Philosophy; as experiential process
So how does one facilitate a revelatory experience? One must first present positive reasons to believe that it is possible. This is the second post in this series.
The intention of the first post was to provoke some healthy scepticism. This article intends to provide some positive reasons to believe that synthesis of perspectives is possible. Yet, synthesis itself is a process, so the secondary intention of this article is to engage the reader in this process.
“Is not rhetoric in its entire nature an art which leads the soul by means of words?” Plato, Phaedrus, 261a
If this article has its intended effect, then the first post will retrospectively make more sense to the reader. This structural design again is intentional, and serves as a demonstration of my methodology.
“Writing, Phaedrus, has this strange quality, and is very like painting; for the creatures of painting stand like living beings, but if one asks them a question, they preserve a solemn silence.” Plato, Phaedrus, 275d
Any written content, knowledge, or any text, for that matter, is static and unchanging, whereas our understanding of that same material can change over time. My aim, therefore, is to provide a practical and experiential demonstration that understanding (verb) is both a process and that understanding (noun) is also dynamic. This is a necessary step on the path towards realisation that understanding is also capable of transformative change, or metanoia. This is the space within which synthesis can then begin.
Provoking scepticism
The perspective from which I approach the conversation
Experience from the gathering that synthesis is possible
Creating positive reasons to believe.
A memetic representation of a historical process.
Barriers to acceptance, barriers between worldviews, and how to overcome them.
Creating positive reason to doubt
the liberal worldview
the static, descriptive framework of knowledge.
How to facilitating a conversion process; transcending stages, the means of synthesis, and becoming a coherent ‘we’
I am sure we are all familiar with stages theories of development. The meme above is a partial and descriptive representation of difference stages in understanding. However, my point is that they are neither rigid categories nor are they necessarily static. There is a process by which different perspectives developed in the first place and, as such, I propose that there is a process by which we can also transcend them. This begs the question as to what stands in the way; how do we reconcile differences represented within them? This is what I wanted to bring to the gathering; a process that is hard to teach, but possible to experience, and a skill that can be learned only after the experience of having had it.
The idea I wanted to present is not actually that hard to conceive; the meme above represents not merely static categories or developmental stages, but what I perceive as the potential and positive outcome of the historical trajectory we are on, and the end goal of inquiry; not merely as knowledge of the goal, but a process we are living through and an understanding to be achieved. The challenge, though, is how do we accept that this is what is happening, how do we make our understanding coherent, and indeed how do we then achieve this understanding?
What I wanted to introduce to the gathering was the process by which we can each make this progress between stages, reconcile divides, and transcend stages entirely; not merely as argument to be debated, nor knowledge to be consumed, not merely a descriptive account of a process that can be learned by practice, but a process to be experienced, and learned after the fact of having experienced it. It is by this process that we can achieve coherence in our own dividuated understanding. This is how we as individuals can come into collective consilience and become a coherent we; not by adversarial argument, or proof that anyone one side is wrong, but through a revelatory metanoia, and the intentional application of this process to our own understanding. This is what I had hoped to present and test out. Yet, I lacked the language to articulate it at the time.
A Historical Process
If we consider the implications of the historical process as proposed above, this would obviously necessitate the realisation that we are not merely individual selves reflecting on the nature of consciousness and conscious experience, but that we are, essentially, consciousness embodied, become self-reflectively aware, and able to reflect on our own experience of consciousness. We can perhaps accept this as a reasonable believe to hold, and we might even believe it ourselves. Yet, it is one that obviously stands counterintuitive to our own self- experience, and even if articulated as epistemic argument, it is not one that everyone will accept.
Yet, let’s also consider the positive potential if it is true. This historical stage would constitute the very process by which we realise ourselves as consciousness having a self-experience. Indeed, were we to accept this, and once we were to become aware of this process that we are living through, it then opens up the potential for progress, not merely in knowing what consciousness is, but progress in both our experience and our understanding of consciousness itself.
An Evolutionary Process
If the hypothesis presented above is true, it would represent a higher order of evolutionary stage. The challenge is then how to convince others that this is the case, especially if it is counter-intuitive to all that we know, and our own self-experience. Yet, for reasons Iʼll share below, the memetic representation of an evolutionary process seems pretty self-evident. It doesnʼt merely represent static stages, nor a reductive hierarchy of intellectual superiority, but it does describe the dialectic stages one might experience in the course of oneʼs own self-inquiry. For me, this was a Catholic upbringing; scientific PhD; India, Vipassana, self-inquiry, shadow work, dance, as a dynamic form of meditation; and philosophy, to learn from the history of wisdom. Yet, I did not pursue philosophy to learn it as it is taught, but to learn why it is so lacking, and inquire into what contemporary philosophy is missing, and how to introduce it. After a long inquiry, it realised that it is missing discovery, and requires a more complex ontology and logical framework, and a shift in perspective in order to describe “the science of the experience which consciousness goes through” Hegel, Phenomenology of Spirit, $36.
Yet, for me, the end of inquiry is not an intention to find oneself at the top of an intellectual hierarchy, nor merely when has knowledge of all the former stages, but when is aware of the process through each one, and deconstructed them into coherent understanding. As such, I donʼt accept the hierarchical superiority of stages; from the memetic representation we can see the partiality of both the disembodied intellect and embodied sensibility. Yes, there are perspectives of higher orders of complexity, but the mistake is thinking that knowledge elevates us above all others, and believe ourselves superior to those that we perceive as below us. The goal of wisdom should be to elevate us all.
Indeed, for me, a naive wisdom is the humble understanding that every individual is uniquely different, but that we are also, essentially, the same. Contemporary philosophy, lost in its attempt to describe what wisdom is, has a modern self-concept that emphasises a normative sameness or post-modern opposition that is too focused on superficial difference. Yet, in the belief that knowledge makes them objective, and places them at the top of the intellectual hierarchy, they lack awareness of their own partiality. The wisdom that the world requires is one that must speak past the traditions entirely; a wisdom that can speaks to both our individual and collective differences, and also to our common human sameness. Yet, the perennial challenge of wisdom is not merely in the becoming wise, but in the how best to communicate it such that others can also understand it?
The challenge of communication
As an example of this problem, the memetic representation above is obviously partial, subject to variety of possible interpretations, and under-represents the reality of human complexity. Yet, one could argue the same of all such static, descriptive representations.
Yet, even if the idea in the memetic representation were articulated as epistemic knowledge, it wonʼt convince the critical modern mind, which is so conditioned to need certainty and critically finding reasons not to believe. Contemporary analytic philosophy tried to address this problem of communication by aiming for clarity, definitional precision and argumentative rigour. Yet, in so doing, this not only limits the scope of what one might achieve, but more problematic is that it 1) privileges specificity and detail at the expense of the bigger, more holistic picture, 2) dictates the standards to which the articulation of wisdom must conform, and 3) gives licence to ignore any wisdom that is not consistent with their understanding.
Yet, the memetic form is a powerful means to represent an idea. As a necessary complement, I have provided reasoning necessary to communicate its meaning. Yet, i have also attempted something in addition. if we reflect upon the memetic representation above, we can see that the hierarchical form appeals to our natural bias; that each stage is a superior to the previous. This is the problematic aspect of stage theories, and the natural bias of the intellect; the tendency to see ourselves on top. Yet, the interpretation I have outlined is different from the hierarchical representation. This, in part, is intentional; for hopefully, I have reframed the way you now perceive it. The memetic representation should better be expressed as a process or timeline, a dialectic, of partial oppositions, of overlapping incoherent systems. Indeed, as represented each stage is merely a manifest stage of an underlying process; a point at which there is a tendency to get stuck. In essence, the real picture is more complex than any static form can represent.
Given this, instead of aiming for precision and arguing to convince the reader that any partial representation is true, let us consider instead the barriers to accepting that the idea represented in the memetic form is true; that it is a process, that it is possible to progress between stages, and that a synthesis of perspectives is possible too. Only once the barriers have been identified can we consider the resistance to transcending stages, and how to overcome this resistance. Again, I do not merely mean this as an intellectual exercise, but what we each might need to move beyond whatever categories or stages within which we find and/or define ourselves, how to meet this need, and how this understanding can be applied in order to facilitate a revelatory conversion.
First, though, let us consider why this is important.
The culture war
Let us consider the culture war where the most certain and self-righteous reign; if we use the representation above, the disembodied intellect necessarily demands that the embodied sensibility reject their spiritual beliefs and embrace reason instead. This is the rationalist, modern, militant atheist perspective, who believe themselves higher up the intellectual hierarchy. They reason, not only that God does not exist, but that people who do must be stupid or delusional. They call them irrational when they refuse to listen to reason or convinced into abandonment of their religious beliefs. In the face of this mocking, adversarial assault on their beliefs, is it really any surprise that they reject any knowledge from authority as a result, accept only their own authority, and the evidence of their subjective perspective? It would certainly explain why people believe the earth is flat, that covid is a hoax until they actually contract it, or that climate change is an anti-capitalist plot. It would also explain the reactionary religious backlash.
Argument of this adversarial nature is demonstrably insufficient to resolve this divide, and the intellectual condescension provokes the opposite effect, entrenching resistance and provokes an oppositional reaction. This is merely one of many incompatible differences in perspective, or dialectic oppositions, that would seem a significant contributor in provoking and perpetuating the culture war. We can draw up many such dividing battle lines: patriarchy vs feminism, left vs right, tradition vs progressive, capitalism vs socialism; all binary oppositions that dominate the cultural conversation and silence attempts at nuance. It is no wonder that no-one transcends stages, because the adversarial nature of discourse forces them to entrench in their established perspective, and the only alternative they are introduced to is binary opposite that is hostile to them. So, let us consider how we dissolve and transcend these divides such that we can accept the transcendent potential of synthesis represented above.
The barriers to acceptance
First, letʼs start with the barriers to acceptance: a) the resistance to believing that a synthesis, as represented in the meme above, is possible, and b) the progress in our understanding we must make to accept it. Again, it isnʼt actually difficult to conceive either and made simple in the memetic representation. In order to reconcile spirit and reason, we necessarily must overcome the illusion of detached objectivity, and put an understanding of our human perspective back in the picture of reality. We can already imagine the transformative effect. Man no longer stands alone; as the smallest, atomistic individual, separate from the cold, dead reality he perceives as objective to himself. We see ourselves, indeed every self, as individual parts at home within something much greater. To borrow a biblical anecdote, imagine after eating from the tree of knowledge, and the subsequent fall of man, was when we started seeing ourselves as something separate from nature. Now we are on the point of attaining the necessary wisdom to realise ourselves as part of nature once again. Would that not reconcile the dialectic oppositions of faith and reason? Also resolve the meaning crisis? Yes, but easier said than done, I hear the sceptical reader say.
Yet, at this stage, the details are not actually important. I have provided a description of what is necessary. I have not imparted any knowledge. However, I have provided positive reasons to believe that the synthetic perspective, represented in the meme above, might be possible.
Yet, we can also go further; we can understand what is necessary to achieve this. We need a more objective, i.e. non-self-centric, understanding of being. This means that the progress made in science in our understanding of reality must now be complemented with progress in philosophy and our understanding of humanity. We have a phenomenology of being to complement scientific realism. Philosophy and science must then be synthesised into a more complex, natural philosophical whole. A more complex and holistic science, from which testable predictions can be made.
At this stage, I have described a process by which knowledge can be produced, yet not produced any knowledge. This description is obviously insufficient to convince the reader; but again, this is not my purpose. The hope is that it is sufficient to inspire curiosity and intrigue the reader to continue in this discursive inquiry.
A Process of Understanding
Let us consider what would be achieved if the primacy of consciousness, as represented in the meme above, could be proven via the process described above? There are significant and uncomfortable implications if it were so; for now, I leave these for your to imagine and ponder. Yet, even if it was sufficient to convince the reader of its truth, would it help us transcend and reconcile all the categorical divides between us? For those who might accept the argument, would it not merely establish a new authority to appeal to? Perhaps a higher intellect to solve our problems on our behalf? Knowledge via argument, indeed even as empirically justified proof, is important. Yet, in this age of meta-modern scepticism and distrust of epistemic authority, the assertion of knowledge from authority alone seems insufficient.
Hence, why we must understand the process that I have described, not merely the knowledge that results. Yet, were one to explain the process, would the reader be convinced it is possible, or sufficient for the reader to know it? What if one were to demonstrate the knowledge possible by such a process, would anyone believe it is knowledge or that they could achieve it too? What if one were to provide a detailed account of explanation of Einsteinʼs thought processes, demonstrate knowledge possibly by the same means, or explain the history of scientific progress? One might be able to demonstrate genius to everybody else and establish oneself at the top of the epistemic hierarchy. Big deal; it is insufficient to solve the problems that we face, as individuals and collectively.
I donʼt subscribe to the myth of individual genius; it is an untapped potentiality present in us all. The label, and associated plaudits, is merely applied to one who packages discovery in a theory that makes it consistent with tradition. Yet, genius is the merely the outcome of a recursive process that must first be discovered and intentionally pursued. The discovery associated with genius is the manifest product of a process that is motivated by the unrelenting struggle to solve a particular problem within a system that the system cannot solve; a problem that only an unconditioned mind can perceive and no-one established within the system can see. Does this not characterise the meta-modern movement as a whole; to ask questions of our culture, of existence, and our knowledge, that the established institutions and their members cannot perceive? Moreover, genius starts with a discovery; a discovery of the process by which discoveries are made, and a process then applied recursively over time. It is this discovery of process that I believe can be facilitated, which is then key to synthesis of perspectives.
I am sure the reader may doubt me, or may struggle to grasp my meaning. Yet, I ask the reader to consider their own experience reading thus far; are you experiencing this process of understanding as you read? Let us, though, address the sources of the scepticism; first, that I understand this process of discovery for I have provided no such proof, and second, that discovery can be facilitated.
An example of discovery from the history of science
Let us look objectively at what Einstein achieved as a necessary precursor to the quantum revolution. In his explanation of the photoelectric effect, Einstein discovered what was missing from our understanding of light (particle) and justified it within theory that explained novel light phenomena. This particle theory of light, together with what was already known (wave), were complementary parts of something more complex (photon). Ken Wilbur has already explained something similar (holons), and yet people didnʼt understand or didn't accept Ken's theory either. Here I have presented a descriptive explanation of what Einstein achieved, but what we require is an understanding of how he achieved it, so we can also learn it for ourselves. Yet, this begs the question as to how do we understand Einsteinʼs process of discovery?
Yet, consider an alternative; if we were to understand the process by which discoveries are made, then surely we could recreate the necessary conditions within which discovery can occur. We could presumably examine the historical circumstances surrounding the quantum revolution and understand how Einstein made his discoveries. Whilst one could explain this and try to convince the reader of an explanation, one they have not yet experienced themselves, it begs the question whether this would actually help the reader understand discovery. Can discovery be taught as knowledge? Just imagine if we have an epistemology sufficient to explain discovery. Would a description of discovery be sufficient for us to learn it for ourselves, even if justified by explanation of the empirical facts from the history of science? It seems discovery must be experienced and learned through the experience. So, this leads us into how do we facilitate discovery? At present, we are a culture that emphasises knowledge and proof; discovery packaged within a theory that explains the evidence of observation and presented as empirically justified knowledge. It is a commodity that is produced, disseminated, taught and consumed, and the epistemic entrepreneur richly rewarded for his innovation. It is an individual achievement; yet, the knowledge that results may be sufficient for others to accept it, yet it is insufficient for others to also experience the same process.
Yet, there seems no reason why we cannot recreate the same conditions for the reader. In this way, we present a puzzle to be solved, provide the clues necessary for the reader to make the same discoveries, and guide the reader through the process, such that the reader could experience discovery for themselves. We bypass the whole hierarchy and myth of individual genius, and rather than individualise, idolise and capitalise on it for oneʼs individual benefit, we democratise and collectivise the process instead. Rather than privilege individual achievement under the guise of human progress, which is ultimately self-congratulatory and self-serving, in order to elevate oneself to the top of the intellectual hierarchy, we facilitate a collective achievement instead. Iʼm sure that weʼd agree that given the systemic failures of philosophy, and distrust of knowledge from authority, that this collective individual experience en mass is the solution that we need if we are to make progress as a culture and a species. Namely, it is not sufficient to elevate oneself, to demonstrate oneʼs superiority, but to facilitate the collective experience and elevate us all.
Of course, this begs the question; is such an approach even possible? So let us now examine how we might facilitate the experience of discovery, then consider a philosophical precedent and the barriers within contemporary philosophy, and then consider what the modern intellectual might require to experience the same.
Facilitating discovery
Firstly, discovery isnʼt too hard to conceive; it is a natural process after all. For example, just imagine if a science education started by asking kids to chart the movement of the planets, ask them to plot them on a chart, and produce a model of planetary motion. They would presumably produce the simplest model to fit the data; to put the earth at the centre and connect planetary positions with circles centred around the earth. This is how the crude data seems to present itself. Yet, when we provide them increasingly detailed measurements, which gradually show how it makes a mockery of their early model; then we guide some genius in class to propose a shift in perspective, and then use a computer to show the simpler heliocentric model that results, and then introduce them to Kepler, Galileo, and Newton to explain it. The whole class experiences growing uncertainty, prior to a revelatory conversion; they discover how to discover and subsequently explain it after the fact of their own experience. Hence, they experience the dynamic nature of understanding, learn to embrace uncertainty, and understand discovery in the process; the feeling of making more sense in relation to before. Iʼm sure weʼd agree that this education experience is more true to learning than an education from authority, and the assertion of epistemic facts, and the training to be certain.
A philosophical precedent
Now, although this wonʼt convince the modern intellectual, the principle is nothing new; Plato wrote about these experiences. In the Meno, Plato describes the process by which a reader can experience knowledge as a form of recollection. In the Theaetetus, Socrates demonstrates the process of dialogos, leading his student through successive stages of the process, before ending the dialogue abruptly without a satisfactory answer. He even provides an explanation of his role in this process as a midwife to help deliver knowledge in his student. Indeed, the dialogue could even be considered as midwife to the reader; the dialogue has direction to lead the readerʼs thinking, demonstrates the very dialectic process that the reader must apply, and has a momentum that ends abruptly without gratifying the readerʼs curiosity. It seems designed to inspire the reader to continue the process beyond the end of the dialogue, and provides the necessary tools that the reader needs in order to do so, in order to discover the answer for themself. That is, to apply the dialectic process to their own understanding, and so serve as their own midwife to realise knowledge by their own intentional efforts. One could argue that the instructions to decode the dialogue are encoded within the dialogue itself; a process to be experienced and applied in order to discover how the dialogue should end, were it possible to communicate it with words; to find, through their own experience, the answer to the question posed by the dialogue in the first place: ‘what is knowledge?ʼ.
Of course, this is merely one interpretation of the text. Generations of philosophers have argued, and still argue, over the interpretation of the dialogues. Yet, they are entrenched in their own particular interpretation, and resistant to changing their mind. Contemporary philosophers demand argumentative rigour, like an epistemic zimmer frame, before questioning the close-minded certainty of their own interpretation. Accordingly, they impose the same limiting constraints and glacial pace of progress upon everybody else, and yet still refuse the change their mind.
Yet, despite this entrenched resistance, there is no reason why my interpretation cannot be applied as a tool for the communication of wisdom and tested in experience. If it succeeds, would this not render any doubt or further argument redundant? It would simultaneously facilitate a revelatory experience, whilst also making a mockery of the whole history of epistemic rigidity and close-minded certainty. To quote Hegel, once again, it would reduce the occupations of many a “man of mature mind to the level of facts, exercises and games for children”. Or to quote a recent metamodern colloquialism, to say “ok, boomer” to tradition, and speak directly to the public; the real audience to whom wisdom should speak.
Most importantly, it would also make way for the metamodern generation of more complex thinkers to step up and take centre stage. Finally, we can decentralise and democratise global systemic problem-solving, rather than be mediated through the simplistic filter of the modern institutions and the arrogant intellectuals they produce; academics and western leaders. Given the urgency for transformative progress that we require, would this not simultaneously be both the necessary lesson in humility we require, and also the means by which we achieve it?
Barriers within contemporary philosophy
Since Plato, the emphasis within philosophy has been on reason and argument as the means of communication. In the entire history of wisdom, reason was the means of its articulation; yet, the perennial problem of wisdom is not merely in the attaining, but in its communication such that others can unambiguously understand it. This is the problem that I have long wrestled with, to discover the necessary means, and strive to make it coherent.
This is the purpose of my philosophy. Remember, this isnʼt rocket science we are talking about here; this is the human experience. Self-understanding doesnʼt just come from an education in philosophy, or independent philosophical inquiry; it can come through an experiential self-inquiry. This is how wisdom has been achieved in the past. Yet, the internet has now supplemented canonical and disciplinary knowledge with unprecedented access to the whole history of knowledge, other cultures and spiritual traditions of the world. In this period of unprecedented, collective and decentralised process of self-inquiry, is it not unreasonable that one person might pursue inquiry to its fully coherent end, and develop the means to communicate it? I make no such claim that it is me. Yet, are you not sceptically curious now to find out?
Modern philosophy focuses intently on details, precision of meaning, and explanation. This has necessitated the division of knowledge and cognitive labour, and have lost sight of how it all fits together. Is this not endemic in modern Western reasoning now; the failure to see the bigger picture, necessary to preempt foreseeable crises that the less epistemically short-sighted can clearly see? Might this not explain why leaders have failed to act preemptively on climate change, despite years of advance warning. Indeed, contemporary philosophy does not see reason merely as the means by which wisdom is articulated as knowledge, nor do they see their task as the humble endeavour to interpret wisdom of the past. For the contemporary analytic philosopher, the means has now become an end unto itself. Reason functions as the means by which knowledge is produced. There is no understanding of the process by which knowledge becomes understanding, because for the analytic philosopher knowledge is an end in itself, and understanding remains rigid, static and unchanging.
Contemporary philosophy now produces knowledge on an industrial scale, creating both an intractable mess and an epistemological knot, and yet understanding never changes. Hence, the necessity to bypass the whole messy tradition entirely. For those who know the story, the parallels with Copernicus and geocentric model of the solar system should be obvious.
A Copernican shift for the Modern Intellectual
Of course, a Copernican re-enactment wonʼt work to convert the modern intellectual, but the same principle applies; the challenge is merely greater and the requirements are different. Firstly, this conversion process becomes harder to achieve as one becomes more epistemically constrained, closed and certain of our own established perspective. This is similar to the natural neuroelasticity of a child becoming increasingly plasticised with age and a modern education, which teaches certainty, the adversarial nature of discourse, defensiveness, and intolerance of uncertainty. This adversarial, close-minded, certainty peaks with the exemplar of epistemic rigidity that is the modern thinker and, indeed, is still promoted as a virtue by the contemporary humanities. Yet, the evidence that this process is possible has already been demonstrated objectively within the history of science; evidence that it is possible to transcend the constraints of our understanding, make discoveries, justify them in spite of what we already believe we know, subsequently integrate them into, and then progress our understanding.
It is this progress in the history of science that I provide an explicit explanation of in my thesis; an explanation that first necessitates a demonstration of the same progress within philosophy. From this I must infer an underlying process by which understanding forms, and by which our understanding can become more conscious. It is the same process, intentionally applied, by which we can make progress in our own understanding. I must then justify this first principles explanation empirically through explanation of the history of scientific progress. Again, I donʼt expect you to believe me; but are you not intrigued to find out whether I can follow through on this bold assertion. Moreover, are you not intrigued to see if you can piece together the clues and realise the conclusion for yourself before the end is reached?
Secondly, the modern intellectual is already familiar with the heliocentric model of the solar system, so a Copernican shift to an objective perspective for understanding the solar system wonʼt work for us. The result must be genuinely novel and help us to resolve an outstanding problem. For example, a shift in perspective that resolves an explicit inconsistency between two well established theories; perhaps at the infinite and infinitesimal scales of measurement; cosmology and fundamental physics, general relativity and quantum mechanics respectively.
To reconcile these two incommensurable theories, we must now confront the illusion of objectivity, and must now add ourselves back into the picture of reality. Namely, to recognise that Newton effectively reduced the apparent complexity of reality by removing the human perspective from the equation. This simplified approach to understanding reality was sufficient such that we could make progress in our understanding of it. Yet, just as it was prior to the quantum revolution, to progress our understanding further, we must now question our foundational assumptions upon which the modern intellectual endeavour has been constructed. This time we must add humanity back in, but not the shallow self-concept of modernity; the belief that it is manʼs observations that dictate how reality behaves, but that we are both an emergent aspect of and integral part within reality itself. Philosophy requires a new, more objective, more complex, more foundational ontology than the self.
What I outline mirrors the quantum revolution, albeit on a larger scale, yet with more significant, transformative and world-changing implications. Indeed, is this not the scale of solution that the meta-crisis demands?
Remember at the outset, the stated purpose was to provide reasons to believe that synthesis is possible, and that the seemingly incommensurable barriers between stages can be overcome. If this in itself is not enough to convince you, it should be sufficient to get you thinking. if you have made it this far, have you not started to feel your scepticism start to dissolve? If so, then the process has already started.
So obviously, this necessitates another scientific revolution; a more complex re-enactment, on a grander scale, of what has gone before. Just as it was with Einstein and the quantum revolution, a discovery of what is missing once again, which together with what is already known, are complementary parts of something more complex. The resultant theory would reconcile seemingly inconsistent phenomena with a coherent explanation. Indeed, it should yield testable predictions too, just as Einstein predicted the photoelectric effect from his speculative particle theory of light, which was later tested and confirmed.
Of course, I canʼt expect you to take my word for this at this stage. Yet, earlier I provided positive reasons to believe that a synthesis might be possible, i have supplemented them with reasons to believe that discovery can be taught through experience, and supplemented that with the necessary clues upon which to ponder. Again, this is a claim without justification just yet.
Let us pause for reflection. If you, the reader, reflect on your experience of reading thus far, then hopefully you have already started to experience this process. Indeed, you can test if this is the case. If you re-read each of the paragraphs above, re-read each of the previous articles I have posted; do you understand them differently now? If so, I have now also brought your awareness to the process you are already experiencing.
Indeed, the reader might reflect back on each previous reflective pause. At the outset, I provided a descriptive introduction to the process, then to reflect on their experience of reading, their experience of a process, and become aware of process by testing it. Additionally, I provided a memetic representation of an idea, and then reasoning to reframe its interpretation. This is part of the design; to describe the process, then I try to let the reader experience it, and bring their awareness to their experience. In the former paragraph, I encourage the reader to test if they are actually experiencing this process, and so bring awareness to the process, their experience of it, and it’s effects.
To work it must be explained after the fact of the experience, such that when it is tested, the effect is a surprising reveal of a genuine change in understanding. If I suggest it too early, then the test will fail. If I make no mention of the process, then the experience may go unnoticed and unremarked.
An Experiential Process
Discovery is a process that many of us have already experienced, from the mundane revelation of a forgotten name, or the moment of epiphany when we find the solution to a puzzle. We have all experienced the underlying process as knowledge learned tends towards understanding, and the experience when we finally grasp it; when what previously was problematic, finally makes sense. I have merely brought the reader’s awareness to the process and its dynamic nature whilst in the midst of the experience. Discovery, is what is experienced when the pieces finally cohere and everything becomes clear; it is the experience that awaits the reader at some later stage in the process.
I discovered this process and applied it recursively to my own understanding, then attempted to reconceptualise, systematise my understanding and develop the means to make it communicable. Yet, I have done so with an awareness of the state of contemporary analytic philosophy, its shallow self-understanding, closed-mindedness and its systemic antipathy to wisdom. I have worked to develop the means to communicate it such that the reader can experience the same process, and so accept the explanation of what they have just experienced. Is this not what philosophy is meant to be about; not merely to argue over details, and produce knowledge as commodity to exchanged and accumulated, but to help us understand ourselves through our own process of inquiry?
Earlier, I tried to bring awareness to the process that the reader might be experiencing. Scepticism is the first stage, which the more epistemically constrained will find harder to transcend than others; curiosity is next, followed by intrigue, perhaps followed by a sense of insecurity, and then if you let your imagination sufficiently extend, perhaps a fearful revelation of the world changing implications. Yet, I have highlighted the potential that awaits; there is nothing to fear, and so much we must yet achieve. I have done this without argument, reference or trying to assert any knowledge. Having brought the readers
awareness to the process you are experiencing; I have also helped you understand it. Of course, each individual understanding is different; some are more rigid in their requirements than others. Regardless, though, are you not intrigued to continue reading to see where this process leads?
The question I now ask you to reflect on. Would you rather know the answer in the form of knowledge and a rigorous scientific proof, or would you rather be lead through the process and realise it for yourself? Of course, the intellect wants certainty, which the modern thinker clings to like a security blanket they have yet to outgrow. Yet, the meta-modern generation, having grown up in the midst of epistemic uncertainty, are more familiar with the experience. It is time to bypass the gatekeepers who dictate the pace of progress, and this revelatory and transformative experience is the payoff to their lived experiential inquiry and autodidactic investment.
Perhaps there still remains doubt in the mind of the rational sceptics amongst us; it is easy for me to make assertions without substantial content. How can I prove that I know in advance of providing an argument for the intellect to appraise? How can I surpass the perpetual demand that someone must prove that they are worth talking to, before they are granted audience and considered worthy of being heard. How much evidence will it take? Yet, to provide proof at this stage might gratify the desire, but it would spoil the experiential process. It will come at the conclusion of this thesis. Yet, the intended audience for this dialogue is not, in fact, the intellect, but the imagination to whom this work speaks.
What is missing from our scientific worldview?
So what more must I add to win over the indomitable sceptic. Let us consider then what is missing from our scientific worldview; I have already provided clues already. In addition to entropy, the universal tendency towards disorder, there is a complementary principle missing. This is the universal tendency towards complexity, evident most obviously in life, and the evolutionary process. It is a dynamic principle manifest now in technology, society, indeed, also our own experience, the process of outgrowing our former intellectual limitations, and the emergence of more complex modes of cognition, and increasing self-awareness.
Of course, in order to reconcile these complementary principles, we must infer a further order of complexity, and ontological principle, of which entropy and complexity are aspects. As represented in the meme above, this would be consciousness, which we have an awareness and a self-reflective experience of. From this perspective, this tendency towards complexity, albeit still in the process of being realised, is also manifest in this historical phase, in a further evolution of consciousness. It is the awareness of this process that is in the process of emerging.
From this perspective, we can note that contemporary analytic philosophy is not the loving home of wisdom, but static, stagnant, self-reinforcing system of self-descriptive ignorance; and it is standing in the way of progress. For the demonstrably insufficient, reductive, static, unconscious and simplistic modern self-concept lies at the heart of Western cultural institutional systems; education, economics, justice, governance, and our entire ways of being.
In spite of this demonstrable insufficiency, who would have thought that to re-introduce wisdom into the contemporary West, it would necessitate an understanding of the history of science, to emulate the same progress in philosophy, another scientific revolution, and demonstrate, as necessary inference, that God* exists, and is everything including us. Moreover, that it must also come from outside of the tradition, because the tradition is closed to even hear it. Indeed, because no-one wants to know the truth, it must do so via experiential process, revelation and collective metanoia. All of which is only necessary to speak truth to the dogmatism of tradition, the arrogance and self-certainty of the close-minded intellect, and tread lightly around the fragile ego. And yet, with humility and imagination, I hope we can now also see that the same idea is represented, at least in part, in the meme above.
*If the word God provokes an antagonistic reaction, you realise you are reacting to a word you also donʼt actually understand, and reacting to your own perception of its meaning. Yet, this is the very language that the religious mind requires to become part of our collective ‘weʼ. The intellectuals amongst us should now appreciate that there is a deeper meaning of the term and recognise the antagonistic irrationality of their reaction. Is it so wrong to choose humility and give the other side a win, in order to win them over. Indeed, is it not for the intellectual to help others understand, and to do so with their language, rather than impose upon them our own?
A maieutic purpose for the memetic representation.
I believe that i have demonstrated that the memetic format is a powerful and concise means of representing big ideas, but it is one that is vague and subject to difference in interpretation. Yet, I hope that I have demonstrated that when it is complemented with narrative reasoning as a means of explanation, it becomes a powerful tool for the communication of ideas.
Yet, the memetic format can serve a further purpose along the very lines I have outlined in this argument. It is the very vagueness of the memetic representation that makes it an important tool in my methodological approach. For if we consider that any idea can be represented in a variety of different memetic forms, each of which can be interpreted in various ways. Yet, if they are all partial representations of the same idea, then only the correct interpretation will make coherent sense of them all. In this instance, all the memes are clues to help the reader discover the right answer, and when supported with dialogue, it helps lead the readers' thinking in the right direction. No argument is necessary, the correct answers come as revelation, and an experience of metanoia.
Indeed, the same argument has been made about Plato’s dialogues as well (Gill 2012). Plato’s missing dialogue, Philosophos, promised after the Sophist and the Statesman, is the dialogue that cannot be written, but encoded within the dialogues as a whole. Once one achieves the right understanding, then the apparent contradictions between dialogues resolve themselves, their interpretation becomes coherent, and the Philosophos is now revealed to the reader. The memetic representation is a more concise and versatile tool to facilitate the same experience.
Yet, there is a further role for the meme in this project. If this historical phase is one of decentralised inquiry, then the variety of lived experiences of this historical process have been documented within memes. A generation grown up on the internet, amidst epistemic uncertainty, reluctant existential inquiry, have already experienced the process I have described. This decentralised inquiry by trial and error into authentic ways of being, and the attempts to make sense of the complexity of experience, has been encapsulated in the memetic representation of ideas. A collective, creative endeavour, freely created and shared, democratically selected, seen the highest representations elevated and promoted, and then emerge into the collective imagination.
This memetic historical record is another source of empirical evidence in need of human explanation.
Reframing historical experience
At the start of the first post, I stated
“by understanding of shared history, we experience a revelatory reframing, and learn to see our own knowledge and experience in a new light”
It is not only the manifest historical events that we must explain, but our own experience of history as well; our personal history. The memetic historical record represents the history of experience of many of the tribes that have emerged in the course of this process. Indeed, our whole intellectual and experiential history is available to us as never before; for we have recorded it all online.
A review of this memetic history is one means by which we bring awareness to our own historical experience, and the accompanying philosophy is the means of bringing understanding to it.
Note that, in the first post, I also said:
“After all that we’ve experienced and learned during this chaotic phase of history, we now need to bring awareness to our historical experience, understand the process we have lived through, and see the trajectory towards which we have been evolving, so we can collectively realise a better future and choose to achieve it. “
I wonder if these words now read differently? I imagine that they may have seemed a well-meaning, romantic truism devoid of meaning upon first read. Yet, what I have now outlined is a means by which we can achieve it.
This is the real purpose behind a scientific form of philosophy, or more appropriately, given the impoverishment of philosophy as a concept, a science of self-understanding. By becoming aware of our shared history, and a philosophically-grounded explanation of it, we can better understand our own experience of it. As a result, we can understand the process we have experienced, and the process we have lived through, and so extrapolate forwards to foresee the trajectory towards which this process is ha been leading. With understanding of what awaits, we can then choose to actively realise it. This presents a necessary alternative to dystopian future we already perceive as what awaits if nothing changes; a future that has been foretold for years, and yet, only recently are we collectively in the process of understanding.
An unfolding process
Everything I present is still dynamic and in the process of becoming coherent; the big picture is now quite clear, the details are coming into focus and my articulation finally becoming more cogent. I have written 750,000 words, starting vague and incoherent, and now, recursively and re-iteratively, refined into 100,000 words that are becoming more coherent. Yet, I don't speak the language of the intellect, and the process would happen much faster if there were someone else with whom to dialogue, and a cowriter to help provide assistance, and feedback to make sure it is cogent and able to communicable to the modern thinkers to whom it must also speak.
Yet, I wonder also whether we wish to see this process become self-propagating, to be experienced collectively, to elevate us all. Or for one amongst us will experience revelation, and in the name of their self-serving interest and individual pursuit of glory, will appropriate what is revealed, reduce it into descriptive knowledge, to elevate themselves to the top of the established hierarchy, and end the potential for self-propagation before it even begins.
The Possibility of Synthesis
In this post, I hope to have inspired positive reasons to believe that synthesis might be possible, and in the previous post, presented anecdotal evidence from the gathering that it is possible. In a final post, I will present positive reasons to doubt the established liberal worldview; one which served us thus far, but is now becoming rabid as it tries to cling onto security and control of a world it demonstrably no longer understands. This is the penultimate chapter of my thesis. It is intended to serve as coup-de gras for the modern egocentric worldview, and a necessary epistemic coup dʼetat to allow more complex perspectives to take centre stage.
Together, this will present a trilogy of: 1) a positive destination as a potential to be realised, 2) positive reasons to believe it is possible, and 3) positive reasons to doubt what we believe we know. The explanatory gap creates the necessary conditions to step humbly into uncertainty, and having already introduced the reader to the process, and what awaits them if they do so, to then intentionally embrace it, and see where the process leads; with the expectation that revelatory awakening lies somewhere along the way.
Indeed, this is the aim of my thesis; to lead the reader through this process. It is not a typical rigorous, epistemic argument to produce knowledge, assert a certain truth and adversarial effort to convince the reader. Of course, it will satisfy the epistemic demands of the intellect, and meet the standards of knowledge, but wonʼt conform to the methodological expectations of tradition. It will be objective and empirically justified, but the aim of my thesis is an argument towards coherence; for the reader to gradually overcome their own resistance, understand the process through their own experience of it, and for the thesis to retrospectively make coherent sense once reading is complete. Hopefully, the reader has already started to experience the process already.
We might note that I started out with a description of a process, then as an experience of the process, then awareness of the process that is being experienced, then understanding the process, and application of the process learned to understand the thesis; the intentional and recursive process of understanding, recursive re-reading and retrospective sense-making of what has already been read. The intention to be revelatory and revolutionary.
The same process can be applied also to our history; to review the manifest events of our recent past, to bring awareness to journey we have been on, and understanding to the process we have lived through. The intention is a revelatory reframing; a universal process, yet the individual experience of which is necessarily unique; contingent upon the historical experience of the individual and the partiality of perspective they possess. This is the necessary key to resolve the inconsistencies in our historical understanding, to retrospectively make more coherent sense of our past experience, to see a bigger picture and our partial perspective within it, and ultimately, to a synthesis of perspectives.
It is this same process by which we achieve synthesis in our dividuated knowledge; the recursive application of this process to deconstruct oneʼs knowledge into coherent, more complex and comprehensive understanding.
My thesis merely intends to signpost the way, address the intellectual obstacles, provide the necessary clues and explain the process by which answers can be found. Then it is up to the reader to work it out and, in so doing, experience their understanding becoming ever more coherent. A process through which one experiences revelatory discovery, and discover their own genius in the process. This is the only way we achieve a synthesis and become a coherent ‘weʼ. We must have the tools necessary to work it out for ourselves; necessary to bring coherence to our own understanding.
To whom must this speak?
Now, I hope you understand why I am new to the conversation; we all expect knowledge to cohere with our tribal norms, the language of our tribe, be coherent with our established understanding and consistent with our established self-concept. I have shared the incommensurable perspective from which I join the conversation. Until this very recent stage, I have had no tribal community, had no-one with whom to dialogue to help make my understanding coherent. However, so far in my endeavour to communicate, I’ve encountered close-minded incuriosity, triggered others into shutting down the conversation when I use the language of other tribes or make mention of philosophy, or provoke aporia everywhere I have asked for help. The exception, of course, comes when conversing with the unconditioned and open-minded, yet with whom the conservation goes no further.
Given my experience thus far, I am sure that the reader might appreciate the challenges of this approach to self-inquiry, methodological development and attempts at communication: 1) experiential inquiry within the work or starve constraints of western culture, or 2) that the development of this novel methodological approach might have been possible in the publish or perish world of academia; or 3) or possible within the constraints of contemporary academic philosophy; averse to attempts at innovation, and the exemplar of close-minded, epistemic arrogance and fragile ego. Despite numerous attempts, I could not even pass the gatekeepers. Yet, for the very same reasons, do we believe that wisdom might possibility come from within the constraints of western tradition.
Yet, in spite of all resistance, if you want to understand my motivation for why I keep persisting, despite the demoralising rejections and entrenchment of resistance, I stated it clearly in the gathering brochure; our future is an undetermined superposition of higher order of evolution and a higher order of natural selection. From the perspective of consciousness it is apotheosis or apoptosis. The choice of which is ours; to die unconscious and fighting, or bring consciousness to the process we are experiencing, transcend the limitations of modernity and the blind unfolding of history, and transform this degenerating cultural system and realise a better future.
So, to achieve the transformational change we require, it is not a revolution of old vs new we require. Instead, it is a collective revelation, a cultural transformation, an inversion of established hierarchy, and total systems evolution at every scale across culture. I wonder now if you are starting to believe that it might be possible?
At the gathering, we heard that we metamodern outsiders do not have any power; I also heard the concession that emerge it is not what emergence needs. Yet, I believe that we have more power than we presently conceive, and I also heard that emerge is also still evolving. We could become the voice of a fully coherent ‘weʼ around which we can all start to recohere, or at the very least, become the means of its expression and dissemination; to kick start its propagation. This is my approach to achieve it: to create the right conditions for discovery, inspire belief in the potential of synthesis and coherence, lead the reader through dialogue to the edge of revelation, and then create doubt in oneʼs established worldview, such that one can recognise its insufficiency and with a more coherent alternative at hand, choose to leave the old worldview behind. The experience is one of revelation, or as Kuhn, described a conversion; to step into and see oneself as part of a more coherent whole, transform our understanding of ourself, each other and the world, and re-imagine a better future. And then, collectively, as a coherent ‘weʼ, together win everyone else around, and together we start to change it.
A process already underway
I stated earlier that I could not pass the gatekeepers, yet my research proposal did. In a beautiful proof of principle, my idea found a voice within, and was elevated to the top of the hierarchy. Modernity is already over, but they donʼt want to admit it to us yet. For, truth makes a mockery of their claims to intellectual superiority, by revealing the deficiency of the self-knowledge, their epistemic rigidity, dogmatic adherence to the simplistic interpretation of wisdom, closed-minded refusal to engage in open dialogue with demonstrably more complex perspectives. Indeed, for them to publish what they know, they must admit that they are one half of the problem, protagonist and self-reinforcing proponent of the culture war, and so admit the error of their ways. Academic philosophy, as it is, and bound by modern constraints, is the systemic barrier to progress; not merely to the emergence of wisdom in the West, but to progress as a culture and a species.
Yet, this change from within is a necessary part of the process. It is empirical proof that it is both possible to progress between stages, and that even the most dogmatic conservative thinker can also change their mind. The key to the achievement is to provide the necessary clues, and let them discover it themselves.
How else can you speak truth to the arrogant and close-minded, who ignore what they fail to understand, and blind to their own ignorance, other than for it to come from one within. One who speaks in their own language, has the recognised authority to be heard, and can argue to their own rigorous standards, that they donʼt know anything at all. Revelation for the close-minded contemporary analytic philosopher comes, in the only way it can, as self-elenchus. Of course, they donʼt want to tell us of their fault; they want to present themselves as saviours when the work is already complete. The intellectual elites who now transcend their former peers, mock the philosophy of which they once were part, and present themselves as the philosopher kings who stand above us all.
Now, whilst change within is important, we cannot afford to wait for the modern philosopher to finish, nor to let them claim it as their own; to perpetuate the hubris of tradition, the myth of intellectual superiority, the established cult of ego, and glacial pace of progress. Indeed, it seems self-evident that progress should not be dictated by those who were an unconscious cause of the problem that they have failed to solve. The whole tradition requires a necessary lesson in humility, and the close-minded arrogance and systemic ignorance requires a very public shaming. As a necessary complement to self-revelation they have already achieved, humility requires some necessary retrospective self-awareness.
Only then, can we stand up together in uncertainty, and make our collective voices heard. Only then, can we point out the systemic problems of modernity, a degenerating cultural system, seen so obviously form the edges, and yet the established cannot see, and then work together to overcome them. Only then, can we start to dictate the pace of progress, and do so all together. Only then, can we transform the institutions of modernity, rather perpetuate the obsolete, and demonstrably insufficient, incremental old. Only then, can we embrace cultural transformation, institutional reformation, and more diverse and complex ways of being.
Preemptive recognition and emergence
Now, the following might be preemptive; perhaps the readers is not yet sufficiently convinced. Yet, perhaps we might also anticipate the future prospect, that it might retrospectively make more sense.
Given what I have already presented, and whilst the world continues to degenerate, I wonder if I must finish my book which no-one wants to read, try to get published without an established audience, in order to prove myself worthy of being heard. Or must I present an incommensurable form of philosophy in the format that tradition demands, publish first via peer review and judged by the, seemingly, cognitively incapable of understanding it and unwilling to even try? Or must I commodify my work, and its stated revolutionary ambitions, and launch it uncritically online? Try to find an audience organically for a process that requires both attention and the intention to understand? Or release partial aspects of my work, knowing its coherence comes only from the whole? Hope to be noticed amongst the noise, and wait to be recognised and promoted by the already established, who seem adverse to even hearing?
Or, I wonder, might we recognise potential of what I have shared, in advance of it becoming entirely manifest and coherent? In spite of what we believe we know and what we think emergence must look like, instead choose just to hear it out? If won over, perhaps we might choose to work together to communicate and promote it, and start to build a self-propagating, collective movement for cultural transformation. It comes only at the cost of our certainty and our cynicism; is that such a price to pay for the potential I outline? Then we make use of the established intellectual infrastructure, and communications networks we have built, to start a self-propagating revelatory awakening; a ripple from point of origin, becoming self-reinforcing and self-promoting, into a tidal wave that sweeps our culture, the wider world and, ultimately, the species.
All we have to lose is our epistemic chains, and in so doing, we seize the means of epistemic production; not as act of violence, but as critical emergence. A meeting of emergent more complex new superseding established rigid old; both of whom are now progressing, from incommensurable perspectives, towards a common goal. This represents an inflection point in our progress towards wisdom, an inward turn for philosophy, a meta-revolution, a return of wisdom to the west, and a more enlightened means of progress.
What follows from my thesis, from perspective I present, is a manifesto for a revolutionary re-imagining of our humanity, our cultural socioeconomic systems, and our collective future. The questions I must ask: Are we willing to wait until I have finished, and whether I must do it entirely by myself?
Gill ML, 2012, “Philosophos; Plato’s missing dialogue” Oxford University Press.