material. Thus, in space and time, a
copy or "eik•n" is produced. This approximates the atemporal model ("paradigma").
Between the transcendent original and the immanent copy the "Anima Mundi" initiates and
conserves.
In Plato's system, the idea of the good ("agathon") can still be interpreted as a limitconcept.
It is not clear whether infinity can be attributed to it in the same way as it can to
the ideas or paradigmata. With Plotinus (ca. 205 - 270) and his pupil Porphyrius (232 -
304), the "One" is firmly situated outside the being of the infinite ideas of the world of
originals. The One, defined as a non-being on the other side of being, is wholly
transcendent. In accord with the intent of the Eleatics, the "chorismos" or divide between
copy and original was completed.
For the Stoics, this immanent Divine nature was a "fire" (active energy) and a
"logos" (reason) diffused throughout the cosmos. It was wholly material, but of subtle
quality. There is nothing beyond the material universe, but this "pneuma" pervades in all
things all the time. The laws of nature are the material presence of this Divine, subtle
material soul of the universe. As cosmic reason, the Divine was providence & fate (natural
necessity). Providence ordained all things, while Fate imposed upon humanity a certain
determinism allowing for freedom only within the context of a person's inner acceptance of
natural, cosmic necessity (as given by the logos). Like a subtle "celestial fire" burning
inside every atom and in every galaxy, this "Anima Mundi" permeates the whole of the

enduring world.
With the coming of Christianity and the "creatio ex nihilo", interest in this Divine soul of the
world tarnished. In the exclusive pursuit of the transcendent God, any hint of a possible
Divine nature became anathema as soon as the battle with the Christian Gnostics had been
won (between 150 - 250 CE). Nature (like the physical body and its desires) is "fallen" and
so of no interest to the faithful. The body is the door to the demonical. In the three
monotheisms, the role of the receptive, feminine, intimate side of the Divine was eclipsed,
as was the feminine symbolism of generation, fertility and fecundity (cf. the contrasting
concept of a virgin birth in both Christianity and Islam). The theist God is transcendent,
active, essence, omnipotent & omniscient, a "He" rather than a "She" ... The tragedy of
God's remoteness is then the ridicule of the Divine soul of the world.
In Arabic philosophy, born in the milieu of the translators, we find Al-Kind• (ca. 800 - ca.
866), who in his On the Intellect (translating "nous" as 'akl) introduced the "intellect-inact",
conceived as actual and eternal, thinking all intelligibilia. Linked with the Peripatetic
"nous poi•tikós" or "intellectus agens", the world soul became a fashionable concept in
Islamic thought. In his Ris•la f• al-'Akl or Letter on the Intellect, Al-F•r•bi (ca. 870 - ca.
950) posits an "active intellect", a "light" related to the "passive intellect" as the Sun is to
the eye. It is identified with the "10th Intellect" emanated from unity and ruling the
sublunar world (a wording reminiscent of Hebrew qabalah). This last quality will be rejected
by Ibn Rushd (Averroes, 1126 - 1198).
§ 62
INTERMEZZO
Upper Paleolithic humanity (ca. 40.000 - 10.000 BCE), being wanderers, had no local
horizon. Unable to plot the natural cycle of the Sun, this slowly emerging human
consciousness had only the Moon to orientate itself, for only this swift Light presents its
ever-changing face always the same to the entire Earth, no matter in which direction one
wanders, and provided a natural source of light during the hours of darkness. The horns of
the consort of this "great goddess" and "great sorceress", the "Great Moon Bull", are the
two crescents of the Moon. Fertility, sexuality and the mystery of the uterus rule supreme.

the Lunar Phases : astronomical
The Moon is a temporal device. The unchanging Lunar phases were charted on deer antlers
and thigh-bones because of the vital information they represented. A purely nomadic
lifestyle obscures the daily and annual cycles of the Sun (apparent and seasonal). So the
nearest fixed point is the ever-changing face of the Moon. The Lunar cycle of 29.5 days
starts when the Moon is "invisible", standing between the Earth and the Sun, on the Sun
side of the Earth (i.e. New Moon or Sun conjunct Moon, angle = 0°). During the period of
increased light that follows (its face forming a "p"), the Half Moon midpoint is reached at
the end of the First Quarter (Sun square Moon, angle = 90°). Before this First Quarter
Moon, the Moon is crescent, after it, her movement is gibbous (approaching Full Moon or
Sun opposite Moon, angle = 180°) or waxing.
A Full Moon always rises in the East at about the same time as the Sun sets in the West.
After the Full Moon, the face of the satellite forms a "d". The Waning Moon. After the Last
Quarter Moon, the Old Moon is visible. These fixed temporal intervals or quarters of the
Lunar cycle, and their co-relative dual phenomenology of light versus darkness, were
symbolized in myths (Osiris in Ancient Egypt). This stable calendar of the wanderers
assured fertility, but offered no seasonal plan, no prospect ahead, no long term aim.

the Lunar Phases : magico-religious
Are there, besides the mystical quest for the radical altered state of consciousness, other
religious and magical purposes for entering the Paleolithic "cave of darkness" ? In order to
steer his environment and himself, the wanderer, caught in the Lunar cycle of light and
darkness, of plenty and want, seeks, in a mythical mode of cognition and by sympathetic
imitation (by magical mirroring), to unite with the projected "types" of nature. The
mountain is the ultimate natural type, representing stability, strength and the will of the
deities. Likewise, the heart of the mountain is its secret, and becomes the sanctum or
sacred uterus of the great goddess, the womb of (re)birth. This holy space protects and
feeds spiritual growth.
Three stages characterize the Upper Paleolithic cave mysteries :
1. "the entry" : the tunnel : the process of differentiation from light to darkness by
initiation ;
2. "the sanctum" : the cathedral : the secluded place of the mystery of the hidden
light kept alight in gestation ;
3. "the exit" : the return : the process of integration from darkness to light and
the actual rebirth.
Light and darkness are the physical underpinnings of the cave mysteries. In mythical
thought, the metaphor is physical and the physical metaphorical. The cave is a protected
mediating area were the human and the archetypes of nature touch. Its heart is an uterus,
a place of new birth. The tunnel is a crawl or passage-way between stages & stations of life
and the otherworld (the beforelife and the afterlife), the path of the seed to the ovary. In
the natural darkness of the sanctum, events such as the death of a hunter could be relived
and the causes combated in a symbolical, allegorical way. Initiations could happen. The
womb was the temple of the great goddess, she who (as the cave surrounds the initiate),
enfolds nature as a whole.
Upper Paleolithic rock art and its magico-religious sense reflect the spirituality of these free
wanderers, the gatherer-hunters who roamed a large territory, identifying (sanctifying)

important landmarks, such as mountains and rivers (during the day), as well as the phases
of the Moon (at night). These sacred waymarks represented the "great goddess" and her
consort. She is the space-time continuum embedding the powerful, ongoing drive of the lifeforce
of her consort, the Bull, at maximum strength when the Moon is Full (Moon or Sun
opposite Moon, angle = 180°, with a brightness of magnitude -12.7).
When the Neolithic dawned (ca. 10.000 BCE), semi-nomads and farmers began to
experience the annual cycle of events in a fixed number of places. Small changes could be
observed and logged. Finding an efficient balance between both approaches (the still
dominant Lunar and the emerging Solar) preoccupied humanity during the Neolithic as a
whole. The great goddess was still very important and pre-dominant (matriarchy), but her
influence waned. As soon as village life commenced, the local horizon became political, and
the long-term annual cycle of the Sun was paired with the short-term Lunar month.
Analogous preoccupations were projected upon these astronomical cycles.
Finally, farmers worked out change within a local horizon, and so identified the
overarching, all-encompassing natural, primordial type of life : the annual cycle of the Sun.
The changes marked by this longer cycle are seasonal and horizon-related relationships
between the Earth and the stars. What a difference from the wanderers ! The horizon of
these nomad was unfixed, with no reference to a stable element of the local, immediate
environment (the daily average speed of the Moon is ca. 13°, of the Sun ca. 1°). Wherever
the nomad stops, there the Sun sets, and the moving celestial vault remains unmeasurable.
The synodic movement is detected, but the sidereal remains unknown.
the Solar cycle in the Northern hemisphere
and daily magico-religious sense
The Neolithic ended in Ancient Egypt with Amratian culture (ca. 4000 BCE). It then takes

only a millennium for an omnipotent divine kingship to rise (ca. 3000 BCE), a "follower of
the god" assimilating the powers of the great goddess (in his regalia) and ruling supreme
as a transcendent principle with his consort(s) next to him. A dual theology emerges, in
which Solar (Re) and Lunar (Osiris) currents are intermixed, with outstanding
complementarities :
● SOLAR : fire, the Sun, light, activity, creation, Horus - Atum, sky ("pet"), Eye of Re,
self-awareness ;
● LUNAR : water, stellar expanse, darkness, passivity, generation, Isis - Osiris,
netherworld ("duat"), Eye of Horus, physical body.
The important & enduring role of the sacred feminine was confirmed by the frequent
representations of female figures in Late Naqada II iconography (ca. 3400 - 3300 BCE).
The complex, composite nature of some of the Predynastic female deities (like Hathor, both
Cow- and Sky-goddess or Nut) is still a powerful manifestation of the Upper Paleolithic and
Neolithic great goddess, who combined many of the functions later assigned to other
deities. The crucial role of the sacred feminine persisted in the Predynastic Period, but
when history dawned (in Egypt ca. 3000 BCE), the great goddess had lost her dominant
position. She did however not disappear. This is demonstrated by the prominent role
played by goddesses in the later pantheon, by the equal status women enjoyed in Early
Dynastic society and by the link between women and the sacred domains of existence
(birth, fertility, generation, death, rebirth & healing).
In the historical period, initiated by writing, the light of the Sun, grasped as the ultimate
symbol of vitality, plenty and divinity, is associated with the awareness made free by the
surplus of food (control over the annual agricultural cycle) & a stable economy (or
household) favoring the development of an inner, individual life (consciousness perceiving
its proper mode of being) and the blossoming of high culture. The "Solarization" of the
Lunar fertility myths, or assimilation of the powers of the sacred feminine by the divine
king, goes hand in hand with a stronger centralized control.
§ 63
The Prehistorical Lunar and Solar symbols represent an ante-rational treasure-house of
images, metaphors and contextual concepts which inspired future metaphysics. They
underline that from the start, the bi-polarity of the Divine was part of human spirituality :
● TRANSCENDENT : Solar symbols, arch•, essence, world of being, God, Creator, He,
theism ;
● IMMANENT : Lunar symbols, phusis, accidental existence, world of becoming,
Demiurge, Generator, She, pantheism.
The soul of the world is the "form" of the world and one being with it. As a "feminine",
receptive principle (linked with the double movement of inspiration & expiration), She
(following Parmenides) is wholly "of the world", inviting us to posit a transcendent Creator
outside the totality of events. Her immanence mirrors the pataphysical, the transcendent
aim. But as She only brings into actuality what is potential, She is the entelechy of the

universe itself and does not transgress its boundaries. In all points of the universe, She
encompasses everything all the time.
In the metaphor of a double concave mirror, one side turned to the world and the other to
the transcendent principle, She reflects to the world its own natural unity and
simultaneously captures the artistic intent of the He-God, influencing the propensity of the
endless forms of definiteness to enter existence as actual entities (cf. Whitehead). She cogenerates
actuality by coinciding with the intent of the Author of the world, the absolute
totality. As a "Nous" or "Intellect" of the world, this actual "soul" is not a real actual entity.
The transcendent and immanent sides of the Divine (He and She) are one abstract actual
entity, namely the absolute totality of the Divine. The primordial nature of the He-God and
the immanent unity, conservation and intelligence of the She-Soul, although only one
actual abstract entity, differ. The Divine is thus a paradox of which only the immanent side
can be approached by reason (for although meta-rational, immanent metaphysics is still
able to pour its intellectual flashes -triggering creativity- in arguments) :
1. real actual entities (the real) : all what exists in the world of facts and events ;
2. potential eternal objects (the potential) : selfsame, "pure", organizing forms
outside the stream of actual entities ;
3. abstract actual entity (the abstract) : as transcendent Artist and Author, the He-
God promotes a beautiful world by way of His She-Soul, the natural Divine
medium or natural Divine unit of cosmic conservation and intelligent designing,
assisting the process of adding weight to the intention of beauty working in
every point of the universe. God is transcendent and abstract. His soul of the
world is immanent and abstract.
Immanent metaphysics, arguing the existence of this Great Soul and focusing on its
conservative and designing nature, cannot explain Her, except if reference is made to the
world as a whole, and nothing more. In the latter case, only the immanent polarity of the
Divine comes into perspective. Surprisingly, along with Sartre (1905 - 1980), virulently
rejecting the transcendent, theist God of Christianity, we may posit the Anima Mundi as a
concept of the Other "pushed to the limit" (cf. L'Ête et le Néant, 1943), and understand this
immanent Nature as an all-embracing "Look".
If the monotheisms exclusively invest in the remote, transcendent side of the Divine, we
may ask how it is possible for them to succeed in gathering support for their cause ? For if
no immanence is posited, no mediation between this world and the transcendent is
possible. If so, how to save humanity ? Even if revelation is accepted, it seems strange to
posit a God unveiling Himself (in a sacred history, a Divine Son or a holy Book) without
attributing to Him any immanence or preoccupation with His creation. How can God be
unconcerned with the world ? Theism is not deism. The question of Divine nearness and
presence hic et nunc cannot be eclipsed. And it was not. Besides the "canonical" ladders
between God and the world, each of the three monotheisms "of the Book" subreptively
introduced other mediators :
1. Judaism : the Divine Presence ("shekinah") accompanies Israel everywhere. At
the ultimate point in sacred history, a Messiah will come and the Creator will be
perfectly emulated by everyone. For the spiritual elite, a practical Qabalah is
posited enabling a theurgy of restoration ("tikun"). In this system, the soul of

the world is the "Kether" of "Assiah" (the highest entity in the world of
manifestation, identical with the "Assiah" of Briah, the world of ideas - cf.
Jacob's Ladder) ;
2. Christianity : those who completely accept the salvic power of the Cross of
Christ have the Holy Spirit and His Virtues & Gifts fully at work in them and
receive the complete (esoteric) truth. Meister Eckhart identified the Anima
Mundi with the Holy Spirit, while in Christian Gnosticism, Holy Mary (like
"Sophia") is deemed the world soul ;
3. Islam : the Names of Allah are the Self-manifestation out of the "hidden
treasure" of God (cf. Ibn 'Arabî). The prophets embody (assume) all these
Names (encompassing the perfection of perfection and imperfection) and their
coming is not ended (cf. Shijite thought). In the Koran, Allah is said to be
nearer to a person than his jugular vein (50:16). The Koranic concept of God
encompasses both nearness and remoteness (although Sunnite orthodoxy
emphasizes the latter). In Sufism, even in Her Presence He is remote, and even
in His remoteness He manifests Her Presence. An ultimate arabesque ...
The intelligence, architectonic scope, immensity and extraordinary powers of this watchful
world-soul, makes it a viable object of worship, broadly defined as the response to the
appearance of the holy and sacred as "mysterium fascinans et tremendum" (Otto).
Historical examples of this worship of the "form" of nature as a receptive and generative
Great Goddess are found in many cultures attuned to the cycles and formidable
constructions of our natural environment.
In Ancient Egypt, Her cult was the last to survive (namely in the form of Isis on Philae). In
Hinduism, the cult of the "shakti", the female aspect of the Deity, was and is essential (cf.
the "Divine Mother" as "Mahashakti" or supermind in the spirituality of Ramakrishna and
Aurobindo). In Judaism, wisdom ("Chockmah" or "Sophia") stood between the transcendent
God and His creation, whereas the Divine Presence of Yahweh ("shekinah", a feminine
word) is named with a masculine plural of a feminine noun ("Elohim"). In Christianity, the
Holy Virgin became a powerful symbol of this "Great Mother" of the universe, whereas
before Islam, the Arabs worshipped the "daughters of Allah", for the Moon god "al-
Ilah" (Allah) had three daughters : al-Lat, al-Uzza and Manat, and in verses of surat 53,
later abrogated as "Satanic", they were called "the exalted cranes (intermediaries) Whose
intercession is to be hoped for".
In a certain way, this feminine aspect was assimilated as the Ka'aba located in Mecca, the
"house" of a massive black meteorite, and the sacred stone of Islam (in Egypt, meteorites
were worshipped in the star, sky & Sun cult). Wherever a Muslim is located, he is
instructed to pray towards Mecca and the Ka'aba. Every Muslim must make a pilgrimage to
the Ka'aba once in their lifetime and circumambulate the structure seven times (a number
associated with the Egyptian Hathor, the Greek Aphrodite, the Hebrew "Netzach" and the
Christian Holy Spirit). Indeed, like coming home to "the mother of us all", the Ka'aba is the
physical focus of the worship of Allah on Earth. Pilgrimage to Mecca thus creates a distinct
and peculiar unity between the Muslim people.
3.5 Memorial & wager-argument of Pascal.
"The heart has its reasons which reason does not know ; one knows this in a thousand

things. I say that the heart loves the universal being naturally and itself naturally, in
proportion to how it gives itself, and it hardens against this or that by choice. You rejected
this and conserved that ; is it reasonable that you love yourselves ? It is the heart that
feels God and not reason. This is then faith ! God sensitive to the heart, not to reason."
Pascal, B. : Pensées, 423 & 424 (277 & 278), non-classified fragments.
§ 64
As Descartes, Blaise Pascal (1623 - 1662) was a mathematician (he laid the foundations of
infinitesimal calculus, integral calculus and the theory of probability), and as Cartesius, he
asserted the supremacy of the mathematical method within the field of inference and
demonstration. But Pascal did not conceive the latter to have the same extent, applicability
and usefulness as Descartes did. Outside a limited domain, the method is useless and
uncertain. He contrasted and counterbalanced the spirit of geometry with the spirit of
finesse, meaning in French a sense of subtlety, the ability to see with the "eyes of the
heart", and to be gifted with depth perception. It is with this "heart" the first principles
from which reason derives other propositions are derived. The spirit of finesse is a more
extensive organ or instrument of knowing. It implies immediacy, spontaneity and
directness. In Pascal's method, both reason and heart are at work, the one never divorced
or separated from the latter (as in Cartesian thought : "we do not think that the whole of
philosophy is worth an hour's labor" (Pensees, 79).
In 1654, he underwent a mystical experience recorded in his Memorial. It forced him to
abandon himself to the personal God of Jesus Christ, but he did not renounce his scientific
interests, but came to look on them as part of his service of God. The Memorial was
recorded on a scrap of paper. After his death, this witness of Pascal's mystical experience,
was found in the lining of his coat. He carried this reminder always with him.
"The year of grace 1654,
Monday, 23 November, feast of St. Clement, pope and martyr, and others in the
martyrology.
Vigil of St. Chrysogonus, martyr, and others.
From about half past ten at night until about half past midnight,
FIRE.
GOD of Abraham, GOD of Isaac, GOD of Jacob
not of the philosophers and of the learned.
Certitude. Certitude. Feeling. Joy. Peace.
GOD of Jesus Christ.
Deum meum et Deum vestrum.
(My God and your God.)
Your GOD will be my God.
Forgetfulness of the world and of everything, except GOD.
He is only found by the ways taught in the Gospel.
Grandeur of the human soul.
Righteous Father, the world has not known You,
but I have known You.
Joy, joy, joy, tears of joy.
I have departed from him :

Dereliquerunt me fontem aquae vivae.
(They have forsaken me, the fount of living water.)
My God, will You leave me ?
Let me not be separated from him forever.
This is eternal life, that they know You, the one true God, and the one that You sent, Jesus
Christ.
Jesus Christ.
Jesus Christ.
I left him ; I fled him, renounced, crucified.
Let me never be separated from him.
He is only kept securely by the ways taught in the Gospel :
Renunciation, total and sweet.
Complete submission to Jesus Christ and to my director.
Eternally in joy for a day's exercise on the Earth.
Non obliviscar sermones tuos.
(May I not forget your words.)
Amen."
Pascal : Memorial.
This highly intense experience is unique and has concrete temporal boundaries. In the
previous centuries, the universal characteristics of the religious, sacred, numinous, mystical
peak-experience have been summarized as follows (cf. Pahnke & Richards, 1972) :
● temporality : this state is only exceptionally permanent (deification), one "returns", to
settle at the nominal level without loss of memory of what has been experienced ;
● space-time-shifts : everything happens in the eternal "now" ;
● noetic quality : a conscious state, capable of contemplative, intuitive and
creative thought ;
● ineffability : the essence of the experience can not be verbalized, and is an object of
un-saying ;
● paradoxal : the experience involves the conflictual conjunction of opposites ;
● unity : the nominal distinctions between object & subject dissolve.
In my Knowledge & Love-Mysticism (1994), the love-mysticism of the Flemish mystic
Beatrix of Nazareth (1200 - 1268) was scrutinized. The critique of her Seven Ways of Holy
Love (1995) shows how mystical experience decentred the empirical ego in order to reequilibrate
the observer's whole system so a new element of eccentricity comes into play.
This is what had happened to Pascal. In his case, he assisted his memory of this radical
experience of Self-declared total Otherness, by writing it down and carrying it on his
person. Unlike others, he did not wish to repress this extraordinary event. With the power
of a real, enduring and effective initial founding act "in illo tempore", the experience slowly
transformed him and he renewed his personal acquaintance with it by putting on his
clothes. Doing so, the primordial mythical moment of his initial "sacrifice" (the service of
God) was daily repeated, reinforced and ritually reacquired by way of sacred gestures. This
same pattern reappears in the life of mystics in general. As Plotinus (cf. his biography by
Porphyrius), Pascal, a mathematician, scientist, philosopher and genius, was a mystic. He
had perceived the Intellect of the world and moved beyond. Hence, his memory had
recorded the Lilliputian dimensions of reason (as apparently seen by the intellect) and

Pascal could no longer acclaim the way of geometry as the universal method of truth (cf.
Descartes). We may look upon the method of the Ethica ("de more geometrico
demonstrata") of his contemporary Spinoza as a good example of reason overstepping its
limitations.
The metaphysical demonstrations of God are so remote and complex, they have little effect
on the state of mind of people. They never convince hardened atheists but are useless and
sterile because they lead to knowledge of God without Christ. The best they do is promote
deism, the quest of God apart from Christ. Knowing God without knowing one's own misery
and the redeemer to heal oneself, is very dangerous. It produces either the pride of the
philosophers, who refuse to see their own misery, or the despair and pessimism of the
atheists, who know their own misery but do not know their redeemer. Although the
geometrical method does lead to certain truths about the Divine, it cannot bring
supernatural knowledge of God as revealed in Christ. Without the latter, no salvation is
possible and no direct and personal experience of the Divine can take form.
Pascal's famous wager-argument is not a proof of God's existence, but is addressed to
those who are unconvinced by all proofs and rejections of the Divine. Those who suspend
judgment may still be compelled by Pascal's argument, for belief would be the only
reasonable course of action.
Either God exists or there is no God. The only proper thing for a reasonable person to do is
to wager. For to remain indifferent or to suspend judgment is itself to make a choice,
namely against God. One cannot help choosing one way or the other. Either God exists, or
not. What will it be ? A reasonable person must consider where his interest lies. It is
obviously advantageous for happiness to wager for God. If one wins, one wins it all. If one
looses, nothing is lost. Do You wish to gain the infinity of an infinitely happy life or the
chance of missing such an opportunity ? A chance of infinite gain against a finite number of
chances of loss and what You stake is also finite. As the finite is nothing in comparison with
the infinite, no further deliberation is needed and the intelligent person wagers for God.
Every gambler stakes a certainty to gain an uncertainty, how much more if everything can
be won ? The urgency of the matter is contrasted with people's trust in the probability of
them being alive the next day. It is not certain we indeed shall see tomorrow. It is for You
to begin now. For if You are not redeemed, your second death is certain.
In the Pensées, the urgency of his original experience, the heat of the FIRE can still be felt.
Transcendence infuses immanence and a supernatural (meta-rational) organ is at work
(the heart). The personal, highly intimate, intense, irreversible, transforming, deeply
engraved experience of the "totaliter aliter" should be noted. He kept the Memorial hidden
as a good secret. His involvement with mysticism is exemplaric of the personal and highly
transforming effect of meta-rationality on reason, in casu the heart.
Once the outer rim of immanence is reached, and arguable flashes of intuition become, as
it were, blazing stars, then a "jump" most dangerous is at hand. Reason is about to loose
the last outpost of consciousness, architecture & momentum (the fundamentals of nature),
and the world will be left. In Christian terms, the soul is transfigurated and made Divine.
The three steps of the "scala perfectionis" leading to mystical experience, namely
purification ("purificatio"), totalization ("illuminatio") and actionalizing ("deificatio") are
universal, but in each, the individual mystic becomes a living poem, giving form to a unique
treasure of non-conceptual, transcendent intuitions and intellectual perceptions and so

develops, as a function of his or her "service of God", his or her own proper language,
actions & metaphors. Mystics are God's poets, even when scientists. Pascal's text, with far
greater liberty than Plotinus writings, over-indulges in the ideological side of his
experience, although the Memorial was clear : FIRE.
§ 65
In materialist circles, it is fashionable to understand mystical experience as a form of
schizophrenia. Mystics are psychotics. Buddha, Moses, Jesus, Muhammad, Ibn 'Arabî,
Ruusbroec, Jeanne d'Arc, John of the Cross, ... Pascal, et j'en passe, are in fact very sick
individuals to be put on neuroleptics. This would eliminate their hallucinations and
excessive emotional states ... Suppose Moses, Jesus and Muhammad would have been
treated that way, then today we would not have to endure the end result of their madness,
namely three insane religions claiming to worship the God of their founder and fighting
each other to gain the exclusive monopoly on that God, each affirming to be to only
possible salvic way. Although there is some truth in this position (for trance is, statistically
speaking, an abnormal state), the moral scope of the master mystic cannot be compared
with the state of wretched people.
Indeed, schizophrenics do not become more ethically aware because of their fits and
hallucinations, and they do not, as genuine mystics do, turn into sublime examples of love
& charity. It is true radical, uncertain experiences pose very grave risks (cf. infra,
Kierkegaard), but this does not necessarily lead to psychopathy (although psychotic
episodes may be part of the itinerary of the mystic). On the contrary, neurotheology
suggests the presence of neuronal networks accommodating spiritual experience (cf. infra,
the amygdala). Biofeedback and the study of the protocol of yoga put into evidence the
ability of the brain to autopoiesis and the computation of the "fourth state" (next to
waking, dreaming and the dreamless sleep).
Adjacent to this reductionism, God is blamed for the many mistakes of the religions. But,
as soon as the genesis of traditional concepts is understood (the redundancy of a concept
increases as a function of the temporal distance from the original idea) and the various
actors in the spirito-communal play are taken into account (cf. the founder of a religion,
the contemporary companions and the later followers), then the crucial difference between
the object worshipped (God) and the way this is actually done (man) must be made (cf. the
list of sins confessed by the Roman Church in 2000). Moreover, comparative religions
shows how the traditions develop their own kind of myths, at times far removed from the
teachings of their founders (if identified). Hence, past and actual misuse of the Divine by
the institutionalized (orthodox) religions, does not affect the status of the Divine in a
possible religious philosophy, although it does reflect the crucial role played by the Divine,
as it were rooted in the "heart" of our human emotions, ranging from excessive joy to
agonizing fear. Clearly no religion, except the concert of all genuine religions worshipping
Divine unity, can make firm an exclusive salvic claim for humanity.
3.6 Objective uncertainty in authentic existence.
"... without risk, no faith, the more risk, the more faith ; the less objective credibility, the
more deeper possible inwardness becomes."
Kierkegaard, S. : Concluding Unscientific Postscript, chapter 2, 1846.
§ 66

Pascal, like many other mystics, insisted on vehemence. Without strong devotion, nothing
can be gained. Mysticism is not a dry intellectual love ("amor intellectualis Dei"), but a
fiery, demanding and passionate love affair between the human soul (the bride) and the
Divine (the bridegroom), as Hadewijch of Antwerp, Beatrice of Nazareth & John of
Ruusbroec testify. If making a "desperate leap" (Kant) on the "wings of ideas" (KRV B657)
is refused on the basis of a free will choice, then one should not persue any spiritual
advancement. The latter is intimately linked with individual intention and enthusiastic
engagement. Apparently these initial conditions of the whole exercise are outstanding tests
(crisis & observation) and so the more they are stressed and placed before the aspirants,
the less likely opportunists get initiated in things mystical, hidden and secret. Spiritual
experience, although natural, is not automatic. The need to Self-realize is satisfied by
intention and will. This is not triggered automatically, but depends on freedom. If one is
content with the freedom of the cage, then the cage is all there is. There must be an initial
intention to change one's situation, and this choix fondamental is the conditio sine qua non
of the experimental approach of the Divine.
Nobody has better underlined human existence is a category relating to the freedom of the
individual than Søren Kierkegaard (1813 - 1855), one of the early protest philosophers.
When he attended lectures on idealism by Schelling, the Dane agreed with the latter's
attack on Hegel, but rejected Schelling's own positive philosophy concerned with the "thatness"
of things, i.e. their existence. He truly admired Hegel as the greatest speculative
philosopher. While completely missing the point of truth, Hegel nevertheless had, by tour
de force, captured and convinced his audience with a universalizing dialectic, while
existence slipped through its meshes. Absolute idealism misrepresented human existence,
which is not concerned with universalism but with the actual, concrete life of the individual
and his or her free choices.
To exist, is to become more and more an individual, self-committed and free to choose
between alternatives. Less and less a member of a group, this individual is not a moment
in the life of universal thought (as Hegelianism preached), but a responsible and authentic
existence, self-committed to a free choice.
He had a new idea of the Christian religion, and firmly rejected Protestantism without being
a Catholic. A lot of Kierkegaardian themes later recur in existentialism (cf. Sartre on the
"choix fondamental") and Protestantism (cf. Karl Barth).
§ 67
In his Concluding Unscientific Postscript (1846), he writes "there are three spheres of
existence : the aesthetic, the ethical, the religious". In Either-Or (1843) and Stages on
Life's Way (1845) these spheres or stages are described in more detail. Each transition
from stage to stage is not the result of thinking but of choice, by an act of will and a leap.
This is not a dialectic of continuity, like in conceptual mediation, but transitions made by
choice, in a discrete, discontinuous fashion.
● the aesthetic : by dispersal on the level of sense, the aesthetic man is ruled by sense,
impulse and emotion. Like in Don Juan, fixed moral laws and religious faith are not
present. Poetical imagination and romantic states are possible, but a bad sense of
infinity prevails, namely the absence of limitations other than those imposed by taste.

If this man becomes aware that he or she is living in the cellar of the soulish-bodily
synthesis, despair ensues, for there is no remedy or salvation possible at this level.
His individuality (to become what he really is) cannot be realized at this stage ;
● the ethical : this person accepts moral standards, obligations and the voice of
universal reason. Like Socrates, the tragic hero who renounces himself in order to
express the universal, or as in the institution of marriage (bridling the sexual
impulse), freedom is given up to satisfy the conditions. This person encounters his or
her own lack of moral self-sufficiency, as well as sin and guilt. Not despair, but sin
forms the antithesis to the ethical stage, overcome by relating oneself to God ;
● the religious : the individual affirms his or her spirit, grounding the own-Self in
the Power constituting it. This involves an absurd leap, i.e. an adventure and a
risk. It demands recurrent self-commitment to an objective uncertainty, to the
absolute Thou, beyond the reach of speculative reason. Faith cannot be
transformed into speculative knowledge. Proofs of God are futile. We
contemplate nature in the hope of finding God. And although we do experience
God, there is much else that is disturbing and excites anxiety. Hence, God is an
objective uncertainty. Because of this, inwardness becomes intense, for it
embraces this uncertainty with the passion of the infinite.
Although he does not say there are no good reasons at all for making the act of faith,
which is thus not capricious, it does seem as if for Kierkegaard faith is an arbitrary act of
will. As Pascal had argued, the core is intent and not reason. The experience happens in
the heart, not by thought. He who has not yet decided has to wager, and God is the best
bargain. For Kierkegaard, the existing individual is more an actor than a spectator, more a
doer than a thinker. He who exists commits himself, and so gives direction to life. He
chooses this and rejects that. To be authentic, a human being becomes what he or she
really is : individual before God. Hence, with his concept, Kierkegaard is a forerunner of the
notion of "authentic existence" as used by modern existentialists.
Pascal and Kierkegaard, both working with a theist superstructure (the one Catholic, the
other Christian existentialistic), were mystics (and so had at least one mystical
experience). In the Spring of 1848, the latter had a mystical encounter which, as he writes,
changed his very nature and impelled him to speak out for his views. Pascal was still a
rationalist, and posits the spirit of finesse to counterbalance this (for the latter still offers
its first principles to reason). But in the process of becoming an authentic individual,
Kierkegaard no longer understands reason and cognition as all-important. Instead, will,
freedom, choice and self-commitment are crucial and without them, no authentic existence
is possible.
Both men had the privilege to experience the Divine, and were drawn near to Divine
transcendence. A radical departure from the principles of reason resulted, one forcing them
to posit either a new organ (the heart) or contemplate the discontinuous dialectics of
authentic existence, realized only before the objective uncertainty called "God". In that,
they do not distinguish themselves from mystics like Beatrice of Nazareth, John of
Ruusbroec, John of the Cross (1542 - 1591) or Dag Hammarskjold (1905 - 1961). The pull
of transcendence on reason is so demanding, that a higher meta-rational, supernatural or
pataphysical state is sought. The mystic is not really interested in staying within the
boundaries of the world, and if he or she is, transcendence pushes them over the edge of
the broad abyss, passionately inviting them to make a desperate leap into the unknown

and the absurd. Even mystical philosophers cannot do otherwise. This is an additional
universal characteristics of the mystical episode or state.
Although Divine bi-polarity is acknowledged, eventually the quest does not end with the
experience of Divine immanence. Although necessarily part of the phenomenon (in both
men, life, ministry and presence of Jesus Christ was the immanent side of their mystical
equation), the mystic eventually jumps into a non-conceptual embrace and has, when face
to face with the Self-declared absolute Thou, an inexpressibly deep experience of joy
("jubilatio", "mentis" or "cordis"). This encounter is so transforming, that even an a-social
and withdrawn individual like Kierkegaard is compelled to speak out and inform the world
about this extraordinary possibility, open to all, neglected by most and rejected by a small
minority (despite decades of conditioning, atheists have not been able to "convert" the
billions of humans believing in the transcendent God, not even those emerced in
contemporary technology).
Kierkegaard emphasized choice. Although, when the driver is asleep, the cart moves by
natural necessity, only by consciously slapping the reigns of choice will the horse change its
direction. Without existing as an individual this is not possible. If one has traded one's
authenticity for the values of a group-entity (like organized religion or science), no spiritual
advancement will be made. As was observed many years later in the context of
parapsychological studies, the conditions imposed by science (like a complete rational
control of the situation) often, if not always, annihilate the possibility of the phenomena to
emerge. Although the proof of the pudding is in the tasting, one still needs the possibility of
opening one's mouth to eat. To smell and conclude the pudding is good is not enough.
Pudding is not wine.
§ 68
This paragraph was not meant to back the arguments of those who say religious experience
is always ineffable and remote. If so, science and religiosity indeed belong to two separate
domains and no communication between them should be sought (not even, as dogmatic
atheists try, to "prove" spiritual experience is balooney). A possible religious philosophy
which is natural, i.e. limited to the events of the world, can prepare and accommodate the
direct experience of the Divine. Of the two-tiered process, the first step can be taken
rationally. It remains within the boundaries of the world and can thus be an object of
speculative philosophy. Indeed, a proof of the intelligent cause of the world can be given.
If, and only if, a protocol can be found to assist the evolution from rational to metarational,
then an experimental test of Divine immanence is possible.
However, together with Kierkegaard, the necessity of self-commitment should be affirmed.
In the context of our experimental set-up, this implies a long and sustained effort to open
the doors of perception in order to witness Divine immanence directly. Like sportive or
academic training, time and effort should not be spared to realize this goal. Prejudices and
emotional rejection (caused by the evil effects of organized religion throughout the ages)
should be set aside (for they are manmade). The speculative arguments backing Divine
immanence make the possibility of a direct experience of the Anima Mundi possible, and so
this is not a vain, illusionary prospect, but a likely one. As Ockham and Kant said, these
speculations, underpinning the stage of admiration, are there to clear the path. Their
arguments are serious. If, and only if, a mystical experience is given, can the next step be
taken. But as the boundaries of the natural world are then overstepped, nothing can be

said about this, except by way of poetical metaphor and in artistic terms. A natural theist
theology is impossible. But a natural pantheist (or immanent) religious philosophy is
possible. This does not demonstrate the non-existence or existence of the transcendent
God, but the impossibility of reason to speculate beyond the limitations of possible
experience, to wit : the observation of the world of actual entities.
In short : logic, science and (immanent) metaphysics cannot grasp the transcendent God.
Kierkegaard is right to say theist faith is not a matter of reason & speculation, but of a
repeated choice for an objective uncertainty.
3.7 Objective chance.
"SURREALISM. Pure psychic automatism by means of which one proposes to express,
either verbally, by writing or by any other means, the real functioning of thought. Dictation
of thought in the absence of all control exerted by reason, beyond every esthetic or moral
preoccupation."
Breton, A. : Manifeste du surréalisme, 1924.
§ 69
Can the existence of Divine immanence be experienced ? At first, extraordinary everyday
experiences may, by means of participant observation, be studied and emulated :
prolonged orgasm, strong & intense emotions, awe, enthusiasm, athletic vehemence,
falling in love, artistic and intellectual wonder etc. In each, the excellence of the physical
world is brought to the fore. Next one seeks to understand more peripheral phenomena like
serendipity, Aha, inventivity, synchronicity, psi-events, near-death experience etc. They
point to the limitations of our knowledge about the physical world. Finally, the "eccentric"
experience of radical otherness is at hand. Can the latter be methodically approached ?
Is there, besides the speculative demonstrations of conservation and intelligent design,
which (as Pascal said) are too complex to be trusted by most, a empirico-formal protocol
allowing consciousness to witness the Divine repeatedly ? If not, then (as Kierkegaard
claims), religion is divorced from science. If so, then atheism is only successful in refuting
theism, and mysticism may involve a mysticology or a science of spiritual emancipation.
Insofar as this is a science, it is wholly immanent. Insofar as it adheres to the metaphysics
axiom of the unity of the Divine, it at least anticipates a poetical elucidation of Divine
transcendence is possible, but never without the descriptive axiom of the non-conceptuality
of the latter (in accord with apophatism). If transcendence is rejected, the extent of the
operation is brought within the boundaries of the world and pantheism ensues (the sole
worship of the Anima Mundi).
§ 70
Historically, the rise of surrealism paralleled the radical rejection of traditional values and
beliefs. As the power of the great religions waned, more new visions of spiritual
emancipation were conjured through a mix of poetry, art, mysticism and the occult. For
many surrealists, what began as a more objective approach to life, often wound up more
steeped in ritual and dogma than the religions they rebelled against. The idea of a personal
God was rejected for that of a mystical force : objective chance.
So although the surrealists were opposed to organized religions, they did not reject trance,

mysticism, gnosis or science. Quite on the contrary. These phenomena are considered
fundamental to understand thought as a whole. Salvador Dali (1904 - 1989) used to say
mathematics & physics prove the existence of God, which was a good reason to mistrust
both ... The pure mechanism of thought was conceived as far more extended than reason
and science. The concept of the unconscious was assimilated and ways devised to make it
useful. This unconscious played a crucial role in the central notion of this interesting
surrealist "automatism", namely objective chance ("hasard objectif").
In the Western tradition, happiness is associated with spiritualized standards, elevated
above the immediacy of the "street". Although the surrealist agrees triviality and banality
need to be transcended, he stresses this does not happen in a life adapted to an elevated
moral and/or intellectual ideal, but in the direct encounter with the reality of the sur-real,
"le merveilleux", identified by Breton (1896 - 1966) with the form of a wonderful, fairy-like
woman. This encounter is so intimately linked with objective chance, that a "taste for
chance" ("goût du hasard") is deemed important. To place oneself in the state of grace with
chance is the "new spirit" ("l'esprit nouveau") of surrealism.
Objective chance is not a common coincidence or chance event. It differentiates itself from
the latter precisely because it is the geometric place of these chance events, a
meetingpoint or point of contact between necessity (of nature) and freedom, between
natural necessity and human necessity. Objective chance is a natural bond between the
personal subjective mechanism and the universal automatism, between personal
unconscious and collective unconscious. This wonder is the totality of phenomena
manifesting the invasion of the marvellous in everyday life. It shows chance events are not
"random", but explicate expressions of a deeper, implicate reality. It elucidates the
connectivity between the psyche and the cosmos. In this sense, the exploration of chance
is an adventure into reality, not of scientific reality, for perceptual, but of the true,
underlying sur-reality connected by and in the perceptual. In Nadja, Breton is mesmerized
by the wonderous. He wanders aimlessly through Paris and constantly encounters objective
chance. The perceived world is then transformed into a world of phantoms, much like in the
pictures of De Chirico (1888 - 1978).
§ 71
There are four "Ways" to encounter objective chance :
1. waiting ("l'attente") : for Breton, the world is a gigantic waitingroom. There is
no aim, no goal or expectation. All what is needed is disponibility : one acts "as
if" called to be suddenly united with objective chance and the marvelous. One
does not wait for events or things, but for people. There is escape from the
world, but an interest in the happenings of objective chance among human
beings. This allows us to receive the signs of objective chance. This waiting is
the awareness of our being chained by ordinary reality hand in hand with the
intervention of the most unlimited freedom ready to move us deeply. Freedom
is this total openness for what is possible, a negation and denial of what is
thought impossible. It is a book with white pages upon which the pen moves at
random. Bizarre drawings emerge and one starts anew, again and again ... To
be more and more surprised because nothing is expected, aspired, wished or
desired is surreal freedom ;

2. automatic psychism ("automatisme psychique") : in 1919, Breton and Soupault
(1897 - 1990) published two plays ("Vous m'oblierez" and "S'il vous plaît")
written in accord with the method of the "écriture automatique" (automatic
writing). In his Philosophie du surréalisme (1955), Alquié (1906 - 1985) defines
it as : "It implies writing, without preconceived subject and without logical,
esthetical or moral control ; to allow the exteriorization of everything in us
which tends to become language, normally found to be hindered by our
conscious surveillance." Reflective thought is thus made available for
disponibility. Normal language is deemed false, fixated, unreal and not able to
manifest the internal "tout court". This frame has to be opened up, so the real
sur-real manifests. The formed reality is in fact the malformed reality, a nonreality.
The real thing is per definition formless, freed from the biological
restraints on our humanity. It is the pressure of and subjugation to the
immediate empirical world which makes our spirit the toy of the external world
and so this misforms the process of us forming new ideas. Jules Monnerot
(1909 - 1995) defined this method as "une prise the sang de
l'âme" (bloodtaking of the soul). To really know is something else than what is
offered by science and metaphysics, for this is re-cognition, and therefore "real
life" or "practiced poetry". Surreal mystic experience is then a fusion of object
and subject, of knowing and existing, of reality and non-reality, of being and
non-being ;
3. the dream : is the "royal path" leading towards objective chance. This is not an
isolated world within the limits of sleep, but an open area communicating with
ordinary life and with super-conscious worlds. Freudian interpretation of dreams
is not the issue, but exploration. The energies of the dream have to be made
useful to man. The dream has a meaning of its own, which should not be
translated into the language of familiar things. It does not need to be
dismantled, but understood "from within". The building must be left intact, and
we should go an abide there. We should wander in the world of dreams and
explore it to find the signs of objective chance. Like a sponge sucking water, we
should make the dream useful and make it a source to drench our thirst ;
4. love : to meet the woman one loves, she who is the elect, is already a mystery
and the secret of objective chance. This woman always appears as a fairy of
sorts. This "love" is as spiritualized as the "courtly love" celebrated in the songs
of the troubadours. She has two surreal qualities : reminiscence and
premonition, of which she is the instrument.
Outside the current of Christian (mostly monastic) mysticism, the surrealists and dadaists
were the first to persistently seek a method to encounter the Divine as "le merveilleux", in
casu in an occult, Hermetical and immediate way. They rejected organized religions, but
not their leading idea : the Divine. Not by eliminating the world of sense (as an escape
behind a walled enclosure), but precisely by observing the seen with other eyes, the heard
with other ears, etc. To find "my" dada is to discover the specific and unique way to meet
objective chance and witness the marvellous in everyday life. Objective chance and Divine
immanence denote the same extraordinary meaningful happening. Although it is possible to
express this in art (poetry being most suitable), clearly "my" dada is never "your" dada.
Although there are objective structures (for this special hasard is geometrical and

immanent and so connected with the collective unconscious, also called "cosmic"
unconscious), the unmistaken "form" and "necessity" of "my" dada are "my own" only. This
dada has however the power of exteriority, even more than a good example. This dada, by
virtue of a repeated encounter with objective chance, may assist others to suddenly realize
their "authentic existence" (Kierkegaard) by opening their "heart" (Pascal). Like living
poetry, this dada has to power to command hearts and change intentions. All depends on
the intention to encounter one's own, in an immediate, non-directive, meta-rational
(supernatural) way.
§ 72
Ponder the historical meaning of the surrealist movement. Although atheist (in the
etymological sense of the word, namely "not theist"), they promote the mystical experience
of the marvellous, splendid & sublime, and this in a persisting and immanent way. In the
first decades of the XXth century, and belonging to the wider wave of discontinuity
sweeping over Europe between World War I and the end of World War II, this bizar group
of very intelligent and artistic people formed a short-lived, international movement, with a
loose "orthodox" core of sorts (Breton). The presence and vigour of surrealism counters the
often repeated claim of historical atheists that outside the organized religion, no spirituality
or "cognitio Dei experimentalis" exists, it being an ideological phenomenon only, not an
object of fact. In the latter case, so they argue, there has to be the production of spiritual
events by following a protocol, if possible backed by a broad social movement, as
surrealism.
Surrealism does not focus on art or poetry (the excellent organs of the marvellous), but on
the structure of thought making these marvels appear. Not necessarily Christian, on the
contrary, or for that matter of any other denomination of faith, surrealism rejects the
domination of reason (both religious and scientific), focusing on the structure of thought in
its broadest, multi-dimensional sense, including science, mysticism and the occult. Being
religious atheists, they refute logical atheism. The transcendent God is not the leading
theme, but the encounter with the immanent "Goddess" (at the cross-road of necessity and
freedom) ...
This marvellous exteriorisation of the sur-real (the deeper infusing the ordinary) may
happen everywhere and everytime, and is not necessarily linked with superior intellectual
or moral standards.
The surrealist movement evidences the fuzziness of "the Divine" (as a set) encompasses "le
merveilleux", the immanent presence of objective chance, connecting natural necessity and
cosmic necessity in a beautiful geometry of chance events : dada. That a systematic
approach of the sur-real is possible, refutes the idea the immanent experience of the Divine
cannot be persued outside the conventional ways of the religions, each promoting "our
Lord", whereas "our dada" is always a lie. The marvellous as meaningful chance occasions,
dada exteriorizing the deeper sur-real, these are the constant preoccupation of the
surrealist, for whom silence speaks and written words thunder.
3.8 The case of Raja Yoga.
"Union-without-seed is preceded by faith, energy, mindfulness, union-with-seed, insight.
This is near to him who is extremely vehement in yoga. Because this can be modest,
medium or excessive, the result differs."

Patañjali : Yoga-sûtra, 1.20-22.
§ 73
And in the East ? The specific context of Indian philosophy merits a study on its own.
However, the underlying intention of Hinduism is enlightenment, the realization of the
fundamental unity between the individual psyche and the natural world ("jivâtman" =
"Brahman"). Of the six schools of philosophy of Hinduism, one concentrates on the
orthopraxis of this experience : "yoga", from the Sanskrit root root "yuj", to bind together,
yoke or union.
The story of yoga may go back to the Indus-civilization (3th & 2th millenium BCE),
expanding from the Arab Sea till the first mountains of the Himalayas. Scholars like Eliade
& others found evidence of early forms of yoga. Carved seals in the south (Mohenjo-Daro)
suggest the god Shiva. But, at this point in history, only iconographical material is
available. The literal, historical start of the yoga system is to be found in the commentaries
on the Vedas, especially Katha, Svetâsvatara, Maitrâyanîya, Îsa, Mundaka, and Mândûkya
Upanishads, older than 600 BCE, i.e. anterior to the rise of Buddhism. Recent studies
(Feuerstein, Kak & Frawley, 1995) situate the composition of the Vedas around 1900 BCE.
Philosophical India has six traditional approaches, point of views (or "darsanas"). They are
"traditional" or "âstika" (orthodox) because they do not question the authority of the four
Vedas (unlike Buddhism & Jainism).
These ancient disciplines are grouped as follows :
● Vaisesika (Kanânda) & "Nyâna" (Gotama) form the Nyâya-Vaisesika-system, dealing
with ontology and logical analysis as method of knowledge ;
● Sâmkhya (Kapila) & Yoga (Patañjali) investigate the relationships between the Self
("purusa") and the external world ("prakrti"). What is the nature of the Self ? How
can it be realized ?
● Mîmâmsâ (Jaimini) & Vedânta (Vyâsa, Shankara) study the criteria for the
validity of knowledge and see the conclusions of the Upanisads confirmed by
the rational investigation of knowledge and reality.
Between the 5th to the 2th century BCE, around the time of the Bhagavad-Gîtâ (i.e.
chapters 13 till 40 of the sixth book of the great epic Mahâbhârata), the various forms of
yoga were present (hatha, karma, bhakti, jñâna, mantra, kriyâ, kundalinî, sahaja, laya,
dhyâna, nâda etc.) but a systematic & synthetic picture was lacking. The Yoga-sûtra of
Patañjali, the foundational text of the "Royal Path" or "Râja Yoga" offers such a panorama.
Being a complicated synthesis of a universal yogic protocol for spiritual emancipation, it
represents at least a millenium of experience of the systematic approach of the Divine.
The available evidence about the author of Patañjali's Sûtra's is not without the usual
confusion typical for more than one Indian text. Earlier scholars affirmed that Patañjali -the
yogin- (ca. 3th century CE) and Patañjali -the grammarian- (who wrote the Mahâbhasya in
the 2th century BCE) were most probably not the same person. According to the intelligent
majority, this text is the product of the third century CE. This school of yoga became
known as "classical". In the 11th century, Al-Bîrunî translated the Yoga-sûtra in Arab. This
allowed one of the six classical schools of philosophy of India to directly influence Sufism.

No commentary on these Sûtra's by a member of the classical school has ever been found.
The two classical commentators (Vyâsa in the 5th & Vâcaspati Misra in the 9th century)
were outsiders (Vyâsa belonged to the school of Sâmkhya).
This work is a technical treatise on yoga, not a popular digest. Most renderings of this text
are naive because they misunderstand the importance of this fact. Hermeneutical
investigations make it belong to the category of canonical discourses. Being the "magnum
opus" of a well-established group-identity, the Yoga-sûtra initiated an era of yoga in which
the variety & the wealth of the past was assimilated using ideas unlike Sâmkhya. Because
of the activity of Patañjali and his school, yoga became a "classical" perspective on a reality
which radically differs from all realms of nature.
§ 74
The general, yogic "protocol" I have in mind, has four stages. These are consistent with the
layout developed in Classical Yoga, as it can be found in Patañjali's Yoga-sûtra.
Neurologically, it moves from relaxation to arousal (active spill-over), which is the safest
(but longest) approach. Classical Yoga is the only traditional spiritual system of techniques
focusing on all aspects of the human being, the physical included. Its aphorisms are
consistent with neurotheological tenets. Moreover, it can be combined with various creeds,
being more an orthopraxis than an orthodoxy.
Hyperarousal (or passive spill-over) is far more difficult to sustain and should only be
practiced if deep relaxation has already been achieved. Because our urban societies induce
stress, a movement from arousal to relaxation is less efficient (because this heightened
activity will reverberate with the "normal" presence of stress). In relaxed environments &
societies (living in harmony with nature), hyperarousal will prove more satisfactory. The
"violent" species of arousal-techniques (involving pain, mutilation and extreme exhaustion)
are usually found in natural societies and happen on special occasions (as in rites of
passage).
"Restraints, observances, posture, breath-control, sense-withdrawal, concentration,
contemplation & union are the eight."
Patañjali : Yoga-sûtra, 2.29.
The fundamental operational distinction in this text is that between the so-called "outer"
and "inner" members of this eightfold path :
● outer members : restraints, observances, posture, breath-control and sensewithdrawal
;
● inner members : concentration, contemplation and union.
The outer members address the Autonomous Nervous System (ANS) and the reptilian
brain. They do so by stimulating a relaxation-response, whereas the inner members target
the higher order functions of the brain, especially its limbic system and cortical processes,
to lead consciousness from deep relaxation to powerful "inner members", introducing the
yogi's unique, higher, "transcendent Self" (in fact still part of the world) and its unqualified,
unaffected Divine core ("purusa"). The eight members are trained sequentially, although
during spiritual experience they "walk" together.

The yogic protocol works in four stages :
1. Preparation : the purification of person, space & time ;
2. Initiation : practice & detachment ;
3. Completion : binding & releasing ;
4. Perfection : the five layers of union.
STAGE OF PREPARATION
restraints & observances
The restraints & observances sketch the yogic way of life. The fact that these come first,
clearly shows how important a spiritual attitude is to prelude one's spiritual emancipation,
affecting all areas of one's existence. Set apart from other activities, meditation becomes a
fourth state next to waking, dreaming and dreamless sleep (cf. Vedânta). Moreover, to
meditate well, all sorts of changes in one's daily routines are usually necessary. This "yogic
morality" is meant to train a person's voluntary control (the prefrontal cortex) and to set
up a series of new routines facilitating the occurrence of meditation. Hence, one's "entry" in
the "abode of the Goddess" always implies preliminary, generalized updates and
adjustments of conscience, leading up to effective changes in behavior (triggering the
formation of a "new" mental operator in which the spiritual function is an integral part). In
a sense, they are a buffer or safety-net for possible extreme responses to extraordinary
stimuli, like visions, contemplation or various forms of union (enlightenment or direct
experience of Divine Presence).
The traditional scheme runs as follows :
● restraints : non-harming, truthfulness, non-stealing, chastity and greedlessness ;
● observances : purity, contentment, austerity, self-study and devotion to the Divine.
It has been said that the perfection of these values is nothing less than enlightenment.
They are the ideals to be followed by the yogi and used to regulate outer and inner
behavior. "Devotion to the Divine" could be operationalized as the vehemence with which
the daily spiritual protocol is executed. The stronger this is, the more likely results will
follow.
1. Restraints & observances (yama - niyama)
a) Practical :
- clean body & the cavities inside of nose & mouth - wait 1h after meals - eat wholesome
food properly ;
- make sure that the space You selected can not be disturbed by anyone or anything ;

- make sure that the time You selected can not be interrupted by anyone or anything ;
- make sure You have a diary ready in which You write down date, duration & comments ;
b) Psychomental :
- sit down & recall all negative & positive experiences which recently happened to You ;
- try to understand your experiences as the outcome of your own past actions ;
- make sure to start meditation with a good intent ;
c) Moral :
- when in doubt, act on the basis of those universal vows You experience to be just ;
- do not harm other forms of life, speak the truth, do not steal, in all cases be moderate,
never be greedy ;
- be pure, content, disciplined, (self)studious & devoted to spiritual experience.
From a neurotheological perspective, these directives will trigger a relaxation-response and
prepare the neocortex for the spiritual journey. The whole procedure starts in the
neocortex and is intended to create a feeling of nuptial anticipation. In a sense, this has the
same function as foreplay in human erotic art, namely a sensitive enhancement of the
readiness of the organs of pleasure. Not yet a direct stimulation though, but clearly an
unmistaken indirect proposal. A transitional stage.
2. Posture (âsana, "to sit")
STAGE OF INITIATION
posture, breath-control, sense-withdrawal
The best posture triggers relaxation & feels comfortable. The physical body is free from
restraints (of too much clothing, excessive heat or cold).
The "Egyptian posture" is a form Westerners feel comfortable in. The "Lotus posture" is
however recommended.
Sit straight on a chair, do not lean back & fixate open eyes on a point in front of your brow.
Place your feet parallel (the distance between your feet should be equal to the length of the
right hand). Make sure your legs make an angle of 90°. Place straight hands (palms down)
on each leg. Both elbows are at right angles. Your spine is in one line with your head (back
straight). Keep this posture for at least 3 times 10 minutes daily (dawn, noon, dusk).
Asana will provide stability in discipline.
In the beginning, the aspirant may experience difficulty maintaining the posture. But after
practice, once the posture is established, an immediate relaxation-response follows. At this
point, posture has become a landmark or a key. To the amygdala, the assumption of
posture signals that the spiritual function is being addressed. Whenever a special,
inexplicable, odd, unpractical gesture or posture is assumed & maintained, the amygdala
holds attention. After repetition, the assumption of posture initiates the meditative process.
The influence of posture on the endocrinal system has been a theme evoked in many
Eastern systems.
The transition between the profane and sacred space/moment is realized by a clear,

marked action : the person temporarily withdraws, prepares and assumes posture. The
repetition and devoted execution of this phase-change from "worldly" to "spiritual" will
cause the formation of a personal memory-bank related to one's own spiritual experiences.
The same contextual parameters of this activity will be stored by the hippocampus and be
recognized the next time (allowing for easy enervation of the saved sensoric and personal
parameters). Universal conditions, such as fasting and abstinence, can be understood in
terms of the necessity of temperance to trigger the spiritual functions of the amygdalahippocampal
and temporal brain structures. Indeed, a peaceful mind enters the "abode of
the Divine". As the amygdala are interconnected with the neocortex, their "interest" in odd
postures interacts with higher order processes. The more symbolical meaning a posture
has, the better the neocortex can synchronize and focus on its form. This "steering" is
relayed to the limbic system, which makes the posture "feel good" and spiritually
rewarding.
Perfected posture (stable, enduring, strong, noble) becomes a gate (an opening).
3. Breathing (prânâyâma, "to restrain")
When posture is firmly established, focus on your breath. In the East, breath-control is a
science on its own. It is intimately related with all vital functions and with health.
During an In-breath, visualize a force flowing downwards from the navel to the perineum
(see it as a point of light traveling in a transparant channel). Then to the back of the right
knee, from there to the mid-point of the sole of the right foot and to the top of the big toe
of the right foot ; next it jumps to the top of the big toe of the left foot, moves to the left
mid-point of the sole of the left foot and goes from there to the left knee to flow back to
the perineum. From there it moves upwards through the spine and stops in the middle of
the brain. Next it moves down (Out-breath) from the palate via the tongue touching it to
the throat and from there back to the navel. It stops there and the cycle is repeated.
The In-breath has an ascending quality, the Out-breath feels like an inpouring, whereas the
two stops symbolize the "fourth state". This aerial orbit generates a lot of zeal. Perform
breath-restraint for at least 3 times 10 minutes daily (dawn, noon, dusk). It provides
vitality, health and strength.
Rhythmical breath regulates the inflow of air, which directly influences the brain. As breath
is a vital function, the smallest change is immediately detected by the hypothalamus.
Hyperventilation creates arousal, but long rhythms trigger a relaxation-response and
synchronize the neocortex. By keeping attention on breath, the "form" of the posture
(assumed from the vantage point of the neocortex) is cleared from the mind. This is like
diving from a high rock into deep water. The mind will seek ways to produce thought-forms
and streams of thought simultaneous with this conscious focus on breath (in alchemy, the
mind is associated with Mercury, quicksilver, for its changing, adapting & reflecting
qualities). These "intrusions" (and thus deflections from focus on breath) happen as soon
as breath-control has become habitual. By always returning to one's ongoing, rhythmical
breathing cycle, the beginning of the true education of the mind begins, and a new
"mental" operator is formed, namely one that causes the conscious use of the spiritual
function. Breath-control is the first theme of the prelude to concentration.
Daily spiritual exercise is the only existing method to introduce a new state in the existing
ones. New neuronal pathways have to be made in order for the spiritual circuit to work.

This takes time. Sudden enlightenment (although possible) may encounter physical,
mental, social and spiritual dangers. The whole CNS has to readapt to this change.
Especially the reptilian brain (the ARAS) will need some time to accept a totally new
functional arousal state, executing altered states of consciousness (put together as the
"fourth state").
The old yogic wisdom that strong vehemence will give splendid results makes clear two
things : (1) to integrate the spiritual function, the Homo sapiens sapiens will reap what he
has sown (or, in other words, it takes time to readapt the Central Nervous System (CNS)
but in principle everybody can and should be spiritually intelligent) and (2) some people
have special spiritual talents (or : natural born mystics find their own spiritual protocol).
4. Sensoric zero (pratyâhara, "sense-withdrawal")
Before starting meditation (i.e. in the preparatory stage), make sure that no excessive
visual or auditory stimuli are present and repel ordinary odors by clearing the air.
Given your focus on breath (the regular movement of inspiration, retention & expiration) is
deep and continuous, move your hands and place your right palm over your left. Stop
visualizing and close your eyes. Keep breathing in rhythm. Empty the mind. If the mind is
active, try to observe your mental states and do nothing else. Detach yourself completely
from what You smell, touch, taste, hear or see. Learn to observe all inner events without
interpretation. Watch every feeling and/or thought closely.
Withdraw for at least 3 times 10 minutes daily (dawn, noon, dusk). It provides endurance.
Sensoric zero is the second theme of the prelude to concentration. Here, deafferentiation is
practiced. The sensoric and motoric cortex are quasi totally deafferented. This may put the
hypothalamus on alert and open its "valve" to let more sensoric input through to the
neocortex. The resulting "fine" hearing makes one conscious of noises & sounds never
heard before (one's heart-beat for example may sound like a huge drum). Sudden tastes
and odors appear, and in a deep state, visual flashes and imaginal images are formed. This
activity should be observed without interpretation, implying the partial deafferentiation of
the left cortex, and a calm limbic system. Because the eyes are closed, the visual
association area is deafferented and spatiality is experienced differently. Instead of
delimited, one may feel like "floating" in an immense space. If prolonged, sensoric
deprivation leads to active spill-over. In yoga, this effect is not sought. Withdrawal only
puts the brain in a deafferented mode, causing the "internal logic" of the deafferented
structures to become active and produce their typical "inner" events. These have to be
observed without interpretation (and thus calmed and integrated, when they vanish).
At the end of this stage of initiation, the yogi has achieved endurance in the outer
members of yoga. No activity, feeling or thought is able to hinder daily practice. On
average, this stage is reached after six months of training. This may seem short, but
except for physical illness, there are no exceptions to the rule and if broken, one has to
start all over again. To construct new neuronal pathways, effort must be continuous. Miss
out one little ring and the chain is broken, especially in the beginning (when no powerful,
personal spiritual memories have as yet been stored).
The relaxation-response "seeking" the "abode of the Divine" (computed from the neocortex
to the limbic system - cf. infra) has been associated with bodily form, ongoing rhythm and

"inner" space. Besides the natural flow of breath and the ever-present, silent watchfulness
of the "point" of personal identity, the yogic "seer" attributes no thought and no affect to
the "seen", although s/he is alert and focused and maybe witnessing streams of emotion
and meta-emotion or thought. The ANS-response is adequate. Too deep a relaxation would
induce a neurological spill-over (not needed yet, for too superficial and short). At this point,
consciousness has to issue a voluntary "top-bottom" command : the "inner" elocution of
the "Word" or "mantra". The liaison-brain for this being the prefrontal cortex (assisted by
the verbal association area and the speech-areas).
5. Concentration (dhâranâ, "to hold").
STAGE OF COMPLETION
concentration, contemplation
Concentration is the binding of consciousness to a single "inner spot". This means attention
is focused in such a way the mind, being totally occupied with its object, stops producing
other thoughts & feelings.
After posture, breathing & sensoric isolation have been firmly established, the yogi is able
to observe and be detached from all possible floating inner associations, feelings and
arousals his mind may produce.
The mind is confined to a limited space and immediately brought back if it strays out. When
foreign objects enter it, concentration is considered to be broken. The objective aim is to
reduce the frequency of such interruptions progressively and ultimately to eliminate them
completely as long as one wills.
The object of concentration, called the "seed", may be anything belonging to universe, i.e.
all physical plus all mental states. Then it is a "coarse" seed. A "subtle" seed pertains to the
invisible and subtle strata of nature. When the seed is auditory, it is called a "mantra". In
yoga, the mantra is spoken with the "inner voice" and heard with the "inner ear". In the
East, Buddhist monks sit together and recite long mantra's together. Recitation always
implies outer, vocal expression.
After being established for 10 minutes in withdrawal, let every breath by accompanied by a
mantra of two syllables, internally repeated with every breath. During the In-breath, the
first syllable is heard. During the Out-breath the second. During the Stops silence prevails.
A good mantra is lyrical (sound), inspirational (meaning) and has a very strong personal
meaning. Patañjali recommends the traditional "O - M" (the "pranava"), for it rapidly leads
to contemplation and is said to be attuned to the fundamental frequency of the universe ...
When established in posture, breathing and withdrawal, concentrate 3 times daily (dawn,
noon, dusk). Synchronize the mantra "O (In) - (Stop) - M (Out) - (Stop)" with breath and
concentrate on it.
Sickness, languor, heedlessness, sloth, dissipation, false vision, non-attaining of the stages
of yoga & instability in these stages are the distractions. They are accompanied by
symptoms like pain, depression, tremor in the limbs & wrong in- & exhalation.
The distractions are counteracted by the yogic discipline of daily "sâdhana" : practice &

dispassion. The more they occur, the more firmly the yogi must keep to the letter of the
stages of yoga. Only when inward-mindedness is habitual (which is the fruit of
concentration), can the obstacles to yoga be dealt with. Daily practice means that the yogi
has worked hard to become stable in the restriction, i.e. in the elimination of flux within
consciousness, the ultimate goal of yoga. Dispassion means that he has cultivated being
without thirst for earthly objects & the experiences promised in the sacred texts. He must
do the task "without why, for nothing".
If such unwholesome deliberations do occur, the yogi should concentrate some time on
their opposite & cultivate this in order to repel them. The "golden" rule being :
"For the repelling of unwholesome thoughts cultivate the opposite."
Patañjali : Yoga-sûtra, 2.33.
Concentrate for at least 3 times 30 minutes daily (dawn, noon, dusk). It provides mental
balance.
The deafferented mode mentioned earlier (cf. the inner members), did not tackle the rise of
thoughts, feelings and inner sensoric experiences. Attention was high and sensoric
information relay was reduced. Thoughts and feelings were witnessed, not interpreted.
With the sudden invocation of the mantra, the verbal association area is activated (left
angular gyrus) as well as Wernicke's & Brocas area's, while its lyricism triggers the right
frontal lobe (melodic-emotional speech area). After the deep, profound silence of the
withdrawal, its "inner" elocution works as an anti-climax. The inner meaning of the mantra
(human brain), its rhythmical features (mammalian brain) and repetition (reptilian brain)
has a totalizing effect which, because of its spiritual intent, is the first step in the process of
the formation of the "God-circuit".
Mantric concentration synchronizes the hemispheres & deafferents associations outside the
range of the verbal and lyrical dimensions of the mantra. This process is not easy.
Resistances like the rise of other thoughts and/or melodies, sudden visual images,
boredom, dream states, depersonalizations etc. are natural and should not be resisted but
restricted. This is done by returning to the mantra and learning to stop foreign cogitations,
impressions and so forth.
6. Contemplation (dhyâna, "to contemplate").
Perfect concentration on a seed leads to the doorstep of contemplation.
"Dhyâna" is usually translated as "meditation", but it is better to use the word "meditation"
to refer to the whole yogic protocol and translate "dhyâna" as "contemplation".
Contemplation comes from the Latin verb "contemplare" or "cum" (together) +
"templum" (sacred space). To "contemplate" is also used in English to designate a mental
activity which tries to consider all possible aspects of a given object (physical,
psychological, social & spiritual). Contemplation is an intensified and universalized perfect
concentration.
Intensification is caused by a complete contraction of the mind to a single point (an objectcentered
activity has arisen which holds the mind in total steadiness on the seed).
Universalization is caused by the fusion of object (seed) & subject (seer), by making the

seer an integral part of the "Gestalt" created around the seed and witnessed by a new
focus of identity : the Self ("jîvatman") instead of the empirical ego.
Concentration implies a set of notions determining the object of concentration. In a perfect
concentration, no notions foreign to the mental area defined by the object of concentration
are able to enter consciousness. The yogi (subject) remains clearly distinguished from and
opposed to the seed (object).
Technically, intensification will result as soon as the various notions defining the seed form
one whole and so the subject becomes conscious of nothing else except of this one &
complete object of ideation (to which it is drawn and of which it slowly becomes part). This
is the one-directionality of the notions ("prataya-ekatânatâ") with regard to the object of
concentration in contemplation. An uninterrupted flow of the mind towards the object of
concentration occurs.
In contemplation, the seed of concentration becomes a "lotus-flower". The yogi (subject)
and his seed (object of ideation) are no longer differentiated, their border has become
rather diffuse. Universalization will be forthcoming as soon as the seed unfolds and
blossoms, generating its "lotus-flower", manifesting an infinite number of possibilities
gravitating around its core (to which the yogi is drawn). The yogi is not yet himself an
unfolding lotus flower. Intense, beautiful & universal contents move rapidly before the
fixed, unchanging eye of the witness of the contemplating mind. This witness is the new
(sacred) centre of contemplation. It is the jewel altar of the yogi's soul, his higher,
transcendent Self ("jîvatman").
During concentration, subject & object were still differentiated and formed a pair. In
contemplation, the yogi (ego, subject) & the seed (object) are no longer differentiated. The
yogi is part of the lotus but remains witness. Hence, contemplation will only occur if and
only if a "tertium comparationis" has been established, namely the soul ("jîvatman").
During contemplation, subjectivity & objectivity are witnessed by a new center of conscious
identity. Contemplation implies Self-realization.
Contemplation is built on a triad : (1) subject (yogi), (2) object (seed), and (3) the witness
or soul : the steady flame in a windless place.
Contemplate as long as You can.
The CNS is not used to produce only one thought. But in perfect concentration, only the
seed prevails in consciousness, for all associations are part of the inner meaning of the
seed. All unconscious contents are emptied by this one-directionality. The general law of
distractions works on a higher level, for all "new" associations entering the mind are
immediately recognized as "part" of the "seed". This synthetic and integrative quality
suggests the synchronized activity of the two hemispheres. This allows the right temporal
lobe to add its "visual" and "spatial" connotations, to be assimilated by the "sound" and
"meaning" of the "seed" by the left hemisphere.
The bizarre experience of becoming part of the seed, may point to the enhanced activity of
the amygdala. Indeed, contemplation is such a tremendous experience (in Western
tradition, the realization of the Self is called the "Watchtower-experience"), we may
conclude that with contemplation, the "abode of the Divine" is finally entered. If
concentration "opened" the gate to the "God-spot", contemplation makes the yogi "taste"

and "touch" the enervated spiritual function. Because of the ongoing mantric repetition,
relay to the neocortex is continuous and simultaneous.
The "higher" Self is the "persona" or mask of the "God-spot". The contemplating person
still has a focus of identity and if no stage higher than contemplation is yet attained, two
foci and a pendulum-swing between them is the strange result (caused by the spiritual
exercise). Two hearts are living in one body (Goethe), and the oddness of experiencing the
world from two totally different vantage-points (one down to Earth and the other
panoramic) is in itself the greatest obstacle to come, for it tears the mind in two.
The constant voluntary effort to make all inner members "walk together", is executed by
the neocortex, as is the will to concentrate (prefrontal cortex). The deafferentiation of the
sense of identity caused by contemplation is automatic as is the feeling of getting drawn
into the seed (this is the first stage of the ultimate arousal breakthrough sought). These
last phenomena indicates a consciousness confronted with the totalizing quality of the
spiritual function, computed by an aroused amygdala-hippocampal complex. The latter
relays this totality to the neocortex, allowing for the experience of a vast, all-encompassing
Self. The experience of his Self may throw the yogi off concentration and disrupt the inner
members. It is as difficult to remain in contemplation as to walk on a rope with wet feet of
soap.
The contemplative own-Self "masks" the unitive tendencies of the spiritual function, leading
to an annihilation of any sense of identity. The Self is thus the last "fluctuation" of
consciousness before the experience of spiritual union is forthcoming. It is probably the
strongest and most difficult self-referential flux to restrict. On the one hand, the yogi who
identifies with his Self will never move beyond one limited panoramic view (which seems to
encompass all views, an illusion processed by the amygdala). This identification leads to
"spiritual selfishness" (cf. the "small vehicle" in Buddhism). On the other hand, the yogi
needs his ego to function in the world, as he needs his Self-soul to move through the
transition space between contemplation and enlightenment. Ego and Self are foci of
consciousness and can not be found in the brain (cf. the binding problem in neurology).
Certain neurological structures (such as the prefrontal cortex) allow for the manifestation of
ego (the personality). Likewise, the state of contemplation opens a conscious window to
the "higher" Self and its perceived Self-ideas.
Concentration is (a) processed by the neocortex (especially the prefrontal), (b)
synchronized through rhythmic breathing and (c) made one-pointed by focusing on the
mantra, evoking a cognitive & visio-spatial context, which, because of its deep felt
meaning, triggers an emotional pull, a "dive" into the "abode of the Divine". Perfected
concentration enters this abode as soon as the seed flowers. The lotus of the seed reveals
an incredible number of thoughts, feelings and imaginal actions all centered around the
unified connotative field of the seed (as it were circumambulating it). This contemplative
flowering produces a special Zen-state, characterized by a very low basal skin resistance
(extreme relaxation) and the presence of Beta waves (alert, waking activity).
If the yogi has not gone astray by restricting the beauty, intensity, meaningfulness and
decorum of the elaborations of the seed, i.e. after having practiced contemplation long
enough, this flowering is "witnessed" from a new conscious vantage point. This happens
when the yogi seems to become an integral part of the seed. This situation is a prelude to
enlightenment, and it would be just that if the Self did not manifest at the precise point of

fusion between the yogi (his ego) and the lotus flower of contemplation.
The confusion of these events is suggestive of a special, unique neuronal event. Perfected
contemplation, ex hypothesi, manifests a new functional state in the Ascending Reticular
Activating System (ARAS) of the reptilian brain. When achieved, the "routines" of the
slowest neuronal structure are transformed. The new vantage point (the Self) is processed
as a "fourth state", next to waking, dreaming and dreamless sleep. This Self-experience is
not yet stable and voluntary. However, when Self-experience is young, the panoramic
sweep is "breath taking" and profound. The ARAS overwhelms the limbic system as well as
the neocortex with a new functional arousal state, which involves activity in all parts of the
brain (ARAS, limbic & cortical). This state influences the other states even more directly
than say, dreams may affect waking.
The profoundness of this stage of yoga eclipses the relativity of the own-Self and the
possibility of an infinite number of perspectives. The more Self-love prevails, the less likely
enlightenment becomes. This makes the yogi decide that nothing but restriction will do.
The restriction of the own-Self of contemplation is the beginning of union.
7. Union (samâdhi, "putting together").
STAGE OF PERFECTION
union
In the various religious systems, union has been given different names : nirvâna
(Buddhism), satori (Hinduism, Buddhism), born again (Christianity), rapture (Christian
mysticism), oblivion & survival (Sufism), Chockmah-consciousness (Jewish qabalah), peak
experience (transpersonal psychology), cosmic consciousness (comparative mysticism),
one-with-the-universe (New Age), etc. Here, the ultimate state of yoga, samâdhi, is simply
translated as "union". There are five layers.
The union arising from contemplating a coarse seed is a meta-rational union, i.e. moves
beyond the nominal formal-operational mode of thought or reason. This union is
accompanied by spontaneously arising ideas. They constitute instant acts of insights and
immediate understanding, which, although sprung out of a coarse seed, have a very special
quality or "feel" about them. Not vague or rambling, but clear & one-pointed. Ordinary
thought processes lack the formers immediacy & lucidity. These are the Self-ideas or
"flashes" of creativity & inventivity studied by immanent metaphysics.
This meta-cognitive union is restricted and so becomes an a-cognitive union. The mind's
conceptualizing tendencies have been brought to halt. The fact such "flashes of genius" are
able to bubble up at all bespeaks the incomplete degree of union achieved. The yogi is only
content with the ultimate restriction. Nothing less will do. When the reactors responsible for
the conceptualization of experienced reality (situated in the depth-memory, i.e. linked with
the "samskâras" (or "reactors") are thus temporary warded off (as is the case in a
sustained negation of meta-cognitive union), a complete "coincidence" ("samâpatti")
ensues. It is no longer possible to distinguish the yogi from his seed. It makes no sense to
ask whether the yogi's consciousness is in the object or vice versa. Both have merged
without witnessing. The own-Self is annihilated.

The union arising from contemplating a subtle seed is a reflective union, or the reflection of
the invisible & subtle planes of nature ("loka") in consciousness. They terminate in the
undifferentiated. Its negation, or a-reflective union, is the ultimate form of union with seed,
accompanied by lucidity, awe, unsurpassable joy, supra-wakefulness, alertness, a clarity
without progression revealing the thing-in-itself, truth-bearing & infallible. An unmediated
non-conceptual apperception, once & for all.
A perfected a-reflective union is called "autumnal brightness", suggestive of the
extraordinary brightness of the autumnal sky of northern India. This sublime union
generates, because of the suspension of all ideas, a special reactor. It runs counter to the
subliminal forces of the depth-mind. A permanent insight into the difference between the
absolute ("purusa") and the relative ("prakrti", nature + mind) ensues (vision of
discernment).
It is this perfected restriction of all mentation which leads to seedless union, for as soon as
the regressive & obstructing reactor (gradually destroying the subconscious web) is in turn
restricted, this ensues.
Two fundamental classes of union are thus clearly distinguished : union with seed and
union without seed. The former has an objective seed which may be coarse or subtle,
leading to two subtypes, each with their restriction (in total four forms). The latter type has
no support whatsoever, but is completely oriented towards "purusa".
The final, highest consummate phase of seedless union (its optimum optimorum) coincides
with the end of physical body, mind & soul of the yogi : the "dharma cloud" union. All
primary constituents have been discontinued. The process-of-evolution as such is over.
This is "aloneness of seeing" or "awareness in its own form", devoid of purpose for relative
nature (matter plus mind). The yogi becomes something about which nothing more can be
said.
Where is the yogi who fuses with his object of contemplation, who relinquished the
witnessing Self ? The "putting together" characterizing enlightenment, is radical and
annihilates all sense of identity. The prefrontal cortex control is given up. Apparently, union
goes hand in hand with a massive arousal breakthrough, which has 5 fundamental
interlocked sheets or layers :
● cognitive enlightenment : in this elementary form of union, the yogi's consciousness
is so devoid of fluctuations, that the lotus completely reveals itself as it is. Direct
cognitive insight is available as well as a whole array of special knowledge & powers ;
● a-cognitive enlightenment : the second stage comes about by negating this "higher"
mentation, which, because of the intensity of the hyper-order conceptualizations of
the previous layer, is extremely difficult. The lotus must be negated. With the Self as
coarse seed (in yoga, ego & Self are part of visible "nature"), a-cognitive union
annihilates the Self completely and shuts down any association with the fruits of the
previous layer (depending on the Self as empirico-formal cognition depends on the
empirical ego) ;
● reflective enlightenment : the state of the "Deities" of the traditional pantheons,
expressing the Divine as its manifests on the subtle, invisible planes of nature, i.e.

the immanent "heavens". To abide there is deemed dangerous and avoided. The Self
being absent, "Divine forms" could be assumed instead, leading to immature
enlightenment. The yogi restricts even that part of consciousness ;
● a-reflective enlightenment : the "heavens" are in fact so many veils hindering the
ultimate experience, namely : transcendent, and seedless "samâdhi" ("union without
means"). By even negating the "Deities", the yogi is at the threshold of the final stage
while alive. This state is extraordinary joyful, truth-bearing, lucid etc. Moreover, when
its perfected brightness is achieved once, a special "reactor" is created, which
"empties" the deep-mind of all possible causes-of-affliction. Now, "heaven on Earth"
is realized, and the state automatically, without any effort, leads to the terminus of
yoga :
● seedless enlightenment : ineffable, ultimate state of consciousness, i.e. absence of
flux : the potter (primary cause) stopped turning the wheel, but the past momentum
(secondary causes) still keeps it turning for a while (this is then the life of the yogi
after seedless union - cf. the "jîvanmukti") ;
● "dharma cloud" enlightenment : ineffable, ultimate state of all components of the
yogi, i.e. absence of flux and absence of secondary causes.
During the arousal breakthrough, the yogi discovers various processes at work. After
having contemplated on coarse and subtle seeds, he is able to distinguish between a
cognitive union, characterized by immediate, lucid thoughts and a reflective union, drawing
consciousness near to Divine states as expressed by the various pantheons. This is the
immanent experience of the Divine aimed at in this repeatable experimental proof of the
Divine a posteriori. Consistent with practice & dispassion, s/he restricts his consciousness
and negates all hyper thoughts and all Deities. The latter operation perfected, triggers the
ultimate stage, preluded by ultimate bliss and the production of a "reactor" emptying the
mind completely and on all possible levels. The automatic nature of seedless union depends
on this reactor, for this enlightenment happens when its work is over and the reactor itself
is restricted.
Besides conjecturing a long arousal breakthrough, we may assume all functional
components of the spiritual function are being executed by the brain, the "God-circuit"
being established & operational. The effect of these profound experiences on personal
memory (amygdala-hippocampal complex) is evident. The presence of a "fourth state"
having become "final" (ARAS), the yogi is "one" with "eyes open" (neocortex transformed
enough to enervate the visual association area). The wondrous perplexity of this complex
state of simplicity is beyond words.
§ 75
This description evidences the presence of a yogic protocol in tune with a long tradition and
understandable in terms of contemporary neurological data. As everybody is able to
execute this protocol, consistent testing is in principle possible. This is a scientific and
participant study of mysticism (in casu Indian) instead of the psychological, sociological,
hermeneutical, historical and biological point of views. The latter are "armchair" methods
which are not adapted to the subject at hand, namely the direct experience of Divine
immanence, arguable by the speculative arguments of immanent metaphysics. Only by

seeking out the Divine can one acquire sufficient facts to find out whether higher states of
consciousness and their adjacent Divine objects are possible.
The protocol refutes the claim spiritual experience is subjective and so cannot be prepared
and initiated. Like Pascal, Kierkegaard and Breton, Patañjali underlines the marvelous
nature of the Divine and the possibility to encounter it. Reason is not negated but
complemented. Mind is not rejected but no longer one-dimensional (Marcuse). Apparently,
if an a posteriori approach of the Divine is given, then the problem is not the absence of a
protocol (as atheists claim), but the unwillingness of the latter to seriously seek out the
Divine in themselves. These dogmatic atheists ("The Divine cannot exist because it cannot
exist.") are like religious fundamentalists. Of course, it may take more time than futile
prejudice to meet Our Lady !
3.9 The God-spot : a brain wired for the Divine.
"A nos yeux, l'aboutissement du mysticisme est une prise de contact, et par conséquent
une coïncidence partielle, avec l'effort créateur que manifeste la vie. Cet effort est de Dieu,
si ce n'est pas Dieu lui-même. Le grand mystique serait une individualité qui franchirait les
limites assignées à l'espèce par sa matérialité, qui continuerait et prolongerait ainsi l'action
divine."
Bergson, 1984, p.233.
§ 76
Neurotheology furthers a non-dogmatic approach of the Divine as Presence, and hence a
concept which is not dependent upon dogmatic theology. Hence, a concept and use of the
word "God" is broader than what is aimed at in neurotheology, to wit : the understanding
of spiritual experiences or encounters with Divine immanence, on the basis of the
executant, processing, computing, expressive features of the right temporal lobe (in righthanded
people), in particular the amygdala-hippocampal complex.
In monotheism, religious & mystical experiences are studied using dogmatic theology,
instead of trying to repeat, deepen and understand the experience of Divine Presence itself.
Neurotheology is therefore far more better placed than dogmatic theology to assist people
in deepening and understanding their religious experiences and, if they wish so, realize a
mystical experience of Divine Presence for themselves. The model of neurotheology is in
accord with what is known about the neuronal executants of the experience. Hence, instead
of being exclusively rooted in supposedly authentic religious traditions, its suggestions are
inspired by a neurobiology all human beings share.
With the discovery in the limbic system of the "abode of God" (Joseph, 2002), in particular
the role played by the right, anterior, temporal lobe and the amygdala-hippocampal
complex or "God-spot" in computing extraordinary presence, profoundness & realness
(Saver & Rabin, 1997), the biological deep-rootedness of Homo sapiens sapiens' affinity
with these extraordinary experiences is confirmed. Spirituality is not an opiate, a fiction or
an invention, but an integral part of the biological make-up and wiring of the brain. For
there is a neurological area in the living human brain which is so intimately linked with
religious & mystical experience, that the metaphorical title of "God-spot" (the domain of
the neuronal executants for this privileged "experience of the Divine") seems
justified. Interestingly, this same area in large part also executes sexual, bizarre, unusual &

fearful memories, dissociative states, depersonalization, hallucinogenic & dreamlike
recollections (Gloor, 1997), déjà vu, illusions (Weingarten, 1977) as well as feelings of fear,
terror and rage. Fear being the common reaction associated with the activation of the
amygdala (Davis, 1997).
As parts of these particular executant material structures are not acquired (through a
learning-process), but indeed endogenic to the structure and dynamics of the limbic system
of the living human brain, then surely, the least one may affirm is that religious and
mystical experiences (like cognitive and motoric experiences) have a series of privileged
neuronal executants. The exclusive element being the fact other skills need training to
acquire (causing new neuronal networks to form), whereas the limbic "God-spot" is part of
an already acquired, automatic (internal) hardwiring, given at birth, and part of human
evolution at least since the time of the Neanderthals, if not earlier (Homo erectus). The
presence of the "God-spot" implies the experience of the Divine is part of the natural set of
basic experiences the brain (as a sublime executant) has in store as a result of the forces
of its biological evolution.
The study of the "God-spot" does not entail a biological "proof of God". But, the human
brain seems to be called to execute spiritual experiences. As the "spot" is not necessarily a
"circuit", human consciousness is required to bridge the gap between what is only a
possibility (a potential) and the actual occurrence of deeply religious to advanced mystical
states and stations of consciousness. So neurotheology allows us to redefine
"enlightenment" as the dissolution of the "spot like" nature of the "God-spot" and the
emergence of a new wave-like circuit in the brain, playing out the brain to its own
evolutional advantage, resulting in an enhanced mental efficiency, a more inspired
creativity and a continuous inner well-being (greater conscious steering of neuronal
functions).

§ 77
Why did the brain adapt to the point of producing the "God-spot" in the amygdalahippocampal
complex ? Materialism proposes the thesis of the naked ape. Without
structures to execute the illusion of the hereafter, this creature would have been eliminated
because of its awareness of identity and so of its own possible annihilation. Without a brain
arranging a meeting with its ancestors in a dream, this intelligent animal would not have
moved beyond its existential loneliness and anxiety. Without adapting, by shaping a "Godspot",
man would not have been able to make sense of it all and survive on this planet.
"Si Dieu n'existait pas, il faudrait l'inventer."
Voltaire.
But for Joseph (2002), if there was nothing to experience visually, we would not have
evolved eyes and a visual cortex. So, should the same evolutionary principle not apply to
religious and mystical experience, i.e. the activity of the spiritual function of humanity ?
Some neurons seem to be naturally selected to execute the experience of the Divine. Is the
"God-spot" that limbic area of our mammalian brain which (like an antenna to be
calibrated) is able to receive the "messages" of the "other" shore of being, able to compute
the numinous aura of and the fear for a higher, holy being, profoundly real and present ? If
we only knew the key !
This bring us again to conscious human choice, moral conscience and free will to act and
change the world. To commitment, vehemence, devotion and endurance.

Can, in a materialistic philosophy of mind, human freedom be taken seriously ? Freedom
contradicts strict determinism. Freedom is unthinkable without a first person perspective.
To be free one needs more than just an abstraction (as in predestination and formal ethics
- cf. Kant). Freedom must imply the activity of an element beyond all possible
determination or lawfulness. This factor abides in its own intentional world and can
purposefully interact with the material and informational worlds, causing environmental
change far more tremendous than any other known aggregate of typical events.
Can material events harbor such a nondetermined cause of direct change ? Clearly not.
That is why materialism has no higher, spiritual values and disregards others for adhering
to them. Higher human concepts such as freedom, equality, fraternity, truth, justice,
beauty, goodness etc. have no meaning and use without a first person perspective. When
recorded in language they become third person perspectives, but never do they have their
origin in the outer world of material events. Neither is their active intentionality an
informational event. The concept of human freedom is intimately linked with a first person
positioning of objects, typical for a self-consciousness able to act without constraints in its
own intimate reality and interacting with both material and informational events. So, are
we willing to take ourselves seriously and take the first person perspective for granted, or
shall we continue to hide ourselves behind the fabric of our own conceptualizations,
rationalizations & other mental constructions ?
"The proper study of mankind is man."
Multatuli, 1868.
To guarantee "I am free.", philosophy of mind must acknowledge that "I" exist. Twentieth
century philosophy has been reluctant in precisely doing that. As a result, the higher
human values have been desubjectified (objectified), so as to turn human beings into
producing and consuming automatic devices (cf. Chaplin in "Modern Times"). The end of
alienation (a worker having lost touch with his product) precisely comes with this "prise de
conscience", which is the vital, sympathetic, attracting component often overlooked in the
description of intentionality. The end of intentionality is unthinkable.
Because of free will, "I am" the nondetermined cause of autopoiesis (self-production),
autoregulation & reprogramming, which affects my mind profoundly, while causing changes
in the neuronal wirings of my brain and affecting others. Consciousness is the source of
choice and the intersubjectivity of language, socialization, culture and spiritual
emancipation (metanoia). Consciousness events have an irreducible, primitive, basic
(substantiating) ontological status.
§ 78
The biofeedback principle applied to the brain, or neurofeedback, is the most rewarding
tool of practical neurotheology. In general, the biofeedback principle states that one can
become conscious of an internal physical event of which one is normally not aware and
then can learn to steer some aspect of that event. For example, one can learn to recognize
various brain waves and reproduce them at will. Biofeedback is an instrumented kind of
yogic bodily control. By becoming aware of the brain waves produced by the brain in "real
time", the distinction between non-spatial consciousness and the mirrored brain-waves is
more easily realized. Where is the decision-maker ? What are the natural limitations of the
brain ? Indeed, how is voluntary control of internal states of the brain achieved if the
causal agent is deemed to be part of the brain (as in materialism) ?

Although one of the end result of neurobiofeedback is control, this is learnt in a relatively
short time. In learning to control some aspect, one needs first to identify the biological
process. The feedback signal is just a label to identify the correct response once it has been
elicited. We are not learning the produce Alpha-waves, but the calm, detached state of
mind which happens to correlate an Alpha rhythm. If the feedback signal has been
correctly identified, it is stopped by ending the causing activity. Training may be a "closedloop"
or involve "guided imagery". In the former, the subject watches the signal (meter,
light bulbs) continuously or listens to a variable tone while trying to relax. The reactions of
the signal will be co-relative to the thoughts and feelings processed by the CNS. Once the
correct mental "groove" is found, the wanted machine-response happens. If not, one
continues to relax, seeking the "door" to reduce tensions & allow other states of
consciousness to be processed.
Although helpful, this instrumented yoga has one disadvantage : the machine has no ability
to identify those fundamental, cortical patterns, habits and repetitive attitudes that make
our lives unspiritual. It may identify blocks (like the inability to arouse Alpha-waves),
lateralization (cortical asymmetry), fear and "hot" spots and help the trainee or trainer to
adjust the parameters of the biofeedback session, but the machine on its own does not
reveal the mental reasons for the observed eccentricities.
Persinger (1987, 2002) reports how the application of weak, complex magnetic fields
through the cerebral hemispheres, in particular the right temporal lobe, elicits experiences
of a "sensed presence" or "Sentient Being", i.e. Divine Presence. For him, the amygdala are
associated with cosmic meaning and the hippocampus with memory. Direct electrical
stimulation of the amygdala-hippocampal area results in recollection of important, personal
images, but also in the formation of complete visual and auditory hallucinations and hyper
lucid visions.
The "God-spot" emerged in an area of the brain which also computes sexuality and
violence, as well as a whole range of emotional functions like emotional arousal, pleasure,
joy, socio-emotional recognition & reward, personal emotional reactions, emotional
memory, learned fear, terror, rage, aggression, anxiety, illusion, fiction, hallucination,
apparitions, dream states, depersonalizations, déjà vu etc. The "God-spot" executes the
experience of a "higher" profound, sentient, holy, spiritual Presence, generating
tremendous religious awe, yet comforting and near in an inexplicable way, except in signals
& icons.
§ 79
The root of spiritual experience is emotional. Neurotheology confirms the story of all lovemystics,
who repeat that only through love the soul is able to experience the love of the
Lover, making love the "Via Regia" to the heart of spirituality. The "straight path" of peace
is nothing else than the way of love, the Dantesk voyage from the "dark wood" of the
prefrontal cortex to the spiritual domain of the limbic system, a "shamanistic" descent (hell,
purgatory) carried to a good end because Vergil (synchronized neocortex) acts as a guide
and Beatrice is one's leading star of love (or "higher", transcendent Self). It is she who
introduces the heavenly experience of the Divine, computed when the amygdalahippocampal
complex is aroused to the point of producing hyper lucid visions, accompanied
by hypothalamic states of exaltation.

These profound personal experiences make powerful engrams and are stored in these basal
centers of the temporal lobe. These memories can be evoked later, and potentialize the
reverberations caused by adjacent sensoric inputs meant to trigger in the brain the
necessary conditions for spiritual experiences and/or states. As Patañjali remarked : special
types of spiritual experiences have a deep effect on memory and irreversibly alter the way
new inputs are stored (the amygdala may remain stimulated even when the stimulus is
gone).
The "God-spot" is not cortical but sub cortical. It was very likely at work in the
Neanderthals but flourished in the Cro-Magnon, Neolithic and historical man. It developed
in an area of the brain which is not verbal but highly sensoric, visuospatial and emotional.
Hence, spirituality is not an "invention", for the mammalian brain does not invent.
The Homo sapiens sapiens is neurologically wired to have spiritual experiences. Just as a
visual system was developed because there is something to see, a spiritual function
emerged because there is some spiritual agent to experience. This "agent" is the holy, the
Divine ... the radical other. That we have a retina, does not produce light. That the spiritual
function is a fact, does not make "God" exist. But : would there have been a retina without
light or a spiritual function without Divine Presence in the universe ? Is the mark of the
Designer not present in the design and is the human brain not the "locus naturalis" to find
this trace, namely as the spiritual function enabling the human being to experience its
Designer ?
Insofar as the adjacent features of the amygdala are concerned, we may conjecture radical
otherness is an "inner" agent, to be seen with the "inner eyes" of vision, hallucination &
apparition (cf. Augustine and the "visio spiritualis" of the "homo interior"). The vicinity of
the "God-spot" to other emotional processes makes clear why the spiritual quest has
always been deemed dangerous, leading to fanatical atheism (limbic deafferented and
withdrawal in the prefrontal cortex), insanity (loss of ability to taxate reality, i.e.
distinguish the real -neocortex- from the illusions -amygdala-) or death (seizure).
We are not wired to enter the domain of the holy with ease. The Cro-Magnon aspirant
entered a tunnel leading underground. He had to crawl in the total darkness of narrow
spaces for quite some time before he arrived, probably exhausted, in a gigantic rockcathedral
lit by fire with huge drawings of real and fantastic animals on its walls, flickering
in the light, and shamans singing and dancing. An initiatoric ritual happened which would
"mark" the individual for life. Likewise, before the Catholic aspirant priest is consecrated by
the bishop, he prostrates his body on the ground and a dark veil is pulled over him. This
symbolizes the "end" of his "profane" life prior to consecration. The sacerdotal "mark" or
"imprint", the result of the imposition of the hands of the bishop, is permanent and
irreversible (although the Church may hinder its practical use). But once a priest, always a
priest. The neophyte enters the Masonic temple blindfolded and pronounces his oath with
the point of a dagger touching his throat. After a series of ordeals, the blindfold is taken
off. A new life begins ...
The religions and their approved ways made use of such devices to simulate the approach
of the limbic without unforeseen turbulences. They partly deafferented the spiritual function
in space and time. In doing so, they remained within the boundaries of mass psychology
and group dynamics and offered a collective object of worship. This "our Lord" and/or "our
Lady", is a function of history and the needs of circumstances. Insofar as religions are

"living", their ways still generate a genuine spiritual experience, comforting enough for
people to recognize Divine Presence. And this may be enough for the majority at large.
But, to remain strong and inspiring, living religions need a mystical core influential enough
to cause adjustments within or beyond the framework of their respective dogmatic
theologies. And this is mostly not the case.
§ 80
The world religions make use of the approved ways to stimulate the "God-spot" and trigger
a mediated, indirect religious experience. They develop fundamental teaching and condition
their believers from early childhood onwards to accept their dogmas. These tenets are
never questioned, but blindly accepted. As history shows, these religions were and are
antagonistic towards other religious systems and rejected (if not persecuted) unbelievers.
Because spiritual experiences and violence are neurotheologically close, it is not surprising
people satisfy their blood-lust for "their God" and think they will be martyrs when,
crusading for this self-created, cortical "God", they fight for "the good cause" and destroy
as many unbelieving lives as possible. These extreme reactions show that despite the
approved ways, most -if not all- religious systems establish and maintain an unwholesome
cortico-limbic imbalance. Although the spiritual abode is not completely deafferented, its
output is channeled & processed by heavy cortical superstructures, keeping the controlling
influence of the neocortex in place. Spontaneous spiritual experiences with conflicting
contents are made impossible and if they do happen, mistrusted and marginalized. The
violence associated with these religions further suggests that this imbalance causes
neurological decompressions, resulting in aggressive behavior justified by religious creed.
Clearly, world religions, and their largely "cortical" spirituality, have had their time. But
why were they so successful ? The "nuggets of gold" present in the approved ways were
the only procedures that "worked", but nobody knew why and so their salvic effectiveness
was "explained" in terms of "grace", i.e. "God's favor". Unaware of the biological
executants of the spiritual function, theologians could do nothing more than (reinterpreting
scripture) invent cortical explanations for the spiritual experiences happening (or bluntly
deny the experience and attribute them to the devil). "Holy books" were written down to
superstructure the direct experience of Divine Presence. By "explaining" limbic spirituality,
they encased it and once "in the box of letters", spiritual experience slowly dried up, at
times rejuvenated by the narrow beams of light still able to penetrate the thick canon of
exoteric rule.
Indeed, in all world religions, mystics and profoundly religious people continued to be at
work. They reestablished a more direct link with the limbic "God-spot", founding new
orders and spiritual movements (cf. Nichiren in Buddhism, Francis of Assisi in Christianity,
Ibn-'Arabî in Islam). But after their death, the same process happened : cortical structures
emerged narrowing down the extent of the new spiritual momentum, utilizing dogma to
redefine their heretical nature (recuperation) and/or to summon the devil into existence to
attribute the novelty to the adversary of "God". The movement may also be
institutionalized (cf. the Franciscan order), and the fossilizing process happening at large is
repeated in particulars (cf. the influence of Asoka on Buddhism, of Constantine on
Christianity and of Mu'awiyah on Islam). When man tries to manipulate the "God-spot" by
inventing a manmade religion ("our Lord" instead of "my Lord"), the result spells disaster.
The history of the religions since the European Renaissance, confirms a slow retreat of

"God" from the neocortex. This was enforced upon the institutionalized religions by the new
scientific approach, which indeed eventually killed the cortical, rational "God". "God" was
subjected to the laws of the secular, humanist society in which everybody is allowed to
worship the "god" of his or her free choice. In fact, religion became a separate languagegame,
tolerated and funded (as folklore and good examples), but eliminated as a public
source of empirico-formal knowledge, i.e. as explicit truth-bearing insights influencing
political decision-making. This emancipation of the neocortex has had its effects all over
the planet. Democracy, freedom and a constructive, participative globalism are the children
of this radical change of conscious perspective, namely the replacement of "God" by the
free choice of communicating ego's (cf. the French Revolution & the Independence of the
USA).
The executant brain structures of the spiritual function (enabling us to experience the
spiritual) are intended (as are all various structures of a neurological network executing
some task) to work together. If they do, a special spiritual balance is achieved, computed
by an ongoing "God-circuit". This is, ex hypothesi, a multiple relay of information between
the sensing, receiving amygdala-hippocampal complex (and its hyper lucid visions) and the
symbolizing, processing synchronized neocortex and its prefrontal voluntary association
area. This cortico-limbic circuit implies a double integration :
● interhemispheral : the circuit stops with lateralization or hemispheral deafferentiation
and runs on a synchronized neocortex only ;
● intercortical : the circuit links neocortex with its basal telencephalon (amygdala,
hippocampus), and the latter is part of the Papez-circuit (linking with the
hypothalamus and the reptilian brain).
The mystics exalt the "God-circuit" by their example. They manifest the glory of Divine
Presence in their actions. Although constantly in touch with the visionary, they refrain from
being possessed by anything else but themselves. They dare to enter the "abode of the
Divine", but remain what they are (i.e. humble), and realize they are nobody. Their
neocortex may be dogmatic or scientific, their spiritual experiences are ever stronger
pushing them to symbolizations beyond what they have learned (theology, science, art,
etc.). They manifest complex symbolizations, serving momentary, fleeting superstructures
and wavering constructions erected upon a limitless and eternal spiritual station-of-nostation,
which is un-saying love for the Divine. This they never wish to grasp or contain,
although this Presence always remains with them and stays comforting them to the point of
charity for all other sentient beings and an active life in pursuit of the spiritual ideal of
goodness, solidarity, justice, equality, freedom and forgiveness.
In the mystics, the two sources of religion (the frontal superstructure and the limbic
experience) come together and constantly interact. Thanks to the recent "secular turn",
mystics have been freed from the burden of futile "exoteric" teachings and rituals, imposed
by organized religions. They turn to the source and revitalize their traditions for
themselves. They are a light to themselves. This is a considerable step forward. It turns out
mystics do not entertain a solid, inflexible, dogmatic set of rules and regulations, on the
contrary (cf. Zen Buddhism, the "via negativa" in Christianity, "fanâ" in Sufism, the view
being the fruit in Dzogchen, etc.). Beyond the rule of "virtue", these people experience
spirituality in its direct "nakedness". Spiritual superstructures are at best inspiring and
necessary to communicate a framework or spiritual symbolism to be changed by the user

on the basis of his or her direct spiritual experiences. But to the mystic, all of this is quite
useless.
3.10 Atheism - agnosticism - gnosis.
§ 81
On many occasions in the course of this text, the bi-polar nature of the Divine surfaced and
was shown to be consistent with the a priori and a posteriori arguments of its existence, of
which only the latter really makes any sense, but without any creationist connotations.
The Divine, the metaphorical He-She/She-He, features two sides :
● He-side of absolute transcendence : the transcendent essence of the Divine posited
outside creation, as poetically hinted at by non-conceptual, nondual intuition, is the
object of the pinnacle of mystic experience and its poetic elucidation. This is the
object of dogmatic theology, claiming to capture the infinite God in finite worldly
glyphs or meaningful states of matter (special people, oral traditions, holy books,
holy objects, rituals, customs, etc.). If "existence" only instantiates, what we must
think to be the case, then the positive, actual existence of the essence of the Divine
cannot be proven. The a priori arguments fail and about the omnipotent, selfsufficient
Creator & Author of the world nothing affirmative or negative can be said ;
● She-side of subtle immanence : the existence of the Divine within creation, the
immanent Presence of a Designer and the power of overall conservation is put into
evidence by the speculative arguments backing a non-creational argument from
design and the direct experience of this by way of a protocol. The a posteriori
arguments make the existence of the Architect of the world probable enough to
warrant further metaphysical studies.
Although this distinction can be found in nearly all mystical and religious systems, historical
atheism has mainly focused on the He-side of the equation. It rejects the transcendent God
of theism, and in doing so posits the precise equivalent of the etymology of "atheism",
namely "a" + "theism", the "alpha privativum" plus "theism", or : against theism. Has,
identifying all religions with theism, atheism been able to formulate a comprehensive denial
of the Divine ?
Clearly intelligent design does not prove the God of theism, and so does not back any
"creationist" system. It provides a probable course of demonstration of the first immanent
Conserving Cause, deemed intelligent and so able to make free choices. Intelligent design
successfully argues against random natural necessity (cf. the metaphor of the blind
watchmaker or other mathematical miracles), but does not embrace the theology of
creationism & its omnipotent, omniscient and necessary Being throning outside the world.
Intelligent design is not a proof of dogmatic theology, and it does not imply a return to the
traditional religious systems. It does not provide an apology for faith in a Creator and His
Creation. It opens the path for an immanent religiosity, a religion of nature adhering to the
idea of a single, omnipresent "power of powers" sustaining and organizing the world, and
this hand in hand with creativity and the freedom of actual entities.
Indeed, grosso modo, monotheism problematizes the immanent, rather feminine Anima
Mundi (as well as women in general). "God" is "He", not "She". This male-dominated

theology, gaining power since the end of the Neolithic, is not the complete picture. Even in
Ancient Egypt, and its focus on the Divine king, goddesses and queens placed a key role in
both religion & politics. In the Abrahamic traditions, the sacred feminine was repressed, but
is was not eliminated.
The superstructures of the monotheisms were dictated by men and the Divine was deemed
the He-God. He was the creative origin of the universe and worshipping His transcendence
was deemed the salvation of the world and of oneself. Subreptively, to keep traditions
going, the subtle, invisible, immediate Presence of the Divine was introduced into theology.
Never was the case made for the She-soul of the world, the reflection of what we may
witness of Him ... This situation is not universal. In Hinduism, the role of the "shakti" is
beyond doubt, as is "yin" in Taoism. The monotheisms are the victim of their desire to
dominate the receptive, generative Natural world with an expressive, creative God ruling it
from the outside. The She-God then turns into the Lady of the Shadow Realms, the Dark
Moon Lilith.
Etymologically, historical atheism is anti-Abrahamic, and turns agains theocracy and their
"royal" extensions. After World War II, it became the negation of the Divine in all possible
expressions, and allied itself with skepticism & materialism. This position may be countered
with the arguments a posteriori. Extended historical atheism has to proof the universe
emerged at random. It has to be able to reproduce a fraction of this natural beauty by
stochastic means only. It has to explain the unlikelihood of this being the case in an
entropic, random model. Otherwise, its thesis cannot be accepted.
Semantic atheism needs to explain how something which has no significance can have
relevance ?
Logical atheism has to disprove the arguments of design and conservation as well as the
emancipatoric protocols and explain some of their significant results.
By absence of all this, immanent Divinity may be called a probable explanation of the
order, beauty and creativity at work in the world. Without a Designer, the world would
probably not have come into existence. Indeed, only an intelligent selection of natural
constants produces intelligent life. Moreover, nothing could here and now be conserved
without a first Conserving Cause.
Finally, it is rather futile to defend atheism on the authority of a foundationalist science,
producing certain knowledge. As all knowledge is probabilistic (terministic) and the
possibility of knowledge cannot be grounded in a sufficient principle (real or ideal), nothing
else but the modesty of science is left over. This is not skeptical (or dogma in disguise), nor
dogmatic, but critical.
All possibilities are accepted, but certain crucial rules of logic, epistemology, ethics &
esthetics are saved from the ship-wreck of foundationalism. It is vain to reject atheism on
the authority of a fundamental theology, keeper of the magister of a unique, exclusive
salvic "revelation". As the core of all religious phenomena is the direct, individual
experience of the Divine, organized systems are bound to adhere to "our Lord" or/and "our
Lady" at the expense of "my Lord" and/or "my Lady". They fossilize the original current by
canon and dogma and overgrow the essence with the vanity of manmade superstructures,
sacred scripture, theologies and traditions. Moreover, in monotheism, the remote "He"
aspect of the Divine has been emphasized and the subtle "She" aspect veiled.

Agnosticism is atheism in disguise. Pascal tried to make clear that, facing the question of
the existence of the Divine, the only proper thing to do for a reasonable person is to wager.
For to remain indifferent or to suspend judgment is itself to make a choice, namely against
the Divine. One cannot help choosing one way or the other. Either the Divine exists, or not.
In such an important matter, there is no middle ground, for if one suspends judgment then
one denies answering a fundamental existential matter. This in itself constitutes an action.
Maybe this is nothing less than self-condemnation, for suppose the Divine exists, how will
one make amends ? Suppose the contrary is true, how then to face the billions of believers
in an authentic way ?
Gnosticism is not necessarily theist and may be defined in pantheist or pan-en-theist
terms. Direct spiritual experience and knowledge are crucial here and this vertical approach
of Divinity is in tune with the proposed spiritual protocol. For the "gnosis" which is the
object of Gnosticism is a special knowledge, a truncated pyramid, with non-conceptual,
nondual direct experience as its cap-stone. Historical Gnosticism opposed centrist, orthodox
systems of religion. A hidden knowledge was imparted to its adherents pertaining to the
secret ways to emancipate the spirit within. Gnosticism is esoteric.
Gnostic speculations, remaining immanent, i.e. thematizing the Architect of the world and
not its Author, except poetically, are metaphysical. Like yoga, existentialism and
surrealism, they point to the experiential Presence of the Divine within the world. Thinking
this Presence, is the task of religious philosophy. Devising new ways to encounter Divinity
in the world, is the work of mysticology.
In metaphysical terms, Divine Presence is approached with the known facts of science. The
speculative argument of conservation can be explored with the tools of the physics of the
natural constants (the co-relativity of their values and the intelligence of their choice). The
argument from design reveals a broader scope, and makes clear the existence of an overall
order, beauty and very great might & intelligence working in the universe.
This is more than just blind natural necessity, working at random and without a clear aim
or "telos". On the contrary, this intelligence or Anima Mundi, is an all-powerful nature
beyond "unconscious fecundity" (KRV, B653), operating by means of freedom. This Nature
made Her choose for certain proportions accommodating life and human intelligence, the
genesis of a universe balanced to the detail and working in harmony with an implicate
scheme. This cause proportionate to the world and never beyond it, is not the highest
wisdom or self-sufficient Being. The soul of the world, like a Great Architect, is dependent
of the choices made by the actual entities, existing in their creative and interlocked process
of becoming. She, as a complex supermind, holds the rule of beauty and balances our
worse choices by valuating some possibilities more than others.
These arguments clear the way to ascend to the stage of admiration. Although reason
cannot advance further and claim a definite concept of the Author of the world (the He-God
of ineffable mysticism and negative theology), although it cannot make the impossible step
leading to absolute totality, it can conceptualize the greatness, wisdom, power and allcomprehensiveness
of the She-soul of the world. Beyond this stage of admiration,
conceptual thought cannot move. Reason stands still in awe before the skillful living edifice,
but will never meet its Creator, only its Generator. Reason may walk in the Kingdom of the
Queen without ever meeting the King. Science may define the origin of the universe in
terms of the Big Bang, but not who or what banged, for t = 0 escapes its equations. It may

e baffled by the extraordinary scope of the universe, glimpse Her gracious moves and
subtle, tactful and stylish Presence through the elegant structures of mathematical beauty,
but without ever being able to write down the formula explaining Her Author, transcendent
and beyond all positive & negative statements, nameless.
So thanks to the protocol, a direct, systematic approach of the marvelous being may be
realized. Staying within the universe, this immanent experience counters the atheist claim
no experience of the Divine is possible, for the set is not empty. Of course, only the
immanent objects of the set become, so to speak, "personal" and "interpersonal"
experience. This step does not transcend the order of possible experience altogether,
completely and without trace. Because the approach is a posteriori, the essence of the
Divine has not been addressed. If so, nothing more can be said, except what the absolute
is not. Atheism negating transcendence has not, and cannot been countered. Part of the
claim of atheism is satisfied, for there is no way to conceptualize transcendence but in
poetry.
If so, then all religious unveilings & revelations are sublime poetical elucidations,
suggestions, hints and metaphors, but not scientific statements of fact or propositions with
a conventional truth claim.
As only "my Lord" and/or "my Lady" are able to offer beatitude, the critical mind is left with
authentic commitment and the development of the open spirit of finesse ever anticipating
the marvelous to happen.
Suggested reading
Please consult : www.sofiatopia.org/equiaeon/philobiblio.htm
initiated : 22 V 2008 - last update : 07 IX 2011 - version n°2
top