Causality . and . Metaphysics

The links in the table on the left take you to sub-headings in this article.

However, causality is not a sufficient explanation of the way that reality functions.

The difficulty comes when we ask why should causality hold in the way that it does ? Scientific laws are models of how Nature functions. Such laws do not justify or validate themselves ; any law only justifies and validates the effectiveness of a particular model to explain some aspect of causality. A law explains how some process operates, but not why it should operate. So why should gravity keep the Earth orbiting the sun ? Why should the Earth obey the law of attraction ? . What guarantees the maintenance of causality ? . To these questions science has no answer, and can never have one. To ask why causality exists means that any answer has to be given from a perspective that is outside of causality, which necessarily is a perspective that is outside of the domain of science. This is the issue of : ‘how ’ versus ‘why ’ (also in article Paradigm and Ideology).

The question of ‘ how does something happen’ implies causality.

The question of ‘ why does something happen’ implies metaphysics.

 

Science suggests that there is some underlying order, some underlying patterns, amidst the chaos of all kinds of phenomena. The validity of this suggestion is the reason that science can discover laws of nature. But why do these patterns exist ? . What is it that created them ? . This type of question leads us into metaphysics. Therefore, any problem about the material world always has two parts to it : one part leads us to science and the other part to metaphysics.

Theories of causality fall into two broad divisions, depending on whether the thinker accepts that reality is based on materialism (a view that does not depend of the existence of god to uphold it) or whether reality is based on mind (a view that does depend on the existence of god to uphold it). The latter view is called ‘philosophical Idealism’ (Idealism is here spelt with a capital ‘I’ in order to distinguish it from the ordinary use of ‘idealism’, which I use in other articles).

The adherence to either materialism or philosophical Idealism affects the basis of a person’s system of ethics ; otherwise the difference between the two worldviews is of theoretical interest only. There is no experiment which can be done to test which worldview is accurate. In practical terms, as far as living a moderate life on Earth, they lead to the same results. Whichever worldview is accepted usually indicates a particular way of thinking, a particular choice of encapsulating truth.

Upholding Causality

The concept of god is missing from the scientific worldview because science only attempts to analyse half of reality, the half that concerns the question ‘how’. But even within this half, scientific explanations can be superficial, or even incoherent.

To highlight this limitation, consider the view that mind is only a material product. Where does this lead us ? . This view does not seem to need the belief in god. But how can materialism uphold and guarantee causality ? . Causality requires a continuous medium within which cause and effect can occur. A continuous medium is required in order to link the cause with the effect. What is the medium with gravity, or even with magnetism ? . It is not air or space. And ‘fields’, such as gravitational fields and magnetic fields, are just mathematical models ; they cannot be examined in themselves, they are detected only by their effects. Fields are really metaphysical concepts (as are forces). The only continuous medium has to be mind. Therefore, mind cannot be a product of materialism.

From the materialist viewpoint it can be thought that matter (the person’s body) generates mind, which then sustains causality. But here the mind is subjective and can therefore only produce random causality ; because each person is unique, causality would differ in its effects in each individual case. A subjective mind cannot generate an objective causality.

The best that theories of materialism can produce is the concept of constant conjunction, as propounded by David Hume. For example, I may boil a kettle of water. The constant conjunction is the conjunction of the gas burning under the kettle and the water in the kettle heating up (from this conjunction we assume that the burning gas is the cause of the water heating up). Constant conjunction is not good enough ; it may give just random results. For boiling a kettle of water, constant conjunction may produce uniform results for me, and even uniform results for my neighbour, but the two sets of results may not be compatible with each other.

The spectacular rise of science has been dependant on mathematics. For the mathematical treatment of phenomena science requires necessary causality, that is, connections that are repeatable and predictable. So constant conjunction needs to be abandoned.

As another example, consider two billiard balls colliding ; if we know the initial conditions then we can predict the final conditions. But there is a snag here. Causality is a relationship, not a physical fact ; it cannot be seen or detected, it can only be deduced. So how can one billiard ball have a relationship with another one ? . A billiard ball has no consciousness. The causality relationship has to be independent of the balls. This can also be seen since causality has to be objective (so that it is repeatable under identical conditions) and not subjective and random in its effects. Since causality is objective it can only be sustained by an objective medium, that is, an objective mind. And if mind is the medium then everything in it must also be mind (or at least feature mind).

How can you derive an objective mind from materialism ? . In this view, everything is discrete, therefore material minds are discrete ; there is no continuity to facilitate causal processes. Only an objective mind can provide continuity and so substantiate causality. And this is outside of the domain of materialism. Since it is not human minds that provide the continuity, so we have to bring in metaphysics. It is the mind (a universal mind) of god that provides the continuity. Therefore, since all objects are set in a universal mind, then all objects can themselves only be mind. The person is then a centre of consciousness acting in the theatre of mind.

Again, consider a fundamental issue, that of perception. This is a particular version of causality, that is, how and why do material sensations cause a mental image in my mind. How and why does perception work ? . How and why does matter link to mind ? . Trying to understand the process of perception led me to reject the primacy of materialism that had been my heritage from my conventional scientific education. I found that the scientific view of causality could not coherently explain perception, the reason being that the paradigm of science is unable to explain the relation between mind and matter.

Eventually my understanding of perception showed me that my body is a mental phenomenon: the body is objective mind, whereas I am subjective mind. More accurately, I am a consciousness within a mental body, and not a consciousness within a ‘physical’ body. In my view, objective mind is a manifestation of absolute reality (or god). I do not treat perception in much detail in these articles, but for the moment the analysis of perception led me to the views that:

• ‘Matter’ is just one form of mind, and I am a different form of mind. Therefore perception is solely a mental process from beginning to end, linking one form of mind to another form.

This answers the question ‘ how ’.

• Causality is guaranteed and upheld by god’s will.

This answers the question ‘ why ’.

Even within its own paradigm science is inadequate to explain the interaction of phenomena.
Consider atomic theory. This is an intellectually brilliant theory that fascinates me. Yet it generates its own contradictions. For example, I see a table in front of me. It seems solid enough, yet atomic theory postulates that it is almost empty space, with just infinitesimal specks of matter oscillating within it. My hand is the same. The amount of matter in my hand, if put all together, will not cover a pin-head ; there is not much more matter in the table. Why cannot I pass my hand through the table ? . After all, this would be only space passing through space. Metaphysics gives me the answer. The atomic particles are the content of the object, but the object is determined by its form. It is form, not content, that prevents my hand passing through the table. It is not matter obstructing matter, but form obstructing form. Form is a creation of mind and will, and so science does not understand it. The solution to the problem requires the metaphysics of Arthur Schopenhauer (which comes in section 4).

Two Forms of Causality

To facilitate the understanding of my views on psychology and ethics I split causality into two forms, which I call ‘moral ’ (or linear ) and ‘dialectical ’.

I use the term ‘dialectical ’ in the Hegelian sense. It represents a movement of thought through three stages. First there is the opening idea, the thesis ; then thought switches to the opposite conception, the antithesis. Finally both stages are blended together in the third stage, the synthesis. In moral ideas, if the thesis is a concept of goodness then the antithesis is a concept of badness. If the thesis represents some badness, the antithesis is that of some goodness. The synthesis is the resolution of the conflict.

The form of causality that operates within the scientific worldview is similar to the form of causality that operates due to a person’s actions. Within science, everything is governed by law. The form of causality operating within materialism I call ‘ linear ’, since any cause can only produce one kind of effect and there is continuity between the cause and the effect.

Likewise, for any person, consequences flow from what he does. Traditionally this causality is called karma, but I need to qualify it. So I call it ‘moral karma ’ (or ‘moral causality ’ ) and it is the mental equivalent of linear causality.

Traditional expressions of moral causality are :
as you sow, so shall you reap ;
an eye for an eye.

 

In the moral perspective, good experiences are traditionally viewed as being the reward for previous good behaviour ; bad experiences are punishments for the bad things that the person did in the past. Once again, there is continuity between the cause and the effect, and for any cause there is only one kind of effect.

However, karma contains both moral and psychological components. The moral component creates boundaries ; boundaries are needed in order to contain the psychological confusion that life creates in the person. These boundaries are the justification for moral rules. The psychological component of karma can move the person beyond these boundaries.

Psychological causality operates differently from moral causality. It operates within the mind of a person, and is based on the process of abreaction. I also call it ‘ dialectical causality ’ (or ‘dialectical karma’, or ‘psychological karma’ ).

 

When we encounter a difficult situation which frustrates us in some way, then usually we either act out our frustration, or else we repress it into the subconscious mind. Repression is not an effective solution in modern times, since the high stress levels of Western civilisation ensure that the process of abreaction will throw the contents of the subconscious mind back into conscious awareness sooner or later. These two ways of handling difficult situations produce the two forms of karma.

When we express our responses by acting them out, we generate moral karma.

When we repress our frustration and then re-experience it later via abreaction, we are experiencing dialectical karma.

The two forms of karma arise from these two ways, expression or repression, of handling good and evil (or the lesser opposition of goodness and badness). Goodness and badness represent judgements, and such judgements are contextually relational (or ‘relative’, in the traditional meaning of ‘relative’ ). However, abreaction complicates these issues. Good and evil have different meanings to the conscious mind and the subconscious mind. The difference is this :

Good and evil might be relational in the conscious mind, but they are treated as being dialectical by the subconscious mind.

The laws of abreaction are deterministic in their operation and dialectical in their mode of functioning. In my view, dialectical karma is psychological in its orientation and is patterned on the way that the subconscious mind works, since much of the content of the subconscious mind creates psychological determinism – and karma (whether moral or psychological) is just another name for determinism. Hence karma becomes dialectical in its functioning when it mirrors the subconscious mind, and moral (or relative) when it reflects the conscious mind.

The Nature of the Effect

The major difference between the two forms of karma lies in the nature of the effect. Consider moral karma within some theories of ethics. Traditional views of ethics often assume an absolute division between good and evil. A good cause can only produce a good effect. A bad cause can only produce a bad effect. There can be no mixing. So the effect is similar in kind to the cause. There is continuity of value between cause and effect. Hence any good effects that happen to a person are interpreted to mean that he has acted from a good cause. Whereas if bad effects happen to him then he has just himself to blame for acting from a bad cause. Moral judgement is easy and clear-cut.

This idea of causality matches the physical world. Everything is governed by law ; in the physical world the law is that of nature, and in the world of humanity the law is that of moral karma. I call such causality either moral or linear – (I use the term linear since there is continuity between the cause and the effect).

Linear or moral causality means that one cause can only produce one kind of effect.

A dialectical causal pattern is different, since the thesis is opposite in kind (or nature) to the antithesis. For example, when an insight into a psychological problem causes the abreaction of guilt, the catharsis and the resentment (which comes after the catharsis) are opposite kinds of effects. There is both continuity and discontinuity of value between cause and effects. Moral judgement becomes confused: the immorality of the catharsis phase leads to the censorious moral tone of the resentment phase.

Hence dialectical causality produces two kinds of effect.

How Psychological Karma operates

Consider the hustle and bustle of an important concept, a concept that influences a person’s life. Such a concept has value to the person. Desires are channelled through concepts in order to be expressed. As a person’s understanding of some aspect of life changes, so too the value that he puts on relevant concepts will change in tandem. So concepts have a dialectical existence – both the good and the bad valuations of them are experienced before they are assimilated (or synthesised).

Desires follow concepts. Therefore desires are dialectical in their activity. There is the repetitive sequence: presence of desire, frustration of desire, and the resolution of the conflict. The desires change themselves through the resolutions. For example, consider the concept of power. An unsophisticated valuation of power will make it desirable. If experience then makes this desire (the ‘thesis’) turn sour, then powerlessness (the ‘antithesis’) may become attractive. Eventually, when power is seen in a more realistic light (the ‘synthesis’), then a more skilful valuation of it can emerge.

The role of desires underlines the importance of concepts and valuations. These desires, and the concepts that they use, operate in a dialectical manner. Psychological karma is nothing more than the consequences of this dialectical activity.

As mankind evolves it needs to go beyond the constraints of causality if it is to achieve freedom. Causality means nearly the same as determinism (see section 9), and is the result of confusion within the subconscious mind and ignorance within the conscious mind. Confusion and ignorance are kept under control by moral and ethical boundaries. This is the psychological basis of any view which claims that morality and ethics are fundamental to human progress (a view that I share).

As it evolves, humanity removes confusion in layers, by using appropriate ideologies in each era. An appropriate ideology is one that is relevant to contemporary conditions ; it removes out-dated moral boundaries and usually supplies more harmonious ones. Yet eventually it, in its turn, becomes outmoded, and is then replaced by a more relevant ideology.

However, evolution does not follow a linear course but a zig-zag one.

Hence sometimes people miss out some steps. So there is always a need for an ideology that represents a return to basics, or a ‘back to basics’ programme.

There are more ideas on psychological karma in the article Dialectics and Karma, on my website Patterns of Spirituality.

See Links page for the address.

The articles in this section are :

Philosophy & Psychology

Paradigm & Ideology

Reason & Intuition

Loop of Intuition

Causality & Metaphysics

Copyright © 2003 Ian Heath
All Rights Reserved

The copyright is mine, and the article is free to use. It can be reproduced anywhere, so long as the source is acknowledged.

Ian Heath
London, UK

My email address is likely to change.
So if you want to write to me, go to the Home page and use the address at the bottom,

or click on http://www.modern-thinker.co.uk/