Cart before the Horse

Oct 19, 2017 | | Say something

It is commonly accepted that Truth means that which is correct. For example the shortest distance between two points is a straight line; this is correct and therefore it is true. However the only way to prove it is correct is by drawing it. The proof is there to be seen; the truth is self evident. So Truth might also be defined as that which exists.

There is a subtle difference between these two definitions. That which is correct has its opposite since something may be incorrect… a half circle is NOT the shortest distance between two points. That which exists however does not have an opposite, because something cannot NOT exist.

Truth is demonstrated by way of its details. As a plant grows it expands over time into physical space; this is how Truth proves itself. The details change from instance to instance, and there is no essential difference between Truth and the contents of Truth. It is through this dynamic quality that Truth remains forever new and unconditioned by the past. It gives it the quality of joy.

When a thought form develops, it is also dynamic Truth. Nature nurtures both the life form and the thought form. To interfere with this is to pervert the course of nature. The thought form is as a new life, imbued within it the will to survive.

What is it that gives nature its specific form on earth? One creature dies and another emerges. How does life regenerate itself from death? Can the inner nature of the psyche also continually die and be reborn, mirroring the outer nature of the macrocosm? Or must we continue to defy death… to resist change, and hold on dearly to our internal contradictions? Must we continue to look away, unwilling to see the proof of these contradictions, to prolong the falsehood… fracturing the self into a thousand splintered alters

It is within the existing physical and psychological framework, which is the body and the mind, that we perceive the world and interpret it. The flowering of life joyfully reveals the secrets of its existence, its hidden truth. The five-pointed flowers, the spiraled shells, the specific shape of a tree, all reveal the secret code by which matter becomes animated. The quint-essence of life, the fifth element, the phi (or ‘phi’ve) factor.

So then, if nature exists to prove or demonstrate Truth… the question is, prove to whom? In the microcosm, Truth is proven to the individual that is conscious of his or her internal conflict, giving it due attention and care. In the case of the macrocosm it is not so clear.

It is like a law of returns… a law of cause and effect. The visible effects serve to prove the invisible causes; it is not the solution that is proven, but the problem. The outcome is the synthesis. And like in a Hegelian dialectic, the synthesis becomes the new thesis, paired with its antithesis, and the process of synthesis starts all over again. This is how science continually evolves through the scientific method, with each contradiction (between theory and experiment) leading into the next one.

The cause is invisible BECAUSE it is conflicted, and the effect is visible BECAUSE it is not conflicted. Once the conflict is seen, it is no longer conflict. There is no more confusion, no resistance… only the acceptance of ‘what is’. And from this direct action is made.

Every effect serves as proof of its cause, and thus the process of transformation of cause into effect extends out of conflict. Following this logic, the dynamic character of mother nature must also be indicative of a hidden conflict… as it continually proves these causes in the material plane of effects.

If the human will extends out of inner conflict, setting the microcosmic world in motion, then there is a cosmic Will that must do the same but on a grander scale. Without Will, or conflict, the world would be static. And when will is fixated upon the transformation of cause into effect, of seed into flower, then it is in alignment with Will. This is the way of no resistance, with no contradiction… quite different to when will is enforced. When one is distracted, undisciplined, and blind to the proof… then one continues to propagate conflict, and this will is incompatible with Will.


A man who is doing his True Will has the inertia of the universe to assist him.

~ Aleister Crowley


If there is no one present to see the proof, or there is no one that needs to see the proof, then logically there is no need for the proof. So the question then arises: without someone or ‘something’ in need of proof, would the proof exist?

The question can be reworded: if there is no cosmic ‘personality’ or cosmic awareness, that is motivated by conflict and therefore in need of proof, would nature with its constant movement exist? The fact that dynamic life forms do exist, and struggle by necessity, indicates that it is so. More accurately, the cosmic personality is not actually suffering conflict because the Creator is always aware of his Creation. There are no distractions. Nature thereby does not exhibit contradictions. Human awareness however is often dissipated so the proof is not always seen, and this condition leads to suffering.

Nature is generally perceived as a single continuum within which each phenomenon is cyclical. An insect is born, it struggles to survive, and then it dies. But nature does not do any of these. Just as the cells of the human body die and are regenerated, the human does not. If the parts of the whole must each follow the process of birth, life and death, why is the whole apparently exempt from this routine?

The human body will of course follow the same process of birth, life and death as the individual cells… just that it will do so in a much longer time frame. Is it then the same with nature… that nature must also suffer its own death? If not, then there is clearly a contradiction in that the whole has an entirely different quality to the part.

The word ‘nature’ derives from natura in Latin, meaning birth. Going further back it has origins in the Egyptian neter, loosely translating to god. And like us mortals, gods will also die… eventually.

Philosophically we might say there exists a Principle of Mortality that applies to all living things, but that the principle itself is immortal. Or we could consider a Principle of Cyclicity that is itself non-cyclical. This implies a contradiction… between the living and the dead, and between the dynamic and the static… and we could find ourselves indulging Plato’s immutable Forms in order to ‘explain’ this. It might be a better approach however to leave the contradiction alone, so that it might prove itself.

We can see mortality and cyclicity. We do not see their opposites, immortality and immutability. We just infer they are there. We reason that if a natural law is fixed and immutable, like gravity, then there exists something that is immortal. And this is indeed correct. However, this is not the same as saying this is true, because we have established that Truth is that which exists and not that which is correct. Inferring is not seeing; it lacks proof. Proof is empirical, and reasoning is abstract.

The fact is we do not see anything beyond mortality and cyclicity. We see only dynamic nature in the plane of effects. Immortality and immutability belong to the plane of ideas, they do exist but only because we believe in them. But they are not real, they remain unproven… so they have no reality. Even if we consider that they might exist in a real and objective form, as philosophy will correctly reason they do, without proof our perception and understanding of them inevitably requires that curious little leap of faith.

Perhaps then we have been conditioned to believe that nature is everlasting… just as the cosmos is considered to be infinite. That the laws of nature are immutable and eternal. And we have come to believe this without ever seeing any proof of it, regardless of whether it is actually correct.

As in all belief systems, we are putting the cart before the horse, aligning reality with what we already believe it to be… only for that reality to fall apart in the end, when it is proven.

To move away from sorrow is merely to find an answer, a conclusion, an escape; but sorrow continues. Whereas, if you give it your complete attention, which is to be attentive with your whole being, then you will see that there is an immediate perception in which no time is involved, in which there is no effort, no conflict; and it is this immediate perception, this choiceless awareness that puts an end to sorrow.

~ J Krishnamurti


Posted in: Esoteric, Favorite, Philosophy, Psychology

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.