With five weeks to go until election day in the U.S. I am compiling some short opinion essays I prepared over the past several months challenging the legitimacy and merit of the Make America Great Again or MAGA populist movement of Donald Trump’s. This collection is dynamic and I expect more pieces to be added to this group between now and election day. I will let the individual pieces speak for themselves without any preparatory explanation.

The Key Fault of Trumpism

I begin with a premise. It is that freedom and equality are the two pillars of what our country was founded upon and which has for the past 247 years sustained the United States of America. I contend these two are similarly weighted fundamental values.

We hear much of the significance of freedom. We are the “Sweet Land of Liberty” and here in New Hampshire we proudly proclaim “Live Free or Die”. But what of equality?

Jefferson wrote in the Preamble to the Declaration of Independence that, “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal…”. And Lincoln in the Gettysburg Address, after proclaiming that we as a nation, “were conceived in liberty”, stressed that we were, “dedicated to the proposition that all men were created equal”.

It is clear to students of history that the spacious expansion of human development wrought by the Enlightenment first found a pragmatic foothold here in America. It came in the form of asserting universal freedom and equality for all Americans.

Yet here we are. The Right hugs freedom tightly and the Left declares equality matters. Trumpism, the aberration of conservatism, does not mention equality. In fact, it sees equality as a threat. This deluded movement seeks to retain the privileged position of those who historically have held wealth and power. And they have absorbed the working class to do their bidding with cynical cultural fears.

Trumpism is a grave peril to America. It seeks to rescind the democratic tradition of the United States in favor of a continued supremacy of the privileged. It does not want to share the fruits of America with those who they consider to be others. In their minds, others threaten their status, power, and wealth.

The Constitution continues to articulate and to promote the way forward for all Americans. Let us not allow a misguided and fearful faction of our population to diminish what makes America great. Trumpism must be defeated!

A Trump Role Model

Supporters of Trumpism in America point to Viktor Orban, Prime Minister of Hungary since 2010, as an example of the kind of illiberal leader they want to see in the United States. Before rightwing conspiracy theorist Tucker Carlson was fired from Fox News, he relocated his show twice to Budapest. The U.S. Political Conservative Action Conference (CPAC) held a special event in Budapest that was opened by Orban, and he was again present at the group’s 2022 national conference in Texas. Among the MAGA crowd, Orban is a rockstar.

So, what is it like in Hungary under Orban’s rule? Most notably is the concentration of power within Orban’s government due to emergencies known as “states of danger”. Orban identifies and “manages” crises to justify ruling by decree and nullifying acts of parliament and the judiciary he doesn’t like.

For example, one group of Hungarian professionals to feel the brunt of Orban’s iron fist have been teachers. They are seeking better working conditions and salaries. He not only restricted their right to strike, but passed what is called a “revenge law”, which expands teachers’ working hours and workloads and allows the government to relocate or dismiss teachers as they see fit. Last year a protest by high school students in support of their teachers was met by police using tear gas.

In another instance, women’s reproductive rights have been increasingly limited under Orban. There is now language in the Hungarian constitution by Orban’s government “protecting the fetus from conception”. There must be only serious risk to a woman’s life or a badly damaged fetus for abortion to be allowed. In a related move, Hungary has also outlawed adoption by same sex couples.

There are many other examples of freedom restrictions and offenses against journalists, media outlets, civil society organizations, LGBT people, asylum seekers, and the Roma people.

Seems odd that a group of Americans who claim to embrace freedom would admire this kind of ruler. But they do. It makes one skeptical about what they really value. Is it power at any price, some version of cultural or religious purity, anger at growing American multiculturism, or simply the joy of sticking it to people they don’t like?

Support for Orban-styled governance is not promoting freedom. Believing an autocrat will keep their people free is completely illogical. Quite the opposite is the likely outcome. A political movement that wants to emulate Viktor Orban is not one true American patriots should accept.

Trumpism and Autocracy

Democracy, as we know it in the modern western world and now across the globe, is a relatively recent phenomenon historically speaking. Sure, we all grew up in what has become a traditional form of American democracy, but let’s not forgot that we are but a small number of generations to have experienced this form of governance.

More typical throughout human history have been governments that adhere to a principle of centralized control over the population. Decision making concerning the rights and welfare of the people was concentrated on a single ruler or among a small set of overlords. Wielding absolute power is justified by a selective belief that autocrats know more than the collective beliefs and wishes of the populace.

Whether we call them a monarchy, an oligarchy, an aristocracy, a theocracy, a tribe, a clan, an autocracy, or despotism there are some common attributes present when absolute power is exercised. Chief among them is a lack of accountability. Rule can be arbitrary or malicious and the people must accept it. Corruption and nepotism become common. Political opposition is suppressed. Institutions are weakened. This is how governments around the world functioned for millennia.

Until the eighteenth century that is. In the British colonies of America, a novel concept emerged among thinkers and the common people alike influenced by European Enlightenment philosophers such as John Locke, Jean-Jacques Rousseau, John Stuart Mill, and Immanuel Kant, among others. A government of the people, by the people, and for the people became the core value and message. A grand democratic experiment was underway. In time it led to the Declaration of Independence and the U.S. Constitution.

And now that splendid standard of rule by the people is being seriously questioned by a segment of Americans. One does not have to look far to see seemingly normal everyday Americans on camera or in writing doubting the legitimacy and continuance of democracy. More than that, they express acceptance of the notion that our country is so threatened by a host of evil forces that despotic rule is the only recourse to return America to a greatness which they feel has been lost.

The MAGA movement gives voice to those who threaten our democracy. They are willing to risk snapping us back to the discredited past of despotism. This ideology does not want to go through the messy sausage making of reconciliation and a democratic rules-based government that accepts a multitude of viewpoints. Their level of self-righteousness, insularity, and unwillingness to compromise is a shock to a system that demands we all work together in a spirit of give and take for the common good.

The degree of fear, anger, and mistrust being expressed by Trumpism is beyond reason. It is driven by raw and destructive emotion. Autocracy is a threat to our country and needs to be defeated at the ballot box before it’s too late.

Trumpism and Christianity

What is going on with American Christianity? I accept that the Christian church throughout American history has never been a monolithic entity or uniform congregation and it should not be viewed that way. However, the schism now occurring in the dominant faith of America is of a different nature with the ascent of Christian Nationalism.

The term Christian Nationalism has gained political currency ever since Donald Trump blundered into all our lives eight years ago. From my observation of the phenomenon, I would identify Christian Nationalism as a movement of extreme religious and cultural moralism that envisions America as a fundamentally Christian nation. In this world, the nation’s culture and institutions should reflect the principles, practices, and policies consistent with a narrow and traditional interpretation of Christian values.

Many of Trump’s supporters subscribe to Christian Nationalism. Indeed, they are a significant segment of his base. Nevertheless, I contend that fundamentalist Christianity runs a risk to its future and viability as a cultural force by aligning itself so closely to the MAGA movement. I’ll explain.

As an institution, Christianity is in decline in America, particularly among younger Americans. The Pew Research Center surveyed the number of Americans who self-identified as Christians. In 2009 the number was 77%. In 2019 the number was 65%. Additionally, the number of Americans declaring themselves as religiously unaffiliated is growing. Of the top five most secular states in the nation, New Hampshire is listed along with Vermont and Maine.

Trumpism appears to appeal more to an older demographic who yearn for what they perceive as the good old days. By associating Christian Nationalism with Trumpism one wonders, does doing so grow the ranks of Christians among the young or hasten its decline?

Furthermore, Trumpism is opposed to pluralism and promoting diversity in the country. Christian Nationalists appear to be older and whiter. When conducting an AI search (ChatGPT), which scans nearly the entirety of the internet, regarding generations and attitudes toward pluralism the results reveal that Millennials and Generation Z, “tend to hold more favorable views towards pluralism than older generations”.

I realize Trump supporters will most likely not be dissuaded from supporting their candidate. But their support may come at a heavy price. After all, aren’t there some things more valuable and worth preserving than an ethically flawed and irreligious candidate — even one who sells Bibles at $60 each.

Trumpism’s Lack of Decency

We have become a courser and less kind country since the rise of Trump. Like him or despise him we can all agree that we have become a divided people with signs of internal hatred much more explicit than was the case in past years. Sure, there has always been a vile underside of our society motivated to gush malice at fellow Americans deemed unworthy. But Trump and his cult of angry devotees now give permission and approval to debase our social discourse to a degree not seen for a century and a half.

The term American exceptionalism is fraught with a range of interpretations from ones exalted to ones that are xenophobic. Personally, what I see as setting America apart from most countries is our history of pluralism. We have not been a nation born from racial, tribal, or cultural homogeneity as many around the world have been. Rather, the American nation was founded upon ideas of liberty and equality that to this day offer the greatest hope for humankind.

The great challenge for maintaining a pluralistic state, a country composed of citizens from a variety of cultural, religious, and ethnic backgrounds, is of course learning how to get along and respect all others who share the nation with us. At a minimum, citizens of a pluralistic state practice debate, persuasion, and compromise to forge laws and standards which we agree to live by. What results is a dynamic churn of norms that changes with the times, but which are based on principles of fairness and civility.

Trumpism is a movement that sees pluralism and the traditions required to maintain a diverse populace as antithetical to their worldview. They want to fundamentally change America into a version of cultural purity that places some segments of the society above others. In such a civilization there is a privileged class and there are those who are not. What Trump and his followers are communicating through their mean-spirited pronouncements is that unity is not valued, only division and separateness.

Once that line has been crossed it becomes acceptable to spew whatever filth comes to mind because their cause of superiority is greater than previously revered values of mutual respect and deference. Given that a depraved and flawed man is serving as the role model for the those who want to tear down America’s bedrock principles we have ended up in this uncivil place.

Our politics in 2024 has come down to a battle between those who are willing to fight for preserving a pluralism guaranteeing freedom and equality for all and those who want to radically change our nation into one of detachment and disunity. It is a hard time to be an American. We are called upon to remain good neighbors with one another despite this intrinsic confrontation we face. Some will take the high road, and some will take the low road. Which road are you on?

MAGA’s Misinformation Concerning Higher Education

A common rant of the MAGA crowd is the disdain they have for higher education. In particular, they see colleges and universities as cauldrons of liberal indoctrination and brainwashing leading our young astray and contributing to the degradation of our country. (That they see Trump as a force for American restoration is ludicrous, but I digress).

Here are two comments by MAGA writers in the May 7, 2024 issue of the InterTown Record (a local rural paper from where I live in New Hampshire) that illustrate my point: “I am afraid our entire education process has been manipulated out of sight…” writes one and “Could it be that the divisive CRT (Critical Race Theory) ideology which permeates many of these organizations…” writes another. They sound very confident that they know what they are talking about. But do they?

As pointed out by John Horgan, a professor at Stevens Institute of Technology in New Jersey, in his recent newsletter, this alleged “wokeness” in higher education is more of a MAGA talking point than an actuality. Horgan cites Open Syllabus, a non-profit group that collects and analyzes millions of syllabi from thousands of institutions of higher education. For example, Open Syllabus analyzed 5.5 million syllabi from over 4,000 American higher education institutions. This represents the most comprehensive collection of data available to signify what topics are taught in this country’s colleges and universities.

In 2023 Open Syllabus disclosed that expressions like “critical race theory”, “structural racism”, or “transgender” showed up in a whopping 0.08% of five and a half million syllabi! That is under one usage for every 1000 syllabi. The word “race” alone appeared in 2.8% of the syllabi and “gender” in 4.7%. The rate of usage of these words has been largely stable over the past fifteen years. Alright, “climate change” has gone from appearing 0.6% in 2008 to 1.3% in 2023. Not exactly a wokeness tsunami however, is it?

What these data tell us is that this so-called woke ideology is not being as widely disseminated in college classrooms as the MAGA crowd would have us believe. It if was it would show up in this analysis of syllabi. So why is the MAGA base so convinced something that is not supported to be happening nevertheless is happening in their partisan imaginations?

One doesn’t have to look far to see that right-wing media will take an issue, true or not, and just keep hammering it to their loyal viewers repeatedly. Fox has built a brand and identity on this tactic. One would hope the $787 million settlement they had to pay for continuously broadcasting a lie about Dominion voting machines would give them pause, but perhaps not. As for the other Fox wannabees like Newsmax and OAN News, well their so deep into being propaganda outlets rather than news organizations that repeating whatever riles the Base is fair game in their non-journalistic view.

So, I guess we will just sadly keep shaking our heads when we hear our MAGA neighbors bluster about the moral corruption of American higher education but know that despite the venom behind their claims it is really just a lot of hot air.

Trump’s Misguided Strength

Donald Trump has successfully branded himself as a strong leader. Indeed, a common refrain from his supporters is that he projects forcefulness and toughness, characteristics necessary in confronting a nation that in the opinion of MAGA world is degenerating.

I agree strength is a key trait we should want in a leader. The question is what kind of strength? Let’s take a moment to unpack this term and see if what Trump is selling is the strength this nation needs.

Strength is not a solitary attribute with only one definition. There are different types of strengths. Examples include physical strength, mental or psychological strength, strength of character, interpersonal or social strength, intellectual strength, and spiritual strength. So, how many of these does Trump possess?

Physical strength? Other than swinging a golf club does he demonstrate any other type of physical prowess? It is hard to say he looks fit.

Mental or psychological strength? Now we are getting into comedy. In my 71 years I have never seen a presidential candidate more devoid of psychic stability. He makes Richard Nixon look ethical.

Strength of character? Uhh, no. The man demonstrates amorality on a regular basis.

Interpersonal or social strength? OK, I’ll give him this one. Even though he totally turns off at least half the country, he clearly rallies most of the other half to his side.

Intellectual strength? Ever listen to one of his 90-minute campaign rally rants? One only hears three things: insults, wild exaggerations, and lies. No, he does not show intellectual strength.

Spiritual strength? You have got to be kidding me!

Let’s contrast Trump’s brand of strength with a more comprehensive and respectable version of strength known as gallantry. To be gallant one displays qualities such as chivalry, nobility, and valor. A gallant leader is courteous and respectful to the people they serve. They are stately in appearance and are revered for their selflessness in tending to the needs of their constituency. A gallant leader does not wallow in debased behavior and rhetoric trying to prove their worth. Clearly, I am not describing Donald Trump. He is not gallant leader.

Trump plays a cartoonish version of strength that is much more bellicose bombast than credible courage. He has never been about America’s people first. He has always been about Trump first. His brand of strength leaves us weaker on the world stage and morally and economically fragile at home.

We have a choice before us this November that could not be clearer. Yes, let’s elect a strong president and let’s reject false bravado. Donald Trump’s brand of strength is not what we should settle for, and it is certainly not what we need.

MAGA’s Assault on Freedom

We have all seen the Revolutionary-era yellow “Don’t Tread on Me” flags being flown proudly in recent years, first by followers of the Tea Party movement and now by MAGA/Trump adherents. The presumed message being sent by these flag wavers is an impassioned belief in individual rights and limited government and a reaction against their perceived threat of socialism and centralized power in America.

What we are also seeing among these self-proclaimed patriots is a striking tendency to embrace and to promote the methods of their scorned opposition, the feared anti-libertarian communists allegedly among us who live to take away our freedoms. It is not the mythical Marxist boogeyman we need to be dreading right now, rather it is the MAGA movement’s plan to restructure America into a less free nation.

Despite all of MAGA’s pronouncements of their being a freedom movement this social and political aberration centered on their Dear Leader Trump is anything but. I could begin by mentioning how the Right’s overly liberal gun policies, which encourage placing weapons into all hands, including deranged people, takes away our right of freedom to live in a safe community. Or I could start by talking about how MAGA supports restricting women’s freedom to choose how to protect their own bodies. Or perhaps I could expound on how the Right delights in manipulating voting practices to limit the freedoms of Americans from casting ballots.

Instead, I will focus on the freedom-constraining Project 2025 manifesto prepared by the Heritage Foundation, the conservative think tank which has advised Republican leadership since Reagan. Project 2025 is a game plan for how to reduce American freedoms in favor of reshaping American government and consolidating even more power into a Trump presidency.

The limits on our freedoms described in Project 2025 are numerous. Some highlights include:

The freedom of government worker protections is diminished due to civil service “reforms”, which make it easier for the executive branch of government to fire career employees and replace them with MAGA sycophants.

The freedom to educate our children within a pluralistic society is curtailed when educational access and content is dictated by a narrow and intolerant political perspective.

The freedom to live on the healthiest planet possible declines when environmental regulations are abated by climate change deniers.

The freedom of LGBTQ+ citizens, who are just as American as the rest of us, is belittled in healthcare, employment, and education by a constricted viewpoint of who is worthy and who is not.

The freedom of speech is threatened by policy efforts to alter Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act of 1996 and other media policies.

I could go on. It is safe to say that Project 2025 limits the tradition of American governance to a perspective adhered to by a minority segment of the country’s populace. Giving this much leeway to minority opinion is unreasonable, excessive, and outrageous. We lose freedoms under this MAGA scheme. We do not gain freedoms.

Extreme socialism would also limit our individual freedoms, because such governments are run by a small band of “experts”. MAGA replicates this flaw through their my-way-or-the-highway approach to governance.

MAGA has become what it resists. It is a threat and a danger worthy of defiance. Like the flag says, “Don’t Tread on Me”.

American Fascism

The term fascism has entered the lexicon of American politics since the rise of Trump and with good reason. Trump’s rhetoric, especially in the last weeks of the 2024 presidential campaign, is not just hinting at fascism, he is full-on embracing it.

Perhaps a definition of fascism is in order. It is a political, social, and cultural expression of ultranationalism on the far right of the political spectrum. Its features include totalitarian power, forceful restraint of opposition, and a vigorous reordering of society and the economy. What is being described here is antithetical not only to American tradition but also to individual freedom, an alleged value of the MAGA movement.

A hallmark of fascism is its anti-immigration stance. Being xenophobic, fascists view immigrants as a risk to national identity and cultural purity justifying suppressive policies and rhetorical and sometimes violent persecution of immigrants. In a nation of immigrants, such as America, extreme nationalism can become anathema to our self-image and foundation as a people.

The MAGA crowd falls into two camps when they respond to charges that they have become a fascist movement. One reaction is to own the label by vehemently accepting it as a necessary kick in the pants that America needs. The other is an eye-rolling rebuttal that the left is overreacting and that Trump should not be taken so seriously.

The first group can be written off as hopelessly anti-democratic. However, the second cohort, which I think is the much larger of the two, deserves to be confronted for their indifferent or unconcerned attitude regarding their candidate. Let’s do so by taking a look at some of Trump’s recent statements (from among many) concerning immigration during the presidential debate, an interview, and from one of his ponderous rallies.

In September there were the claims that Haitian immigrants, who lived legally in Springfield, OH, were eating residents’ pets. This led to closed schools, bomb threats, and a plea from Republican mayor Rob Rue in response to Trump’s stated desire to visit Springfield, “should he choose to change his plans, it would convey a significant message of peace to the city of Springfield.”

On October 11 at a MAGA rally in Aurora, CO referring to Venezuelan immigrants Trump said, “We have to live with these animals, but we won’t live with them for long,” Incidentally, a person in the crowd shouted in response: “Kill them!”

At that same rally Trump pledged to “invoke the Alien Enemies Act of 1798.” This Act authorizes the US government to capture and deport foreign nationals who are associated with countries with which the US is at war. Trump went on to refer to immigrants as, “very very very sick with highly contagious disease, and they’re let into our country to infect our country.”

On October 13 with Fox News, while speaking with the ever-fawning Maria Bartiromo, Trump warned about “the enemy from within…we have some very bad people, we have some sick people, radical left lunatics…. And it should be easily handled by, if necessary, by National Guard, or if really necessary, by the military.”

To cap it off are comments from former Joint Chief of Staff General Mark Milley as recorded by Bob Woodward in his latest book. Milley, who worked directly with Trump when he was president, says Trump is “fascist to the core” and “Now I realize he’s a total fascist. He is the most dangerous person to this country.”

Fascism reared its ugly head in the United States during the 1930s and is now back for a repeat engagement. True American patriots should fully resist it unlike the faux patriots who either adopt fascism or are complicit with it occurring. The most immediate action patriotic Americans can take is to not vote for Trump on November 5. Let’s join in sending a message to Trump and the fascists among us that America will remain a democracy and that authoritarianism has no place in our country.

A fascinating philosophical school of thought posits that reality can only be determined by a mind. An observer with enough sentience to at the very least sense, and in more sophisticated instances perceive its environment, is required for any reality to exist at all according to this view. Idealism stands in stark contrast to realism, the notion that a reality prevails “out there” and does not require an observer exercising some degree of mentality in order to substantiate the existence of this reality.

This tug-of-war between idealism and realism has been among the dominant debates in philosophy for centuries. One big reason it persists is because realism seems to be consistent with common sense, at least how the western world defines reasonableness. We seem to grow up with a feeling that the world we inhabit was here before we were born and will be here after we die. Our lives may impact the world to greater or lesser degrees, but any influence we may have will pale in significance to the universe “as it is”.

When I gaze upon Mount Kearsarge, a three-thousand-foot peak near my home in New Hampshire, I am quite sure it looks similar to how other people now see it. I also believe it looked pretty much the same in the nineteenth century and will look the same after I die when my mind ceases to be a fundamental feature of what was my life. Mount Kearsarge appears to be a very concrete example of an element of objective external reality. To think otherwise stretches imagination too far.

Idealism, on the other hand, challenges the conventional wisdom of realism by telling us that there is no observer-independent reality. Without our minds how can we claim there is a universe rich in detail that has always been there, at least since the Big Bang? All of reality from salamanders to stars necessitates mental observation to behold their being. It is hard to argue against the idea that mind is core to any understanding of reality.

However, the big problem I and many others see idealism running into is the charge of solipsism. The history of philosophy does not look kindly upon solipsism. Viewed objectively, solipsism refers to the claim that our individual mind or consciousness is all we can be certain of as real. Anything outside of our own personal perceptions cannot be proven to actually exist. Note how solipsism sounds similar to if not analogous to idealism as I’ve described it. Where solipsism provokes consternation is when it is seen as justifying extreme egocentricity and self-absorption. There is a point among us humans in which self-preoccupation to the exclusion of all others is considered unhealthy.

Therefore, proponents of idealism who insist full reliance on the mind is the way to best understand reality must confront the charge that their viewpoint ignores or even rejects the legitimacy of mentality within the collective of other individuals. If it is impossible to prove that others outside of oneself exist, then social cooperation and moral behavior become unnecessary. In a solipsistic world objective reality can be disregarded and individuals can give themselves permission to indulge in pure subjectivity only. It is easy to see how such a belief can lead to many social ills.

For idealism to become more mainstream and less arcane it needs to account for the fact that a prevalent and customary reality is shared among many individuals. There is much that we individuals detect in common and simultaneously which leads us to believe there is an external world. Now if the world is truly just a cerebral phenomenon or illusion how can it be that so many recognize similar worldly features and events?

Realism does not struggle with this fundamental problem. To realists there is us and there is the external world which we grasp through our senses. But is it really that simple? Are we nothing more than stimuli prone organisms limited by our sensorial capacities, but also thankfully enhanced by an ability to reason? Perhaps.

That said, idealism suggests that we are more than augmented amoebas with brains. It hints at a grander potential we have to reveal and act within a multifaceted universe that is much more than sensual. Our minds are certainly breathtaking. Our minds, more than our eyes, are the gateways to the soul and to the essence of the universe. To still be answered though is why does my mind appear to be similar to your mind and if that is indeed the case, then what is it that binds our consciousnesses?

It is like something to be me.

It is like something to be you.

But I will never know you as you know you.

And you can never know me as I know me.

We share with our fellow humans limited access and a narrow degree of understanding of our own private and unique realities. As best as we can determine, we each carry our own singular sense of self — our own subjective existences. In fact, I can only speak for myself in making such a declaration. I can only assume you exist within your own subjective self, one which is largely similar to my own. Still, I can never know for sure. I am unable to peer into, never mind climb into, your experience, your feelings, your manner of thinking. We are like members of an archipelago, separate but united communally.

Consciousness is that mysterious and miraculous continuance, that profound set of impressions we encounter as a consequence of being alive. It is as fundamental to our experience of reality as is the awareness of our own body. One could think that something so elemental to our identity must be generally well understood given the amount of investigation so many have done simply by living various levels of examined lives over so many millennia.

However, consciousness is not thoroughly understood within a widely accepted theory. There is no universally agreed upon principle or law which fully explains its generation and sustenance. No highly esteemed philosopher or scientist has revealed the immutably true and comprehensive nature of consciousness. Conventional wisdom suggests we all experience consciousness, but beyond that, those who ponder and speculate about the etiology of such an esoteric yet personal topic like consciousness are not in agreement about its causation, meaning, or purpose.

For many of us, there comes a time in our lives in which find ourselves motivated to consider how it is we have the mind we have — to think about how we think. This involves a meta-cognition or self-analysis of how we think, and by extension, how we also feel and behave. We realize that the reach and complexity of our minds is vast leaving us each with enormous potential to live rich lives. When we stop to think about it, I believe most of us conclude that it is truly remarkable that we can perceive such resplendence and fullness through our minds.

I have wondered if I should think about consciousness and mind as synonymous. When listening to and reading the philosophers and scientists discuss consciousness the topic appears twofold. Some do consider mind and consciousness as one in the same, albeit with some nuanced connotational differences at times. Others view consciousness as a realm in and of itself detached from the rational and sensorial mind we use to cope environmentally.

I see consciousness and mind as inseparably linked. Does consciousness beget mind or does mind beget consciousness? Neither. They are one and the same phenomenon, a marvel of the universe. The Logos, or generative spirit, is saying that to be complete All-There-Is must have an observer. We have minds illuminated by consciousness to be this observer.

At least that is what I think. But who am I?

What I am is an observer, a beholder of what is.

Self-discovery motivates.

Let’s look to see what is behind the next door.

This matters because to exist matters. And a big part of existing is to pay attention. We have a mind that allows us to be aware of reality. (Whatever reality is.) For now, I choose to be amazed at what I have spent the better part of lifetime taking for granted. That I can think rationally, feel sensations, have memory, speculate about the future, and notice the present moment is spectacular enough. But to take the position, as I am, that our consciousness, our mindfulness, our self-awareness is a direct bond to the core of universality, spiritualism, and the Logos is audacious but also comforting.

As humans, I believe we have to have faith in something. I say this as someone who has been skeptical, even suspicious, of faith. Faith has connoted dogma, rigidity, and closed mindedness to me. Age has softened this stance. I now see faith as a form of value adoption. Values give us purpose, a reason to get out of bed in the morning. Faith does something similar, perhaps even grander. It can give us a reason to live.

To have faith says we put our heart, mind, and soul into a belief. To be sure, how steadfast we are in our faith depends on incoming data. We have to allow for degrees of malleability regarding our faith. (Something a religious person would probably disagree with.) Nevertheless, resting our convictions on a bed of probability, even believability, is grounding and worth the attachment to certainty — however fleeting it may be.

I have faith in mindfulness, or consciousness as I will refer to it from this point on, as an expression of the sacred. We are born with this capacity to know of ourselves and others. Consciousness presents us with senses and mental ability to comprehend and to interpret. Some say this aptitude is nothing more than an evolutionary result of learning to grapple with survival in a hostile environment since life on this planet began. Or that consciousness is an illusory outcome of neural operations with little more biological significance than walking or digesting. I think consciousness is too majestic an occurrence to be lightly dismissed or rendered mundane. Its place in the universe could be every bit as imposing as material substance, space, time, and electromagnetism.

I seek to know what lessons can be learned concerning consciousness from history. I begin as I have by stating my premise or my belief that consciousness is not accidental or ancillary, but rather exists as a result of a necessary cosmic design born of the Logos, the generative spirit, the spark propagating all that there is. Some may call this originating energy God. And if it were not for the distracting and unsettling anthropomorphizing imagery of religion I would be fine with the label.

Regardless, I pursue an investigation of consciousness from my vantage point as stated for two reasons. One, I want to reveal why I have come to see consciousness as more than a happenstance of biology, but rather as a gateway to the One, the Logos. Secondly, I realize that this topic is voluminous and will occupy much of my remaining years. So, in the the spirit of learning I want to see what more there is to ascertain at this point in time.

Self-awareness, the most individual of perceptions

My mind, my viewpoint, my existence

Universal consciousness, the most inclusive of conceptions

Our minds, our viewpoints, our existences

Speculation on the origins of self-awareness and the nature of consciousness is at least thousands of years old as evidenced by recorded history across a variety of cultures. Undoubtedly, people have pondered the roots of their being and existence for far longer. Whether through the application of knowledge to better cope and thrive within a challenging environment or through deep contemplation and penetrating self-examination during moments of relative peace, humans have considered the existential meaning of life. It is by way of a review of the milestones of philosophic history that we can trace the development of phenomenological or subjective human thought.

I begin this investigation with ancient Indian philosophy. The Upanishads is a scriptural authority comprised of ancient Sanskrit texts composed collectively between circa 800 BCE to circa 200 BCE. The anthology focuses on philosophical and spiritual teachings and guidance. The Upanishads, along with the Bhagavad Gita and the Brahma Sutras, constitute the Vedanta philosophy, one of the principal schools of Hinduism.

Credit must be given to the Indo-Aryans, an early branch of today’s populations of the Asian sub-continent and the speakers of ancient Sanskrit. They burst forth with a bold and intrepid recognition of and interpretation of consciousness. The Upanishads, a product of the Indo-Aryans, delves extensively into everything philosophical and spiritual from metaphysics to practical guidance for daily living. But one topic it explores keenly is the nature of consciousness.

The Upanishads distinguishes between the universal consciousness, known as Brahman, and the consciousness of the individual or soul, known as Atman. In this tradition, Brahman is true reality and is present everywhere and in everything throughout the universe. Atman is a manifestation of Brahman. The individual consciousness is an expression of the supreme reality. This unity suggests that each person, indeed each particle of the universe, carries within it the divine — the everlasting, pervasive, immutable, and sublime essence of reality.

Establishment of Hinduism relied significantly on The Upanishads. And in turn, Buddhism evolved from Hinduism. However, Buddhism does not identify consciousness as an immutable construct of the self. Indeed, Buddhism does not even recognize the existence of a self as is conventionally done in most other traditions. Rather, Buddhism views consciousness as a churn of internal psychological states of mind and sensory reactions to experiences that lacks permanence or innate substance.

Buddhism tells individuals that consciousness is a quality to be overcome. Meditation teaches us to confront the capriciousness of consciousness head on by not letting its seductive illusion of permanence or its unstable push and pull of impressions occupy our mental states. Since consciousness appears and abates constantly, Buddhism teaches us to let it pass and to not let it define us. Indeed, to transcend consciousness is to become enlightened.

Ancient Chinese philosophy, particularly Daoism, approaches consciousness similarly to the Upanishads in that self-realization is believed to be inextricably linked to the Dao, known as The Way or the foundation of nature. Dao is a similar concept to the universal consciousness of the Indo-Aryans, Brahman. It forms the basis of all individuals’ consciousness. The task in this life for each of us is to be in harmony with the natural rhythm and current of Dao. This is accomplished through a life of dedication, meditation, contemplation, and ethical practice.

The other grand philosophical tradition of ancient China, Confucianism, is less metaphysical or ontological about consciousness. Rather it sees self-awareness and mindfulness as an integral aspect of being human and one that is enhanced through moral practices that encourage strong relationships, sound personal behavior, and social solidarity. Personal growth and development, moral refinement, and social concord are best achieved by devoted individuals each acting on improving the quality of their respective consciousnesses.

The ancient Greek philosophers saw the importance of consciousness emerging as part of their engrossment in metaphysics and ontology (the branch of philosophy concerned with existence and being). As they attempted to understand the nature of the universe and reality, consciousness was seen as integral to the notion of soul, a necessary component of comprehending reality. Plato and Aristotle presented the individual soul as multifaceted with consciousness playing a critical part in the mind’s ability to reason. Reason, perception, and thought were believed to be essential functions to being human and not possible without consciousness.

More recently, the Islamic world also pontificated on the importance of consciousness. The notable hallmark of the Islamic position was to emphasize a linkage between consciousness and the divine. All pervasive reality is equivalent to Allah and consciousness is an expression of Allah. Furthermore, consciousness provides humans with an intellect to better unite with and to celebrate the wonder of Allah or reality. Intellect is seen as a most prominent part of the soul, because through it we can comprehend and appreciate how unified are the ontological truths about the existence of Allah.

I see my dog across the room.

How did the dog come to exist?

What is the story of the dog’s past?

What is the purpose of the dog?

Should I take an action because of the dog?

These questions do not need answers.

These questions do not matter.

All that matters is my experience of seeing my dog across the room.

Plotinus (circa 204-270) was born in Egypt. When he was forty years old Plotinus moved to Rome and there founded a school of philosophy. The philosophy he spawned would become a principal philosophical ideology from the third century to the middle of the seventh century, roughly the time spanning the fall of Rome to the Muslim invasion of Europe at Andalucía. What gave power to this system of thought was that it was an amalgamation or fusion of centuries of pre-Socratic through Aristotelian inquiry that was heavily influenced by Platonism and Stoicism. Today we call this school of the western philosophical tradition Neoplatonism.

The Neoplatonists helped to seal monism as the preferred way to perceive deity or the divine. The One, The First, The Being, The Good, or as the Neoplatonists said, Nous, was paid homage to as the single point of creation, the sole source of all reality. Among the attributes of Nous is the desire to create consciousness. This allows Nous to observe itself, to look both out and in. Out to its emerging reality. Then back in so as to continuously reconnect with its virtuous self. Consciousness is nous insistently and incessantly understanding itself. And a piece of consciousness is carried to each emergent entity within reality, such as ourselves.

Consciousness became a serious rumination of several philosophers in the continental western tradition beginning with Rene Descartes (1596-1650) in the seventeenth century. Descartes legitimized a philosophy of mind, which included consciousness, self-awareness, and soul as a critical non-material “substance” and which is separate in nature from the physical form or body. Underpinning the Cartesian approach to philosophy was his renowned proclamation “Cogito, ergo sum” (I think, therefore I am). This assertion placed the mind at the essential core of his philosophical inquiry.

However, it was philosophy’s German Idealism movement during the late eighteenth and early nineteenth centuries that elevated and developed consciousness as fundamental in modern philosophy. German Idealism also set up consciousness as worthy of scientific investigation during the twentieth and twenty-first centuries. This chapter in western philosophy was dominated by two individuals primarily, Kant and Hegel.

During the years between Descartes and the advent of German Idealism, which began with Immanuel Kant (1724-1804), western philosophy had become an intellectual conflict between a reliance on rationalism, based geographically on the European continent, and empiricism, centered in Britain. Rationalism stressed the notion that the innate human capacity to think and to reason was the key to unlocking a comprehension of reality. Precise deductive and mathematical methods rigorously applied would reveal God’s design. In Britain, an alternative to the dependency on reason developed. Empiricism insisted that the knowledge humans needed to understand reality derived primarily from sensory experience. We can only know what the senses detect and to speculate beyond what sensory input displays lacks verification and credibility.

Kant, a native of Prussia, set out to discover a third way, a reconciliation between rationalism and empiricism. This mediation began with Kant’s revelation of the transcendental self. Also known as transcendental idealism, it is a concept placing consciousness at the nexus of the mind’s ability to both reason logically and to detect and to unify sensory experiences. Consciousness is an underlying subjectivity that makes possible all human cognition. It is an inborn and active instrument allowing us to perceive, systematize, and produce knowledge. Yes, we are limited by our mind’s power and potential, but regardless consciousness permits us to be both rationale and empirical in assessing reality. The mind started to stand on center stage across western philosophy more than it ever had before.

Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel (1770-1831), originally from Stuttgart, continued the philosophical work of Kant by again placing consciousness at the nucleus of his idealistic project. Hegel viewed consciousness developmentally beginning with a primary stage that involved raw sense perception. As an individual matures their consciousness expands in sophistication such that thought is more capable of observing ever more keenly, of organizing and categorizing observable content, and of gaining more self-identification. In time, the mind progresses to think abstractly and realize global premises and fundamentals. Hegel claims that the ultimate stage of consciousness is when it accepts unity with what he called the absolute spirit, a concept akin to understanding universal principles.

Hegel’s absolute spirit is the peak of the consciousness pyramid, in which the consciousness of each person becomes conjoined and all-pervasive reaching a level of fundamentalism and universality that explains reality inclusively such that history, culture, and the collective energy of all individuals’ consciousnesses is engaged. There is a strong resemblance of the Indo-Aryan’s Brahman or universal consciousness in Hegel’s absolute spirit. This culmination of consciousness according to Hegel results in each person having a clearer self-understanding, an awareness of their place within their culture and the world, and a firmer knowledge about universal truth and reality.

Edmund Husserl (1859-1938), an Austrian-German, brought structure to a philosophy of consciousness, which had actually been practiced for centuries, but which did not have a distinct name. Phenomenology is the label Husserl chose. He defined this philosophy as “the science of the essence of consciousness”. By this, Husserl concentrated on first-person and subjective experiences as of fundamental importance. And crucial to this view is that consciousness necessarily functions with intentionality. What we see, hear, imagine, think, feel, wish, desire, will, or act upon involves external objects of our attention. Consciousness does not exist in isolation. It is a consciousness of something. It is how we make meaning of our world.

Phenomenology motivated a multitude of philosophical and psychological writers to explore the notion of first-person experience well into the twentieth century. Examples include the pragmatic approach of American William James (1842-1910), who saw consciousness as a continuous and shifting stream of perceptions designed to allow us to adjust to our environments; the British mathematician and philosopher Alfred North Whitehead (1861-1947), noted for theorizing that consciousness or subjectivity exists in all entities of the cosmos; and the French existentialists Jean-Paul Sartre (1905-1980) and Simone de Beauvoir (1908-1986), who emphasized the ultimate conscious freedom inherent in each person to authentically and meaningfully exist as they choose in the face of the outpouring of perils life throws at us.

“The brain is locked in total darkness, of course children”, says the voice. “It floats in a clear liquid inside the skull, never in the light. And yet the world it constructs in the mind is full of light. It brims with color and movement. So how, children, does the brain, which lives without a spark of light, build for us a world full of light?“

Anthony Doerr from All the Light We Cannot See

In 1994 at the University if Arizona a conference was convened entitled, “Toward a Science of Consciousness”. Dr. Stuart Hameroff, an anesthesiologist and psychologist, and Dr. David Chalmers, a philosopher and cognitive scientist, invited a multidisciplinary group of researchers and scholars to share knowledge regarding the constitution of consciousness. Intellectuals and academics from fields as diverse as neuroscience, psychology, philosophy, computer science, physics, and anthropology met for five days to unpack five consciousness related themes:

• Neural Correlates of Consciousness
• Philosophical Perspectives
• Consciousness and Quantum Physics
• Altered States of Consciousness
• Artificial Intelligence and Consciousness

No such conference had ever been held before. “Toward a Science of Consciousness” ushered in the contemporary study of consciousness that is continuing to this day. The Science of Consciousness conference, as it is now called, is an annual event at The Center for Consciousness Studies at the University of Arizona. As the title of the conference suggests, science and philosophy are now conjoined in the modern approach to consciousness studies. This fusion could be seen as an advancement of sorts. Up until then science, with possibly a few exceptions, had a mostly hands-off approach to consciousness. Science seemed content to leave the topic in the hands of philosophy and religion.

The historic gap between science and philosophy regarding consciousness was best encapsulated by David Chalmers at the 1994 conference when he distinguished between the Hard Problem of Consciousness and the “easy problems” of consciousness. By easy problems he was referring to the successes of neurology and psychology in discovering how neural networks and cognitive functions had been identified to explain mental operations such as perception, focus, and memory. But what science and philosophy had not yet done was to explain how physical mechanisms of the brain could yield subjective experiences and sensations, in other words what it is like to be me and you. That is the Hard Problem. Solving the easy problems has not yielded the intrinsic nature of consciousness.

What Chalmers is describing is the latest in a long line of versions of what is known as the mind-body problem. Since at least Plato and Aristotle philosophers and other thinkers have pondered and theorized about consciousness/mind/soul and its relationship to the physical or material body. Conjecture ranges across a span from consciousness being a by-product of physical processes in the brain to mind and body being comprised of different qualities able to exist side by side. In short, this is a physicalism-dualism spectrum. There remains no consensus as to a solution of the mind-body problem.

There is, however, one approach that may offer hope to resolving the issue of whether consciousness emanates from physical activity such as brain functions or if it co-exists separately but in tandem with the body. Panpsychism is a theory which may mediate between physicalism and its inability to precisely explain the emergence of consciousness from bodily material and dualism which does not satisfy our need to know how mind and matter truly interact. Panpsychism proposes that consciousness or mentality is intrinsic to and a basic characteristic of the universe. Each entity or being in the universe possesses within its core a degree of sentience, an element of subjectivity. If this were true, dualism as a concept would become inoperative and physicalism would lose its catalytic power to generate consciousness.

“There ain’t any answer, there ain’t going to be any answer, there never has been any answer, that’s the answer.”

Gertrude Stein from Brewsie and Willie 

I expressed earlier on in this piece an inclination toward having faith in the sacredness of consciousness. This belief is reinforced as I review my historic summary of subjective awareness. In particular, certain episodes of this consciousness analysis over the ages resonate with me more acutely than others. Intellect and emotion are sparked by some of these descriptions to such a degree that I am left to feel, “That sounds right. This makes sense. I think this could be true.” I accept that my truth may be at odds with your truth. Absolute truths, assuming they exist, are surprisingly elusive. We may have to agree to disagree. If so, that is fine.

When I read in The Upanishads about the account of Brahman, the universal consciousness, and Atman, the individual’s consciousness, then I nod my head in agreement. Contemplating the Dao as the cornerstone of nature and of all consciousness resonates with me. I accept the notion put forth and explored by Plato and Aristotle, and later picked up by the Christians, that we have a soul, which may very well be consciousness, mentality, mind, and spiritual awareness all rolled into one. Yes, the Neoplatonists were onto something when declaring consciousness as a means for The One to reflect upon itself. And the German idealists were shrewd to recognize the total necessity of mind or awareness as a means to understanding reality.

At present, I am left asking myself, what is it that really grabs my attention and imagination from the times we are now living? What will occupy the consciousness branch of my philosophical studies for the foreseeable future? At this point in my learning I see the following schools of thought as warranting the greatest attention and consideration — the ongoing speculative influences of phenomenology, idealism, and panpsychism. My interest in contemporary philosophy is centered on phenomenology, idealism, and panpsychism because they all bring what I see to be different, but related and valuable perspectives on the origins, impact, and reach of consciousness.

Phenomenology is immensely rewarding in accepting as substantial the ephemeral but precious conception of sentient experience. Phenomenology provides a permission structure for modern people to not be so tightly wedded to science as consciousness is examined, but to instead accept that the first person viewpoint carries significant weight, even if the origins of subjectivity cannot be definitively explained by science or by any other empirical method. The effect of phenomenology remains profound as we consider the connection between the self and reality. By exploring the foundations of lived experience we are able to get a more full picture of what human existence and reality are.

Idealism is philosophy’s way of saying the mind is preeminent in perceiving reality and all physicalism or materialist interpretations of reality are at least subordinate to mentality, if not otherwise hopelessly misguided. Idealism is a radical, but largely plausible attempt to challenge realism. Realism states that there exists a reality out there which is independent of our minds. According to idealism, our Cartesian brainwashing leaves most of us convinced that realism is true. But idealism, with its emphasis on the supremacy of mentality, and by extension consciousness, leads us to think otherwise. Philosopher Thelma Lavine puts it this way, “Idealism holds that ultimate reality is mental and that seemingly monumental things such as material objects are reducible to the ideas of consciousness or mind.”

In short, panpsychism represents a sea change in how the contemplation of consciousness is now taking place. Thanks to the panpsychist view, gone are the days of a wholly revered physicalism which at best could say that consciousness was the result of material processes not involving consciousness, as in neural activity. Instead, it is becoming more accepted among philosophers to think of human and animal consciousness as comprised of, or at least influenced by, more fundamental iterations of consciousness — a form of reductionism, if you will. The mind-body distinction has taken the study of consciousness to an impasse. Panpsychism may be a way for us to escape the cul-de-sac.

This summation of consciousness as viewed philosophically is a developing venture on my part. I will not be surprised to have shifted my way of thinking about it sooner rather than later. That said, my core interest in this topic and my reverence for the miracle of consciousness will not abate. Indeed, I will cling to and try to comprehend my consciousness as I do my life itself — as if they were one in the same.