IN PURSUIT OF THE INCONCEIVABLE

In Pursuit of the Inconceivable by Peter Guy Jones is a book of great importance. Received wisdom in academic philosophy is that metaphysics – basic arguments about the nature of reality, time, free will, mind-matter and existence – is essentially futile. The reason is that any positive metaphysical theory about the universe can be refuted by logic. The outcome of centuries of argument between different metaphysical schools of thought has, therefore, been stalemate. So a consensus has developed that there are no cogent answers to what Douglas Adams called the Ultimate Questions of life, the universe and everything.

In Pursuit of the Inconceivable challenges that received wisdom in a simple and surprisingly persuasive way. Firstly, Jones argues that the neglect or even active rejection of mystical traditions in Europe has closed down a possibly crucial area of thought. This area of thought, which deals actively with logical paradoxes and self-negation, might offer a viable solution to the seemingly unsolvable dilemmas of metaphysics. Jones points to the body of traditions loosely labelled ‘the Perennial Philosophy’ to make his argument. These are a diverse range of wisdom traditions that often, in oblique or tangential ways, propose that the nature of reality is nondual and essentially beyond conceptual thought.

Jones’ proposal has three axioms: first, that all positive metaphysical propositions are logically indefensible. Second, that a neutral metaphysical position is logically defensible and third that reality is a unity. The first section of the book ‘Reason and Logic’ explains why these propositions are plausible, and the second, ‘Interpretation and Experience’ looks at the implications for consciousness studies and physical theories as well as religion. The chief focus, though, is on the consequences for basic metaphysical questions like the nature of time and space, life and death, the problem of evil and free will.

These axioms might at first seem implausible. However, Jones very skilfully shows that they follow from initial findings in both analytical philosophy and in the most sophisticated mystical thought. These latter are perhaps best represented by the writings of the founder of ‘Middle Way’ Buddhism, Nagarjuna. Nagarjuna’s writings share strong affinities with modern philosophers like Wittgenstein. Fundamental Verses on the Middle Way demonstrates that all positive propositions about reality are self-negating. However, unlike the Western philosophical traditions, Nagarjuna does not stop there. This is because in Buddhism the ultimate, nondual, unified nature of reality can only be revealed by direct experience. It is, in other words, experiential and not conceptual. This is the essence of mystical thought, which can also be found in European works by Meister Eckhart and others.

When I read this book, I realised that it was potentially of great significance. Take the seemingly intractable arguments within my own field of consciousness studies. Right now, theories of consciousness proliferate; there were over 300 at the last count (Kuhn, 2024). A basic division exists between those who think that consciousness ‘is’ produced by the brain and those who think that consciousness ‘is’ somehow fundamental. In Jones’ scheme, both propositions represent partial, conditional truths that are logically negated when they are expanded into universal, metaphysical propositions. But if we accept his three proposals, then we can see how this split can be healed. All we have to do is allow the partial, conditional reality of the concepts of materialism, dualism, panpsychism and even idealism within a larger, nonconceptual, unified whole. In one stroke, we make space for all 300 + of those theories of consciousness as having some potential viability, but not as ultimate statements about reality.

About fifteen years ago, I wrote a book called Pluralism and the Mind (Colborn, 2011). The basic argument of that book was that there was no ultimate solution to the mind-body problem. Instead, there were many partial answers, and that the rival schools of thought within consciousness studies all had useful things to say. In Ken Wilber’s words, “No one is smart enough to be wrong 100% of the time”.

So far, so good. But I could not help feeling that it might be possible to move towards a broader, more encompassing view that could accommodate those partial answers. Reading In Pursuit of the Inconceivable was like the discovery of the missing piece of this puzzle. This is the importance of Jones’ proposal: that it is both pluralistic and unifying at the same time.

The ramifications of this theory extend far beyond the mind-body problem. They extend into physics, because they position time and space, not as absolute but as relative realities. This is backed up by some of the latest speculations about time by physicists like Carlo Rovelli (Rovelli, 2019). Time is a great puzzle because it is in some way ‘objective’ and in some way ‘subjective’. That is, in some way a physical reality and in other ways a cognitive or neurological construction. It is both real and not real. The nature of time is something that philosophers have also been arguing about for a very long time. Once more, such arguments seem bogged down in a paradoxical swamp. But a neutral metaphysical background gives space, allowing contrasting, partially cogent ideas about time to co-exist.

The proposal has implications for theism and religious belief. It allows once more for the relative truth of specific religious (or nonreligious) systems within a larger, nonconceptual background. Both theists and atheists might find this hard to swallow. But this would also be true for anyone who thinks that it is possible to find absolute, positive truths about the ultimate nature of the cosmos. This is certainly not a book for fundamentalists! It is a book, however, for anyone who is willing to do the intellectual and logical legwork needed to take Jones’ arguments seriously.

This is a book in fact for anyone who’s curious about the answers to life, the universe and everything. It should be read by analytic philosophers who think that metaphysics is a hopeless mess. By mathematicians and logicians interested in logical paradox and strange loops. It should be read by physicists. It should certainly be read by researchers in cognitive science and consciousness studies. And yes, it should be read and absorbed by theists, atheists and non-theists. Highly Recommended.