The Groundwork For Idealism Part I – The Philosophical Idealist

Argument(s) For Non-Dual Idealism

Argument One

Axioms

Axiom 1

Spatial-Temporal sensibility is a nomological condition of all objectivity (i.e., Space and Time are irreducible conditions of all knowledge).

Axiom 2

Space and time are just spatial-temporal sensibility (all that space and time are, is conditions of objectivity/knowledge).

Definitions

Defintion 1 — Subject

The precondition for the possibility of all objectivity (i.e., the precondition for the possibility of all knowledge).

Definition 2 — Object

That whose precondition for possibility is subject (i.e., all possible knowledge).

Definition 3 — Self-Objectification

Self-consciousness, self-awareness, self-cognizance.

Definition 4 — Pure Subject

A subject which never objectifies itself.

Demonstrations

Demonstration 1

Premise 1: contained in the aggregate of all knowledge, is knowledge of the definition of “Subject.” [this is a true assumption, since the definition of “subject,” is necessarily in the aggregate of all possible knowledge]
Premise 2: Subject is object of itself, i.e., subjectivity is object to subjectivity. [as per definition 2 and premise 1]
Conclusion 1: therefore, subject is self-objectifying, (i.e., subject is self-conscious, self-aware, self-cognizant). [as per definition 3 and premise 2]

Demonstration 2

Premise 3: contained in the aggregate of all knowledge, is knowledge that subjectivity is the object of subjectivity. (i.e., contained in the aggregate of all knowledge is knowledge that subject is self-conscious). [as per premise 2]
Premise 4: contained in the aggregate of all knowledge, is knowledge that “subjectivity is the object of subjectivity” is also the object of subjectivity. (i.e., contained in the aggregate of all knowledge is knowledge that subject is self-conscious of the fact that it is self-conscious). [as per premise 3]
Premise 5: this process of subjective self-objectification continues ad infinitum (i.e., this process of self-consciousness continues ad infinitum). [this is an assumption which seems reasonable in light of premises 3 and 4]
Conclusion 2: the process of self-consciousness unfolds as an infinite regress. [as per premise 5]

Demonstration 3

Premise 6: object presupposes subject. [as per definition 2]
Premise 7: the aggregate infinite regress of self-awareness is itself an object. [this is an assumption which seems reasonable in virtue of the fact that the abstraction of an aggregate infinite set of self-awareness is itself an object of knowledge]
Premise 8: the aggregate infinite regress of self-awareness presupposes a subject. [as per premises 6 and 8]
Premise 9: The subject which is presupposed by the aggregate of self-awareness must itself remain beyond the aggregate, lest it be part of the aggregate (i.e., the object cannot be the precondition of itself, therefore the subject must remain separate from it). [as per definition 2]
Conclusion 3: Therefore, the aggregate infinite regress of self-awareness presupposes a subject which itself does not lie within the aggregate infinite regress of self-awareness, (i.e., the aggregate infinite regress of self-awareness presupposes a subject which is itself without self-awareness/a subject which is without self-objectification). [as per premise 9]

Demonstration 4

Premise 10: a subjectivity which never objectifies itself is free from the conditions of objectivity, (i.e., it is beyond spatial-temporal sensibility). [as per axiom 1]
Premise 11: the subject which never objectifies itself, therefore, is totally beyond Space and beyond Time. [as per axiom 2 and premise 10]
Premise 12: the subject which never objectifies itself must be an eternal, immutable and indivisible ontology (insofar as these predicates are only intelligible in Space and in Time). [as per premise 11]
Conclusion 4: Pure subjectivity, (i.e., pure consciousness) is an eternal, immutable, indivisible reality. [as per definition 4 and premise 12]

Argument two

In this section, I want to take the liberty of clarifying and simplifying the argument format of “argument one.”

First of all we start with the “axioms,” which are basic and irreducible assumptions which serve as the foundation for my entire argument structure.

Our sense of Space is nothing more than a mental construct, a means by which the world is rendered intelligible.

The first axiom specifies that “Spatial-Temporal sensibility is a nomological condition of all objectivity (i.e., Space and Time are irreducible conditions of all knowledge).” What I mean to say by this is simple: what we call “Space” and “Time” are things that refer to the conditions by which our knowledge of the world is made possible. In other words, I am only capable of knowing anything only insofar as it is fundamentally conditioned by Time or by Space. This is obvious: for instance, when I make the claim that “I know X person exists,” it can only be true in virtue of the fact that what I call “knowledge of X person’s existence” is a function of knowing that X persons exists at Y time, and at Z space. Alternatively, if someone were to ask me to identify the difference between A object and B object, I would only be able to do so insofar as I could identify that A object and Be object occupy distinct times and distinct spaces, otherwise they would be indistinguishable. You get the picture.

Our sense of Time is nothing more than a mental construct, a means by which the world is rendered intelligible.

The second axiom specifies something much more crucial and controversial. It specifies that “Space and time are just spatial-temporal sensibility (i.e., all that space and time are, is conditions of objectivity/knowledge).” In other words, axiom 2 states that there is no reality to Time or Space outside of the mind to which it is a condition of knowledge. Let me say this again, but this time let me cut out the fluff: there is no reality to Time or Space outside of the mind.

It is the second axiom, in particular, which is crucial for my articulation of metaphysical idealism, the ontological doctrine that reality is fundamentally mental and/or that the ground of all being is mind. That is to say, this second axiom launches the project of idealism by specifically targeting and deconstructing the concepts of Space and Time (entities which are colloquially thought to exist absolutely, in-and-of-themselves, “out-there in the world,”) and exposing them for what they truly are–nothing more than mere forms of knowledge by which mind makes sense of itself.

Question: But what exactly do I mean by mind, when I say that Time and Space are the forms of knowledge by which mind makes sense of itself?

Answer: I am specifically referring to the word “mind,” in two different-but-related senses—I am referring to “subjectivity,” and I am referring to “pure subjectivity.” (as you will see later, subjectivity and pure subjectivity are really one in the same).

In my philosophical system, “subjectivity” corresponds to the conventional, everyday egoic “mind” which we identify with ourselves. “Pure subjectivity,” on the other hand corresponds to the non-conventional, non-egoic collective unconsciousness, the metaphysical substratum of all reality, which I call “Pure Mind.”

The existence of “subjectivity”/”mind” is self-evident. It is the most obvious thing in all existence. Just think back to Descartes’ famous decree: “I think, therefore I am.”

It is the existence of “pure subjectivity”/”Pure Mind,” which takes a bit more convincing, but I am sure that by the end of this post I will be able to convince the reader that such a thing as “Pure Mind,” truly does exist. However, in order to do this, I will first need to clarify the rest “argument one.”

In demonstration 1, I concluded that “subjectivity,”/”mind” is self-objectifying. That is, in demonstration 1, I concluded a fact that is known to all of us: that our conventional, egoic minds are recursively self-aware of their own awareness, i.e., my mind is aware that it is aware, and my mind is aware that it is aware that it is aware, and so on ad infinitum.

In demonstration 2, I concluded that this process of recursive self-awareness unfolded as an infinite regress, because there was, in principle, no reason to suggest that the recursive process of self-awareness would somehow arbitrarily and suddenly stop.

In demonstration 3, I concluded that outside of the infinite regress of self-awareness/subjective self-objectification, there must be an awareness/a subjectivity, which exists outside of all self-awareness/self-objectification–a pure subjectivity. The rationale of my argument was as follows:

The aggregate of all self-awareness contains in itself all possible instances of self-objectification.
This aggregate is a form of knowledge. (That the aggregate if a form of knowledge is demonstrable from the following: any conception/abstraction which is not self-contradictory nor incoherent counts as a form of knowledge, and there is nothing self-contradictory nor incoherent in the postulation of an infinite set such as the aggregate of the recursive function of self-awareness. Therefore, the aggregate is a form of knowledge).
All knowledge is object.
Therefore, this aggregate, being a form of knowledge, is an object.
No object exists without subject; therefore, the aggregate exists as an object for some subject.
The subject in question is an additional subject which has not already been defined as part of the aggregate/infinite set. (The rationale for this is as follows: the subject in question cannot be part of the aggregate, because if it was it would be a self-objectifying subjectivity, but the infinite set of self-awareness is already defined as containing all possible instances of self-objectification. Therefore, no additional instance of self-objectification is possible. Therefore the subject in question cannot be an additional instance of self-objectification).
Therefore, the subject must be a subject which does not objectify itself–the subject in question must be a pure subjectivity [as per definition 4]. In other words, the subject in question is a subject which is the precondition of all knowledge, all objectivity, but which remains unknown to itself.

In demonstration 4 I conclude that this pure subjectivity is beyond Time and Space, insofar as Time and Space are nothing more than conditions of objectivity, the very thing which has been transcended by pure subjectivity. Therefore, I conclude that “pure subjectivity”/”pure mind,” exists as an eternal and immutable/changeless reality, insofar as all non-eternity and mutability/change is a product of Time, and exists as an indivisible reality, insofar as all divisibility is a product of Space. Ultimately, pure subjectivity is an immutable, indivisible, eternal ontology.

Conclusion

Recap

In truth, the argument presented in “argument one,” is pretty simple, and can be easily summarized by the following line of thought:

Observation (Demonstrations 1 and 2): “I am aware that I am aware,” “I am aware that I am aware that I aware,” “I am aware that I am aware that I am aware,” and so an ad infinitum.
Question (Demonstration 3): But what is it that is aware?
Answer (Demonstration 4): awareness-itself, which is itself unaware to itself, because the moment awareness-itself becomes aware of itself, it no longer is awareness-itself but instead has “become,” awareness-of-awareness-itself.

In short, the entire structure of “argument one” is meant to draw out the intrinsic difference between: 1. awareness of awareness, and 2. awareness itself/pure awareness. The former corresponds to the definition of “subjectivity”/”mind,” the latter corresponds to the definition of “pure subjectivity”/”pure mind.”

More fundamentally however, the entire structure of the argument is also meant to draw out the fact that there is not true ontological difference between: 1. awareness of awareness and 2. awareness itself/pure awareness. The former, which corresponds to the definition of “self-objectifying subjectivity”/”mind,” is not fundamentally different to the latter, which corresponds to the definition of “pure subjectivity”/”pure mind.” That is to say, our egoic minds are but presuppositions of an underlying unindividuated, ego-less mind. After all, in order for there to be such a thing as a “mind” (awareness-of-awareness-itself) there must be such a thing as a pure mind (awareness-itself).

Religious Parallels

When put into its proper context, my argument for the existence of “pure subjectivity,” is nothing short of an argument for the existence of God. Of course, by “God,” I am not referring to a personal, anthropomorphic God, but rather the God of many philosophically and theologically sophisticated traditions. The God that I have defined as “pure subjectivity”/”pure awareness,” goes by many names in various traditions:

Brahman (Advaita Vedanta [Hinduism])
The Ground of Being (Eckhartian Mysticism [Christianity])
The One (Neo-Platonism [Christianity])
Allah (Sufism [Islam])
The Void (Zen Buddhism)

Here’s a few introductory videos intended to assist the reader in understanding the connections between my concept of the “pure subjectivity,” and the various concepts of God in the various religious traditions mentioned above:

This video serves as a good introduction to the religion and philosophy of Advaita Vedanta. The concept of Brahman is probably one of the most immediate parallels to the concept of “pure subjectivity.” Indeed, both Brahman and pure subjectivity are defined as pure awareness/awareness-itself. Moreover this video points to a very common phrase in the Advaita Vedanta tradition: “You Are That.” This phrase refers to the non-duality between yourself and Brahman. What we call the individual egoic mind is nothing more than a drop in the ocean that is Brahman. Your mind/self-awareness is a presupposition of the existence of pure mind/awareness-itself.

This video explains the somewhat esoteric philosophy of 13th-14th German Dominican theologian Meister Eckhart. Put simply, his philosophy centres around the concept of the “Ground of Being,” which he identifies as being numerically identical to the core of one’s most essential identity (i.e., there is an strict non-duality between my true self and God’s true self [which is God itself]). Trinitarian dogma notwithstanding, his philosophy is no different than my own: that which alone truly exists is a transcendent Void (a no-thing) which, paradoxically, is identical to all things. The way Eckhart articulates this strain of thought is by appropriating Scholastic-Aristotelian logic; namely he relies on the concept of the “Universals,” and argues that the “Ground of Being” alone truly possesses the “Universals,” and so the “Ground of Being” which is a nothingness insofar as it is no-thing (i.e., it cannot be identified or reduced to any particular thing in reality) is nevertheless the only thing which possesses any reality whatsoever, and “everything else” possesses reality only insofar as it inheres on this “Ground of Being.” Put simply, this philosophy recapitulates the radical non-dualism of Advaita Vedanta through scholastic methods.

This video explains the connection between Neoplatonism and Christianity. More than that, this video fleshes out the concept of “The One.” Basically God is a divine darkness which no mind can understand, nor in fact say anything about. This encapsulates the method of a completely apophatic theology. This parallels with my concept of “pure subjectivity,” because “pure subjectivity,” by definition cannot be objectified/be the object of knowledge [see above arguments]. Rather pure subjectivity transcends knowledge; one cannot know pure subjectivity, one can only aspire to be pure subjectivity (hence the tradition of mystical union with The One).

In this introductory video, the 13th century philosophy of Al-Shushtari bears striking resemblance to the other non-dual philosophies which have been thus far discussed. Not much can be said of his philosophy other than the mere strictness of the non-duality of his theology, one which is functionally indistinct from that of Advaita Vedanta and/or Eckhartian mysticism.

So much is covered in this introductory video, and yet there are some especially salient things that stand out: 1. the paradoxical identification and non-identification of the world with God. Ibn Arabi both affirms and rejects that the world is God, and this approach is identical to my own. The world both is and is not God. Pure Subjectivity (Ground of Being/God) alone exists, hence the world is nothing other than Pure Subjectivity/God; however, Pure Subjectivity is necessarily transcendent, thus it is no-thing (it cannot be identified with any immanent thing). Hence, in my philosophy God is a no-thing which is, paradoxically, identical with all things. The world both is nothing other than God, and absolutely not God at the same time. This is a paradox that only makes sense when you internalize the logic of my argument for pure subjectivity. There is a second matter I would like to highlight: 2. rationality and philosophy are not the end all be all of knowledge. Pure subjectivity, by definition, is the thing which transcends all knowledge; hence only intuition and supra-rational methods can create true knowledge of the thing-in-itself (i.e., mysticism alone is the ultimate path). Finally, there is a third matter: 3. since all is nothing other than God, all religions are in some way, inescapably correct. Every religion, every thought, every way of life is Godly, Truthful, and Divine, inasmuch as all is God, all is Truth, all is Divine. There is much nuance to this point, but I don’t have the time to explore it all here.

Another introductory video. At first glance certain parts of the doctrine of “emptiness,” may seem to contradict my philosophy of “pure subjectivity,” given that “pure subjectivity,” to me is a sort of Ultimate Reality, whereas Nagarjuna states that there is no such Ultimate Reality. The best way I can reconcile this apparent contradiction is with the following: “pure subjectivity” is just another way of saying pure potentiality. That is, pure subjectivity is the potentiality that undergirds all of existence. Potentiality is the prerequisite for all actuality, but is in itself devoid of actuality. Therefore, the potentiality from which all actuality comes is itself not-actual (i.e., potentiality exists only insofar as it is expressed by the actuality that is produced). This is just another way of saying that potentiality and actuality are co-dependent, neither exists without the other. Inasmuch as they are co-dependent, potentiality and actuality are the same thing–pure subjectivity and existence are the same thing. What is transcendent is not substantially different from what is immanent. Void is reality and reality is Void. Therefore, the doctrine of emptiness recapitulates the same message of radical non-duality, simply through a different means. Hence my concept of pure subjectivity as Ultimate Reality is actually compatible with Buddhism (i.e., we say the same thing in different ways).

Given the often esoteric nature of Buddhism, I have decided to add a complimentary introductory video on Mahayana (Chan/Zen) Buddhism, so as to further explore the connections between the concepts of Nirvana, emptiness, and the other philosophies of non-duality explored across different religions. The way I interpret the doctrines of 1. Buddha-nature, and 2. emptiness is as such: Nirvana (Buddha-nature) is HERE and NOW, insofar as Nirvana is the realization of emptiness, and emptiness is the essential nature of all things. Now what precisely do I mean by the fact that emptiness is the essential nature of all things? Simply put, the only thing that alone exists is the Void (which is a no-thing). Therefore, this no-thing, is numerically identical to all things. As a result, all things = no-thing, and hence all things are empty of content. Another way to phrase it: the Void is not nothing, but it is a no-thing (it is no particular thing independent of other things). All things are dependent on other things; therefore, all things collectively make-up a reality which itself is dependent on its constituent things. Therefore, the whole of reality is not independent of other things, and thus is a no-thing. Let me re-phrase this one final time: the Void is the precondition of reality, which is in itself devoid of reality. The Void is a sort of pure potentiality from which all actual things emerge. Yet there is nothing to the potential other than the actual things that emerge from it, and vice versa–there is nothing to the actual other than the potential from which it emerged. To say that all things are empty is to say that at the heart of all reality is the potentiality from which it emerged (a potentiality which itself, is, by definition devoid of reality and is thus “empty”).

In short, “pure subjectivity,” is the eternal eye which sees all, but which does not see itself. “Pure subjectivity,” sustains all of reality, but is in itself devoid of all reality. “Pure Subjectivity” is the transcendent nothingness from which everything originates, and which is in fact not substantially different from everything. Thus is the paradox of God: it is simultaneously infinitely far from everyday reality, but is also the very kernel of its existence.

As far as I see it, all religious traditions throughout the world have had at least on significant figure which has reached the same conclusions, which to me tells me that there is a common, factual, empirical basis from which even people from drastically different traditions are drawing the same conclusions. The Truth is often wrapped in the idiosyncratic language of the context within which it is discovered, and yet these superficial differences do nothing to change the underlying consensus that so many mystics throughout the world have acquired.

Analogy of the Spiral

So much of this is no doubt confusing as of now, but I promise it will become increasingly coherent throughout the course of the next instalments of this series.

Before I finish this post, however, I want to leave the reader off with one final thing to consider (something which will reappear later in this series): the Analogy of the Spiral.

The Spiral is probably my best analogy to describe precisely what I mean when I refer to “pure subjectivity,” and its non-difference to “conventional every-day reality.” The reason for this is that Spiral can be seen from two perspectives: 1. the perspective of non-duality, and 2. the perspective of duality. My main argument throughout this post, and all the subsequent posts in this series is this: both these perspectives ultimately refer to the same thing. In essence, the radical implication of non-duality is that even duality is an expression of non-duality. Allow me to explain:

Perspective of Non-Duality: The Spiral, in itself, as a whole entity, is a non-dual thing. There are no internal divisions within the Spiral, the Spiral just is what it is, indivisibly. That is, there are no “parts” to the Spiral. All that the Spiral contains is it–the Spiral is what it is, itself.

Perspective of Duality: At the same time, the Spiral is only what it is precisely insofar as it is made up of dark and light swirls. When looked at this way, the Spiral is nothing more than an expression of the aggregate swirls coming together in a certain way. That is, the Spiral is fundamentally made up of constituent parts: the dark and light swirls.

Which view is right?

Both. And that’s my interpretation of what non-duality truly means. True non-duality = duality. More specifically, my point is this: both perspectives are referring to the same thing. Both perspectives are two sides of the same coin.

This dynamic is precisely the dynamic I ascribe between pure subjectivity and subjectivity. That is, pure subjectivity, the transcendent nothingness, the divine darkness, the Void, Brahman, the One, is the same thing as the everyday, conventional world we live in currently.