The Corner

The Metaphysical Derb

I get a lot of emails from people asking about my own ideas on

metaphysics. Goodness only knows why; I have no academic training in

philosophy and no impressive qualifications in any of the fields of

knowledge adjacent to metaphysics (neurology, cosmology, particle

physics, etc.) Nor is my life an advertisement for anything much

worth emulating. Still, readers want to know, and it’s the season of

giving, so I’ll take a shot at it.

Bear in mind please that I come from the strongly empirical,

anti-ideological Tory-Brit-Anglican position that disdains all isms

and all claims to capital-letter Truth, and that nurses low

expectations of human life, human knowledge, and the human race. It

seems absurd to stick a label on the clutter and ambiguity of my own

thoughts, but if you strap me down to a rack and apply the electrodes,

I’ll call myself a Mysterian. Feel free to google that to your

heart’s content. I picked up the term (though not the idea) from John

Horgan’s 1999 book The Undiscovered Mind, where you’ll find it in

Chapter 8.

I confess I haven’t kept tabs on the Mysterians since reading Horgan’s

book. The book sold well, so very likely there are now a hundred

schools of Mysterian thought–paleo-Mysterians, neo-Mysterians,

Judeo-Mysterians, nude rock-climbing Mysterians and so on. Good luck

to them all. I am not a joiner. I do think, though, as Mysterians

do, that our existence takes place between two poles of unfathomable

mystery: the Big Bang, and human consciousness. Science can get us

closer and ever closer to these mysteries, in the style mathematicians

call “asymptotic,” but it can never finally resolve them. Our

understanding is not capable.

And while I don’t think our intellects are up to encompassing either

creation or consciousness, I do think that our intuition offers

glimpses into them. There are odd parallels between the two things.

Both, for example, emerge from formlessness. Babies cannot

distinguish between their own selves and the rest of the world; in the

early universe, there was no distinction between energy and matter.

There is some very deep connection here. The fundamental religious

(at any rate, Western-religious) understanding that ascribes creation

to God, consciousness to the Soul, and places the essence of both

beyond space and time, expresses, I think, a kind of truth, but not a

kind that can be, or ought to be, intellectualized. It can’t be made

to work. We’re not smart enough. A rat may intuit the fact that if

it chomps down on an electric cable, it is going to suffer a nasty

fate. However, the rat is never going to understand Maxwell’s

equations. It’s not capable.

It follows from that ineffable truth though, that there is a Creator,

and I do have a Soul, and–in some sense I can most likely never

apprehend–they are in touch with each other. The Creator is, as the

Old Testament says, “mindful of me.” That’s about as much as I would

care to say, and probably more than a wise man should say.

“Wovon man nicht sprechen kann, darueber muss man schweigen.”

Merry Christmas!

John Derbyshire — Mr. Derbyshire is a former contributing editor of National Review.
Exit mobile version