Knowledge vs Opinion, Enlightenment vs Delusion

We have confused wisdom with power, and quality of life with quantity of money and material goods. Until we correct that deep confusion, modern industrial society will be, and will remain, doomed to destroy itself. Cutting through illusion, therefore, is not a luxury for philosophers, scientists, monks and mystics alone. It is an urgent necessity for us all.

As Plato said, everyone has opinions, but few have knowledge. It is important that we keep that in the back of our minds, if not the fore.

Two levels, there are, in everything: there is the question of how to live, and how to construct a society that is just, good, or intelligent, which is the worldly aspect, pertaining to moral, social and political philosophy; then there is the ultimate question of the true nature of being and reality. Extremely few people do a good job in addressing either one, only a handful have done a good job in addressing both. This is an important thing to realize and to bear in mind.

In terms of moral, social and political philosophy:

No man is an island, as Martin Luther King Jr. said. That means, we are all interconnected and interdependent. That means that kindness, compassion and mutual aid are not only virtuous, but also a matter of basic intelligence, or enlightened self-interest.

From that flows an ethos of compassion, community, solidarity, cooperation or mutual aid. And from that flows an ethos, a value of, and a profound respect for, liberty or freedom, since it is certainly experienced to be a violence, an act of aggression, and a cruelty and great suffering to be made someone else’s slave, or to have our freedom unduly constrained, and to be dominated by any man, woman, or system.

Taking compassion and freedom as our core founding values, or community and freedom, or liberty, equality, solidarity, the founding values of the Enlightenment, however you may prefer to say it, will produce a just, equitable, and eminently sane society, and in the relative sense of the term, an enlightened democracy. That is all we need to know and to remember in order to build a better world, and to resolve the great social, economic, political and environmental crises which we face now. But we will have to be bold about it, and swift. Remember that Jesus did not drive the money changers from the temple with a limp piece of leaf lettuce, but with a whip. Remove the money changers from power. Only then can we seriously begin to address the urgent problems confronting us.

*

As to enlightenment, in the absolute or ultimate sense, or the nature of knowledge vs opinion, and the true nature of being and reality, we can say this.

In short, and to put the matter as succinctly as possible, we are born, as Kant rightly said, with innate frameworks of thought, an innate latticework or architecture of inborn thought constructs, through which we view and experience the world. As Descartes and Locke rightly said, we know that we are thinking, and we believe we are accurately percieving things as they truly are, but the accuracy of our perceptions is radically in question.

Thought relates to thought, and while we believe we are directly relating to things in the world, when we examine our minds closely, we see that we are relating directly, only to our own ideas about things, and not directly to phenomena or things themselves. That is, everything we percieve, think or experience, is filtered through an unconscious and habitual set of mental constructs, a set of filters and lenses, as well as social conditioning and indoctrination. We do not, therefore, relate to anything directly, but only to our own unconscious mental architecture of preconceived thought constructs, lenses and filters.

To put it in Buddhist terms, all phenomena (beings, things and events) are viewed by our minds with an unrecognized mental imputation. We think we see separate, concrete, divided beings and things; but while being exists, and Descartes was right on that, the “I” is imputed, and has no valid basis in reality. We impute or project a separation, permanence and division to phenomena, beings and things, where none exists in reality. As Einstein said, “The field is everything.”

Remember what Alan Watts said. “Most metaphysics are unconscious metaphysics. And unconscious metaphysics are bad metaphysics.” Question everything.

Descartes famously began modern philosophy, 400 years ago, by trying to go back to first principles, trying to make zero assumptions or unsupported premises (philosophy and science both are riddled with unconscious and unsupported assumptions) to see what we can know for certain, and then to build a coherent philosophy on that firm ground or foundation. He did not assume that any given authority is 100% certain in its reliability, nor was he willing to assume that any idea, theory, philosophy, ideology or theology is necessarily 100% reliable. That left only radical empiricism (and let us not fetishize an obsession with numbers and measurement, solely, any longer). In short, we must examine things for ourselves: that is, as the Buddha also urged, to not resort to simply taking someone’s word on things, as being the infallible truth.

Descartes said, What if I am dreaming? When I dream, things in the dream seem real, but when I awake, I realize I was only dreaming. How do I know I am not dreaming now? How do I know my perceptions of reality are accurate? Maybe they are 100% accurate, or 90%, or 1%, or completely illusory and delusional? How do I verify what is actially real or true?

Without seriously addressing this question of perception vs reality, and the problem of imputing realities to reality – as Hume asked, in his landmark work which radically transformed the entire landscape of Western philosophy, in 1776, and which no one yet has satisfactorily answered, in the West at least – there can be no sound foundation for either science or philosophy, and we will be wildly speculating, and completely unscientific and anti-empirical, without even knowing it.

And we are!

(Most scientists have never seriously addressed Hume, or this question, the problem of inference or imputation, which is foundational to any true, genuine, or valid empiricism, or any truly scientific or philosophical approach; and hence, do not really merit being called scientists. The same goes for great majority of philosophers, religious leaders, politicians, pundits, scholars, and social or political commentators: their words and views rest on thin air. They have all the reliability of quacking ducks, and so, their statements should be taken with a train load of salt.)

Descartes then realized, I am thinking, therefore I know, at least, that I exist. Cogito ergo sum. But he was mistaken, and radically so. And to my knowledge, no one has yet realized or pointed out his error – until now.

If there is thinking, and we do directly experience thinking, so we can confirm that much, then there must be consciousness, and existence or being, of some kind. The “I” in Descartes’ famous, “I think therefore I am”, however, is simply a habitual, unexamined, and utterly unsupported assumption – an unconscious mental imputation or projection, with no valid basis in reality, and no sound evidence to support it.

We then have:

A. Thinking is present

B. Therefore:

i, consciousness of some kind is present;

and

ii, being or existence of some kind is present.

We know therefore that there exists consciousness and its contents, being or existence of some kind, and space. There is no basis for presuming or imputing duality, permanence or division of any kind, however. And we should remember, distinction is not the same as division. The crests and troughs of waves on the ocean are distinct, but there is no real division between crest and trough, or between waves. The waves are a formation or movement of the ocean, but the ocean while ever changing, remains essentially unchanged, and one. Reflect deeply on this, and the nature of all phenomena will become clear.

The assumption or imputation of a separate self, an “I”, a self that is a separate island in a vast cosmos, is wholly unsupported, and pure, anti-empirical and unscientific conjecture, speculation, or mere superstition – no matter how firmly or habitually we may believe it, and no matter how many others may believe it. The imputation or assumption of a duality between self and other, or any kind of duality of being, is similarly unsubstantiated mental flotsam, without any sound basis or empirical support whatsoever. The burden of proof rests on those who assert a positive claim of some entity, attribute or thing, by the way, and not on those who deny it, for lack of evidence. (See Bertrand Russell’s teapot analogy.)

Remember, it was only yesterday, in the long view of human history, that everyone “knew”, and was absolutely certain, that the Earth was the centre of the universe. It just so happened that everyone was wrong.

Not long ago, slavery was thought to be natural, normal, ethical, and just. Virtually everyone, from Aristotle and emperors, to popes, priests, “learned men”, scholars, scientists and the common people, knew that slavery was natural, normal and just. But everyone was wrong.

In both cases, what was assumed by everyone to be unquestionably true, turned out to be flatly and completely mistaken and wrong. It is the same with the nearly universal belief in duality. We are, as Plato said, dwellers in a cave of shadows. But enlightenment, or waking up to reality, is entirely within our reach.

Enlightenment, it should be added, does not mean floating off into space, on some mystical cloud. It means, quite simply, waking up. It means seeing reality clearly, for the first time, and abiding in that awareness of the non-dual nature of emptiness and form, being and reality, with universal compassion, indestructible peace, and natural, spontaneous, intelligent responsiveness, as the naturally arising result, of simply being fully and truly awake.

*

Does this mean nothing exists? No, that is nihilism, and it is a delusion, as the Buddhists have also made clear – and a dangerous delusion. Does that mean everything exists in the mind, and that only the mind exists? No, that is philosophical idealism, or in Buddhist terminology, the Mind Only school; and that, while closer to the truth than nihilism, is also a misperception with regards to the true nature of reality.

Does that mean that the dualism of Descartes, and his materialist bias, along with Newton’s mechanistic view of the universe, should be rejected? Yes.

Newtonian mechanics still work, as crude approximations which have their uses in technology, for example, but the non-dualist view of Spinoza turns out to be far more accurate as a theory, paradigm or world view, and will lead us to better experiments, new discoveries, and most importantly, better judgement and better actions and policies, leading to a better society, and a better world.

Does it then mean we should adopt an interactionist view of mind and body, consciousness and matter? No. That would be vastly superior to the dualistic, mechanistic, materialist-reductionist world view which we now accept as “knowledge”, as “scientific”, “empirical”, as “educated” opinion, or as common sense. But that would be an ecological view, a holistic or organic view, which is vastly superior, more accurate and more sane, but still subtly imprecise.

No, it means that a non-dualistic view is the only view supported by either a radical empiricism, a thorough-going empiricism, a genuine empiricism, an authentically scientific approach; or by the philosophers and sages who wrote, spoke and elaborated the view of non-duality, in what has been called the Perennial Philosophy.

*

Note that quantum physics – if we are not unscientific about it, and anti-intellectual, or irrationally averse to drawning conclusions, based on clear and unequivocal evidence (a few “scientists” fit that description, and a very few “philosophers”) – demonstrated over a century ago, that the atomistic, mechanistic, dualistic, materialist-reductionism which we fell into, as in a bog, along with Netwon and Descartes, a mere four centuries ago, is a radically mistaken paradigm, theory, ideology, philosophy, or view of reality. What modern physics shows us, is not that elaborate conjectures of multiple universes or dimensions (all speculative conjecture) are necessarily the reality, but more pointedly, and of profoundly more importance, that the imagined duality, separation or division between subject and object, self and other, mind and body, and consciousness and “matter”, is entirely fictional, and does not exist.

As Enstein said, “The perception of a division between self and other is a kind of optical delusion.” “We must stop talking about the particle and field. The field is everything.”

Or as Schrodinger, the godfather of quantum mathematics, said, perhaps even more strikingly, “The number of minds in the universe is one.”

Note that Einstein said he believed in Spinoza’s view of God. That is, there is only one substance in existence, and you can call it God, or you call it nature, but it is One.

As the last of the ancient philosophers, Plotinus said: the many are One; the One manifests as many.

Or as the Tao Te Ching says, “Naming is the mother of the ten thousand things.”

Or as the Heart Sutra, the Heart of the Sutra of the Perfection of Wisdom, says:

“Form is emptiness; emptiness is form.

Form is not other than emptiness; emptiness is not other than form.”

This is explicitly stated to be a refutation and a denial of both nihilism and eternalism. The true nature of reality lies in the middle way between those two extremes, both of which are delusional.

How do we come, to first conceptually, and then experientially, and deeply, understand and then directly see and realize the non-duality of being and reality? Begin with reflecting deeply and often on the interdependence of all beings, things and phenomena. That will lead to higher awareness, liberation and enlightenment, and will avoid the terrible rotting bog, which is the mental prison, of nihilism.

Then examine the labelling process of the mind. That will finish the job of removing all remaining traces of doubt and dualistic delusion.

*

Spinoza and Plotinus, in the West, along with Meister Eckhart, Thomas Merton, Mathew Fox, Ken Wilber, Joseph Campbell, Joanna Macy, Alan Watts, Aldous Huxley, Allan Wallace, Einstein, Shrodinger, Wheeler, Bohm, and myself; and Lao Tzu, Chuang Tzu, Shankara and the Buddha in the East, to make a very incomplete list, have all expressed the perennial philosophy of non-duality. We would be wise to at least look into it, and to keep an open mind.

But above all, think for yourself. Question everything. And as the Buddha said, examine things for yourself, see for yourself.

As Shakespeare said, “There is more to heaven and earth than is contained in your philosophy.” “Life is rounded by a little sleep.”

And as Thoreau said,

“There is more day yet to dawn. The sun is but a morning star.”

We are not smaller or lesser than we had imagined, but infinitely more. Being and reality is basically good. The world is in a dark and terrible state because it is ruled by illusions. Illusion is the root of our problems. Uproot that, and we can live in peace, and in lives, and a world, more beautiful than we dare to imagine.

Compassion, and the unceasing search for truth: these are our best guides, and our sole concerns, if we are aware enough to live in ways that are truly sensible and intelligent. With compassion and the pursuit of truth (not the dogmatic presumption of truth) as our beacons, the future is brighter than our dreams. Without them, we are lost.

The choice, as always, is ours to make.

J. Todd Ring,

March 28, 2021

Post-Script:

It has become the fashionable norm in Western philosophy, in the past few centuries, for philosophers to write great tomes of books, often hundreds of pages long, and in the most arcane and obscure language possible. There is a good reason for this. It is to hide the fact that most philosophers have little or nothing to say. (The fetish is also for maximum footnotes, since ideas are not judged on their own merits, as all good science or philosophy does, but are judged by how well they can be entangled upon the architecture of presumed authority. We are thoroughly scholastic as a result, pre-Enlightenment, and more medieval than the medievalists.) In fact, aside from Socrates, Spinoza, Plotinus and Hume, and a handful of others, most of Western philosophy is the finger-painting of preschoolers. It is not worth the paper it is written on. That certainly includes all of post-modernism, which has virtually lobotomized intellectuals for the past fifty years. (Replace all the post-modernists, existentialists and phenomenologists with a study of Emerson, Blake and Thoreau, and we would be getting somewhere – beyond our present state, which is parked in a cul de sac.) In a few short words, we have said here what thousands of books on philosophy and politics have not, and could not, because they lacked the clarity, and the depth, to be able to do so. The importance of a work is not measured by its volume of words. The Declaration of Independence, Thomas Paine’s Common Sense, the UN Charter of Human Rights, the Magna Carta, and Henry David Thoreau’s On Civil Disobedience, are short, pithy works, of unsurpassed importance. Thoreau’s essay On Civil Disobedience is just fifteen pages, and the Heart Sutra is just two pages; but they are the most important political and philosophical tracts, respectively, ever written. Do not be fooled by wordiness and verbosity, or by esoteric and arcane language. Most of it is nothing but hot air – a tale full of sound and fury, told by an idiot, signifying nothing.

See also:

The Hero With A Thousand Faces – Joseph Campbell

World As Lover, World As Self – Joanna Macy

Choosing Reality – Allan Wallace

The Holographic Universe – Michael Talbot

Mysticism and The New Physics – Michael Talbot

Dialogues With Scientists and Sages – Rene Weber

Dreamtime and Inner Space – Holgar Kalweit

The Way of Zen – Alan Watts

Tao: The Watercourse Way – Alan Watts

The Mother Of The Buddhas – Lex Hixon

The Perennial Philosophy – Aldous Huxley

No Boundary – Ken Wilber

Stolen Continents – Ronald Wright

A Short History of Progress – Ronald Wright

Year 501: The Conquest Continues – Noam Chomsky

Necessary Illusions: Thought Control In Democratic Societies – Noam Chomsky

The Shock Doctrine – Naomi Klein

A Game As Old As Empire – John Perkins

Class Warfare – Noam Chomsky

The Power Elite – C. Wright Mills

Giants: The Global Power Elite – Peter Phillips

The New Rulers Of The World – John Pilger

Ancient Futures – Helena Norberg-Hodge

From The Ground Up – Helena Norberg-Hodge

The Chalice and The Blade – Rianne Eisler

The Ecology of Freedom – Murray Bookchin

Mutual Aid – Peter Kropotkin

The Empathic Civilization – Jeremy Rifkin

Elders’ Wisdom – David Suzuki

The Wayfinders – Wade Davis

The Great Turning – David C. Korten

Oneness vs The 1% – Vandana Shiva

Enlightened Democracy – J. Todd Ring

*

Here is a good introduction to epistemology, ontology and metaphysics, or the question of what is the true nature of appearances versus reality, in the short video below. It is only an introduction, however. Russell does not answer the question here, but merely sets the stage for the investigation, which is itself important, though incomplete. See Plato’s Parable of the Cave, Descartes, Spinoza, and finally, the Buddha and Nagarjuna.

Note that BR is among the best in terms of political philosophy, and among the worst for metaphysics. But he at least introduces the question of perception vs reality well.

Also interesting and relevant:

.https://open.spotify.com/embed-podcast/episode/1vvtxtagRzdTwG2AxvrW2z?si=8j7eQhQWRkS7YbKvxGVHmA

Or start with my book, Enlightened Democracy, which synthesizes the best of East and West, North and South, ancient and modern, science and spirituality, the philosophical and the political, long term vision and immediate action. Then read Joseph Campbell, Alan Watts, Allan Wallace, Joanna Macy, Ken Wilber, Murray Bookchin, and the other major figures listed above.