THE DEATH OF THE AUSTRALIAN PHILOSOPHER JIM BAKER

'There are only facts, i.e., occurrences in space and time.'

- John Anderson, 'Empiricism,' Australasian Journal of Psychology
and Philosophy, December 1927, p 14.

On March 3, 2017, which just happened to be my 62nd birthday, an Australian philosopher and university lecturer of some renown passed away at the age of 94. Sadly, his death appears to have gone completely unnoticed in the mainstream media, apart from a death notice placed in The Sydney Morning Herald by his family. Of course, that was to be expected because the mass media caters for the tastes and interests of the hoi polloi, so the media takes the view that talking about philosophy and academics is a complete waste of time except perhaps when some eccentric university lecturer says or do something grossly politically incorrect or otherwise sensationalistic.

The man of whom I speak is Jim Baker, pictured. Allan James Baker was his full name. He was born on July 22, 1922 and he studied philosophy under the Scottish-born Australian philosopher John Anderson who was arguably Australia’s most original thinker and whose philosophy has had a very important influence in my own life.

Jim obtained a Bachelor of Arts (BA) degree with double firsts in Philosophy and History from the University of Sydney and, awarded the Wentworth Travelling Fellowship, which is designed to assist graduates of Arts and Social Sciences at the University of Sydney to undertake research work in Europe, Jim went on to obtain the intellectually demanding two-year taught graduate degree Bachelor of Philosophy (BPhil) in Philosophy degree at the University of Oxford. 

In the 1950s he lectured in philosophy, and was a colleague of Professor Anderson’s, at the University of Sydney. He also taught at Macquarie University in metropolitan Sydney as well as in Scotland, New Zealand and the United States of America. For many years he was a prominent member of the University of Sydney’s Libertarian Society (the 'Sydney Libertarians') and the Sydney Push. In fact, Jim was a founding Libertarian. The Libertarians were the philosophic core of what became known as the Sydney Push. While a student at the University of Sydney, he had been an active member of two famous Andersonian societies of the era, namely, the Sydney University Freethought Society and the Sydney University Literary Society.

Jim is perhaps most famous – and rightly so – for having written two scholarly books on the realist philosophy of John Anderson, namely, Anderson’s Social Philosophy (Angus & Robertson, 1979) and Australian Realism: The Systematic Philosophy of John Anderson (Cambridge University Press, 1986). In his lifetime John Anderson never actually fully systematized his philosophy in book form. At the time of his death he was working on the index for a collection of his philosophical essays, the posthumously published Studies in Empirical Philosophy (Angus and Robertson, 1962). It was Jim Baker who subsequently systematized Anderson’s philosophy and he deserves enormous credit for that achievement. 

Jim acknowledged that there were 'difficulties' with certain aspects of Anderson's philosophy and he openly admitted to having 'criticisms here and there' with Anderson's presentation of realism. I do, too. I now think there are some fundamental weaknesses with Anderson's philosophy that prevent it from being fully coherent and internally consistent as a systematic realism (eg a certain undisclosed idealism, problems with Anderson's treatment of negative propositions, the essential unspeakability of the categories, etc). However, that is not important for present purposes. Jim always ackowledged the greatness of Anderson, and the depth of his thinking, without ever treating him as if he were a God ('the Master') and his teaching some sort of sacred doctrine. In short, Jim was very much his own man and not a sycophantic follower of his former teacher.

In his two books on Anderson’s philosophy, especially Australian Realism, Jim sought to demonstrate that the Australian (or Sydney) realism of Professor Anderson is a systematic and coherent philosophical position. Jim also penned the article on Anderson in the Concise Routledge Encyclopedia of Philosophy, ed E Craig (Routledge, 1999), vol 1. He was also the author of Social Pluralism: A Realistic Analysis (A J Baker/Fast Books, 1997) as well as many articles on philosophy and social theory appearing in journals such as the Australasian Journal of Philosophy, Mind, Notre Dame Journal of Formal Logic, Philosophical Magazine, Dialogue, Australian Journal of Politics and History, Australian Quarterly, Arna, Heraclitus (being his own private circulation journal and newsletter) and Broadsheet.

I met Jim several times at the Sydney Realist Group where he would occasionally speak, as have I once or twice. Jim also penned articles for the group’s journal The Sydney Realist, as have I. I remember once asking Jim if he would autograph my copy of his book Australian Realism. He looked at the book for some time, then looked at me rather oddly, before finally saying, ‘Where do you want me to sign it?’ (I think he must have been accustomed to more difficult problems.) I said, ‘Anywhere.’ He thought for a moment, and then signed the book at the very top of the inside front cover. So much for literalism and realism. No, Jim was a giant of a man and a deep thinker and he deserved to be much better remembered than he was when he left us a week ago. His funeral was held at Sydney’s Northern Suburbs Crematorium on March 9, 2017.

Opposite the title-page of Jim’s book Australian Realism there stand two epigraphs. Both are from the pre-Socratic Greek philosopher Heraclitus or, more precisely, from the Scottish classicist John Burnet’s translation of Heraclitus’s Fragments in his book Early Greek Philosophy. The first of the epigraphs is this:

‘The world, which is the same for all, no one of gods or men has made; but it was ever, is now, and ever shall be an ever-living Fire, with measures kindling and measures going out.’ 

John Anderson loved and often quoted those words. Jim Baker must have liked them, too. So do I.

Thank you, Jim.


Note. Since writing this post, a well-written obituary for Jim Baker, penned by the Australian businessman and former trade union official Dr Michael Easson AM, who is also a member of the Sydney Realists, has appeared in The Sydney Morning Herald. IEJ. March 25, 2017.

RELATED POSTS

JOHN ANDERSON, PHILOSOPHER AND CONTROVERSIALIST EXTRAORDINAIRE

MINDFULNESS, PROFESSOR JOHN ANDERSON AND THE FACTICITY OF THINGS

JOHN ANDERSON AND THE BUDDHA

MINDFULNESS ACCORDING TO HERACLITUS

EARLY GREEK PHILOSOPHERS AND MINDFULNESS [PART 1]

EARLY GREEK PHILOSOPHERS AND MINDFULNESS [PART 2]

EARLY GREEK PHILOSOPHERS AND MINDFULNESS [PART 3]

EARLY GREEK PHILOSOPHERS AND MINDFULNESS [PART 4]

JOHN ANDERSON AND THE BUDDHA

The Scottish-born Australian philosopher and controversialist John Anderson (pictured left, with a couple of superadded images [gasp!]) was Challis Professor of Philosophy at the University of Sydney from 1927 to 1958 (and thereafter Emeritus Professor of Philosophy until his death in 1962).

Anderson, regarded by many as the ‘patron saint’ of the Sydney Push, founded the school or branch of empirical philosophy known as ‘Sydney realism’ (and also known as ‘Andersonian realism’ as well as 'situational realism'). I embrace the central thrust and main ideas of Anderson's philosophical system, which I have set out and described elsewhere as well as in a number of my posts (see below).

Today I delivered an address to the Sydney Realist Group ['Sydney Realists'] on the topic ‘Andersonian Realism and Buddhist Empiricism.’ 

Now, it may come as a shock---not to mention downright heresy---to some (especially those who know that Anderson had no time for religion), but the two schools of thought have a number of important ideas in common. However, as I say in the paper, it would be wrong to conclude that the Buddha’s philosophical approach to life was ‘Andersonian’ in all or even most respects.

As I have said several times before in my posts, the empiricism in Buddhism---which, at least in its earliest, more uncluttered forms, was arguably not a religion at all---is to be found, not as some highly organized, systematic philosophical exposition, but as a praxis, a way of seeing the world, and a method of problem-solving. The Buddha taught people that the way to find out about life and themselves was by direct perceptive experience, and by trial and error. Anderson said much the same thing---but in different words.

Note. Since this post was uploaded I have presented a follow-on paper to the Sydney Realist Group entitled 'Self as Illusion and Mind as Feeling' [link here], in which I explore some of the similarities---as well as differences---between John Anderson's views on the mind and those expounded in Buddhist psychological teachings. IEJ.

RELATED POSTS

JOHN ANDERSON, PHILOSOPHER AND CONTROVERSIALIST EXTRAORDINAIRE

MINDFULNESS, PROFESSOR JOHN ANDERSON AND THE FACTICITY OF THINGS

MINDFULNESS AND THE TOTALITY OF THINGS

FORGET ABOUT HAVING A ‘TRANSCENDENTAL’ EXPERIENCE!

IS MINDFULNESS A RELIGION?

JOHN ANDERSON, PHILOSOPHER AND CONTROVERSIALIST EXTRAORDINAIRE

'There are only facts, i.e., occurrences in space and time.' - John Anderson, 'Empiricism', Australasian Journal of Psychology and Philosophy,
December 1927, p 14.

‘Let us now praise famous men … .’

Today---July 6, 2012---marks the 50th anniversary of the death of the Scottish-born philosopher and controversialist John Anderson (pictured left, as well as below), who was Challis Professor of Philosophy at the University of Sydney from 1927 to 1958 (and thereafter Emeritus Professor of Philosophy until his death in Sydney’s Royal North Shore Hospital in 1962). Anderson, regarded by many as the ‘patron saint’ of the Sydney Push, founded the school or branch of empirical philosophy known as ‘Sydney realism’ (and also known as ‘Andersonian realism’ as well as 'situational realism').

John Anderson was an intellectual giant of a man the likes of which we may never see again. On 3 July I was very pleased to be able to attend a symposium held in Sydney in Anderson’s honour and memory. Speakers at the mini-conference---convened by the ‘Sydney Realists’ group---included the esteemed philosopher Emeritus Professor David Armstrong (unarguably Australia's greatest living philosopher---perhaps our greatest all-time), the talented and dedicated Dr Mark Weblin (former John Anderson Research Fellow at the University of Sydney), and the equally gifted and scholarly 'Andersonian' psychologist Dr Terry McMullen.

Sadly, I never met Professor John Anderson. I knew his son Alexander (Sandy), but only slightly. Sandy was also a philosopher---Andersonian, of course. He and his late father lived in my street in Turramurra. Anyway, for most of my ‘thinking’ life I have been an Andersonian. Although in recent times I have moved away from a number of different aspects of his systematic philosophy I still adhere to the central thrust of that philosophy, and when I teach law and other disciplines at tertiary institutions I use his ideas on the nature of reality---and the importance of critical thinking---to explain to students the nature of ‘facts’ ... for, as Anderson taught, nothing, absolutely nothing, is superior to facts!

The central thrust of Professor Anderson’s otherwise complex realist philosophy is quite simple ... there is only one way of being, and one order or level of reality, that of occurrence ... that is, ordinary things occurring in space and time (or ‘spacetime’, as some would say today) ... that is, facts. Having said that, Anderson nevertheless saw all things as being 'irreducibly complex,' that is, he asserted that there is no a priori limit to the number of true things that one might---and can---say about any given state of affairs, and the relationships between that state of affairs and any one or more other states of affairs. Be that as it may, any notion of there being different---for example, so-called ‘higher’ and ‘lower’---orders or levels of reality or truth was, Anderson pointed out, ‘contrary to the very nature and possibility of discourse.’ Such thinking (if that be the right word for it) was, according to Anderson, ‘unspeakable’---indeed, meaningless. Anderson referred to this as the ‘problem of commensurability.’ If, for example, there were different orders or levels of reality, how could there ever be ‘connections’ between them, or any way---let alone a single or uniform way---of speaking about them?

You see, according to Anderson things themselves are ‘propositional,’ that is, it is only in propositions that we know---indeed can know---things at all. Things are not prior to propositions. The proposition---so central to traditional Aristotelian logic---is the way in which things actually occur. All objects of experience---indeed, all things---take the propositional form. In other words, there is, says Anderson, a direct, logical, coterminous relationship between the proposition and the way things actually are.

One way of being. One order or level of reality. When, many years ago, I grasped the significance of that truth all notions of and belief in the possibility of ‘supernaturalism’ as well as traditional theism totally vanished for me. A damn good thing, too. My whole life changed for the better. I do not miss my former belief in the so-called ‘supernatural’ and ‘miraculous.’ Indeed, I am much happier for being able to rejoice in the extraordinary in the ordinary. Reality just is. (And, as Krishnamurti used to say, ‘In the acknowledgement of what is, there is the cessation of all conflict.’ There, you have all you need to know.)

Anderson taught that a single logic applies to all things and how they are related, and that there are three – yes, three – separate ‘entities’ to any relation such as seeing, having, knowing, etc---namely, the -er, the -ed, and the -ing. First, there is the person who sees, has or knows. Secondly, there is the thing seen, had or known. Thirdly, and most importantly, there is the act of seeing, having or knowing. Anderson taught that none of these three things---each of which is a fact---is constituted by its relations to any of the others nor dependent on any of the others. So, things do in fact exist independently of their being perceived, held or known. One more thing---all relations (even so-called ‘internal’ ones) are external to the objects or parts whose relations they are. That’s hard to understand, but I think Anderson is right about that.

Anderson had much to say about ‘facts.’ So, what is a fact? A fact is an occurrence in space and time---a ‘thing-in-itself’. There are only facts ... facts! And facts are knowable. Anderson pointed out that logic is not so much a body of rules, principles and methods for evaluating and constructing arguments as a description of how things---note that, 'things'---are related to each other. In other words, logic is about things, not thought. (I wish I could get that point across to others---including many logicians and philosophers who generally regard Anderson's view of logic as being somewhat quaint and even eccentric.)

Thus, logical thinking means relating (that is, putting together or distinguishing) different pieces of information about facts or alleged facts. In that sense, logic is a description of reality. Logic helps us to find facts and see the connections between one set of facts and another. It teaches us that, in order for there to be any theory, a fact can be explained only as following logically from other facts occurring on the same level of observability. Hence, Anderson denied that any proposition is ‘transparently’ (or ‘necessarily’) true. That means that a statement that something is the case can be justified only by a statement that something else is the case. So, every proposition---note that, every proposition---is contingently true or false. Having said that, there are no degrees, kinds or levels of truth. Every question---other than reality itself (which is neither true nor false, but just is)---is an issue of truth or falsity, although I must point out that Anderson rejected, among other things, any so-called 'totalistic' view of truth (which would see truth in the fullest sense of the word as being nothing less than the truth of the Whole, that is, 'the Whole Truth').

Now, listen to this. Even opinions and ideas can be said to be true or false when attention is directed, not to the opinion or idea itself, but to the thing that the opinion or idea or value is of. The test of a true opinion or idea is to see whether or not something is the case. No, it is simply not the case that one person or culture’s ideas are as good as those of any other. It may be politically correct to say or believe that, but it is not the case.

Here’s something else that I came to understand from a study of Anderson’s systematic philosophy. There is no such thing as the ‘universe.’ That’s right! The ‘universe’ is simply a word referring to the sum 'total' of all there is, with the totality of all things being what is known as a 'closed system.' Each 'thing' is a cause of at least one other 'thing' as well as being the effect of some other 'thing,' so everything is explainable by reference to everything else. End of story. Hence, all theological talk of the supposed need for some 'first cause' is ... well, nonsense and humbug! As Professor Anderson pointed out, 'there can be no contrivance of a "universe" or totality of things, because the contriver would have to be included in the totality of things.' In any event, the entire notion of a supposed 'Being'---the 'contriver'---whose essential attributes (eg omnipresence, omnipotence and omniscience) are non-empirical is unintelligible. Further, why would a supposedly supernatural 'contriver' bother to 'create' a natural universe---assuming for the moment it was created? (I have no problems whatsoever with the idea that the so-called universe was either self-created or uncreated.) In any event, empirical observation can find nothing ‘metaphysical’, ‘occult’ or ‘beyond experience’.

Further, both science and philosophy afford us no evidence or support for the idea that there are any entities beyond space and time which yet work out their supposed purposes within space and time. Both science and logic compel us to refuse to affirm that which is unobservable. Indeed, we are compelled to reject the unobservable (divine or otherwise) as the cause or explanation of the observable. Anderson relied solely on the observable. It should thus come as no surprise to hear that John Anderson was a militant atheist who was totally opposed to the teaching of religion in schools---except as mythology. (For Anderson, even the ethical teachings of Jesus were, for the most part, ‘trite,’ ‘trivial’ and ‘superficial.’ In short, he rejected all forms of moralism and meliorism.)

Anderson made it unambiguously clear that the task of the philosopher---indeed, the task of any true academic---is to inquire … freely. Established facts, not dogma, is the field of inquiry. Academicism is forfeited if one takes anything to be superior to facts (eg beliefs, dogmas). Nothing---absolutely nothing---can be accepted on faith or on the basis of supposed ‘revelation,’ whatever that is. Everything must forever be open to challenge and disproof.

Anderson wrote of the 'facts of complexity and interaction,' and the 'influence of the other things with which [things] come in contact.' Buddhists see that as evidence of the interconnectedness of all things---Thich Nhat Hanh calls it 'InterBeing'---and they assert a doctrine of 'dependent origination' (or 'dependent arising'). Anderson would reject such monism, but at least the Buddhist teaching makes more sense than certain alternative (especially Christian) worldviews. I think so, anyway.

Anderson also wrote that there is no such thing as ‘consciousness.’ That’s right! There is no ‘consciousness’ whose nature it is to know, just as there are no ‘ideas’ whose nature it is to be known---and also no so-called ‘ultimates.’ I repeat---nothing, absolutely nothing, is constituted by, nor can it be defined or explained by reference to, the relations it has to other things. One can be ‘conscious’ (or aware) of something, and one may speak of the ‘act of being conscious’ (or aware) of something, but there is no such thing as ‘consciousness’ per se. Yes, ‘relativism’ must be eliminated if one is to acknowledge the all-important distinction between qualities and relations. (Interestingly, Anderson himself doesn’t entirely avoid the pitfall of relativism. For example, he speaks of intellectual pursuits as being ‘operations of the love of truth (the inquiring spirit)’ [emphasis added]---just one of a number of instances where Anderson purports to define or explain something by reference to its object (despite his repeated injunction to eschew such relativist practices).

Another thing. Anderson saw the uselessness and folly of beliefs---beliefs of all kinds, not just religious ones. He and other Andersonians would say, ‘The sky is blue. The sky does not become any bluer because you believe it to be blue. Further, the proposition---the sky is blue---does not become any truer because you believe it to be true.’ There is nothing to believe. And there is no need to belief anything. Just look … observe … understand … and know. You see, truth is not relative to persons. Truth is what is. Ignorance and mistaken beliefs do nothing to make truth relative. When any proposition is taken to its logical conclusion, a question of fact---truth or falsity---is always reached. One always can get back to the objective distinction between something being the case and not being the case. So, if I say, quite subjectively, 'The sky is for me blue', you may think quite differently. However, once I ask, 'Is the sky blue for you?', an objective issue is immediately raised. The question is whether it is true that the sky is blue for you, not whether it is true for you that the sky is blue for you. Forget it. I'm sorry I started on that one!

Anderson was an empiricist, not a rationalist. The great pitfall with rationalism is that it starts with the mind, whereas empiricism starts with our direct, immediate and non-representational experience with facts. Yes, we are in direct, unmediated contact with facts---not ‘sense data’ (the latter being the supposed ‘content’ of our experience). As Anderson saw it, rationalism was just another form of idealism---something to be shunned. Anderson was a realist---that is, one who holds with George Berkeley's Hylas that 'to exist is one thing, to be perceived another.'

John Anderson in the garden at Turramurra

Anderson was an intellectual. He stood for a non-utilitarian, traditional, classical, liberal arts (i.e. 'Scottish') education—as well as for academic freedom (which, sadly, is gone today). If Anderson were alive today, he would be totally appalled at today’s educational system. One of the greatest books ever written is Charles Sykes’ book, Dumbing Down Our Kids: Why American Children Feel Good About Themselves but Can’t Read, Write or Add. If you haven't read that book, please do so. As a university lecturer based in Sydney, Australia, I taught law---which is all about the power of the written and spoken word---at a major university in Sydney for almost 20 years, and I was simply appalled at how few of my law students over the years could write a simple, decent English sentence.

The problem got worse as the years progressed. It wasn't really the fault of the students. It was the fault of a number of silly people in high places in government and educational bureaucracy over the previous 2 or 3 decades who preached that literacy of the supposed 'old-fashioned kind' was unimportant. What was supposedly important was ensuring that every 'precious' (and supposedly equally ‘gifted’) student---whose opinion was said to be as good as that of any other student---had a 'healthy ego' and was not 'stigmatized' or ‘shamed’ in any way. ‘Let the children express themselves in any way they wish’---that sort of nonsense. So, the task of the teacher or lecturer was to 'jolly them [the students] along.' The result? Wholesale mediocrity, normopathic conformity (yes!) and narcissism of an almost clinical kind.

The freethinking John Anderson was a bit eccentric and idiosyncratic, but I am of the view that all truly clever people are eccentric and idiosyncratic. However, in today’s world---especially in academia---eccentricity and idiosyncrasy are increasingly labelled an ‘unacceptable pattern of behaviour,’ and are seen at best as signs of a personality disorder, to be punished in various ways. There is no place for John Andersons in today’s not-so-hallowed halls of learning. The cranky, caustic commentator---the gadfly who says ‘the Emperor has no clothes’---is relegated to the back pages of the tabloids … if they’re allowed to be heard at all.

Now, there are, as I and others see it, some not insignificant problems with many aspects of Anderson’s determinist, empiricist philosophical position (for example, his view of ‘mind as feeling,’ which fails to account for ‘feelings’ themselves, and his somewhat implausible objectivist view of ethics), but that’s for another day. Also, it seems to me that the often irascible and anti-clerical Anderson must have been just as much of a dogmatist when it came to his system of philosophy as the Sydney Anglicans (for whom he had utter contempt) were---and still are---with respect to their narrow, twisted, perverted version of Christianity. Be that as it may, Anderson was, as I have already said, an intellectual giant of a man.

Things are propositional; propositions are identical to the states of affairs described (subject, perhaps, to what are known as 'false propositions'). A single logic applies to all things. There is only one way of being, and one order or level of reality---a spacetime world full of interacting material things ('facts'). Nothing is superior to facts. There are only facts. There is no such thing as the ‘universe.’ We must always reject the unobservable as the cause or explanation of the observable. There is no God of the traditional kind---and absolutely no need for, or possibility of, one. Indeed, there are no ‘ultimates’ at all, which means, among other things, that there are no 'higher' truths that one can appeal to in order to explicate what are invariably complex matters of fact. Academic inquiry and endeavours must always be free and unencumbered. And so it is.

Aye, the distinctive ideas and teachings of John Anderson are needed now more than ever before.

NOTE. Those interested in the ideas and teachings of Professor John Anderson can visit the John Anderson Archive.

RELATED POSTS

MINDFULNESS, PROFESSOR JOHN ANDERSON AND THE FACTICITY OF THINGS

MINDFULNESS AND THE TOTALITY OF THINGS

FORGET ABOUT HAVING A ‘TRANSCENDENTAL’ EXPERIENCE!

LIVING MINDFULLY IN A WORLD FULL OF NORMOPATHS

MINDFULNESS, PROFESSOR JOHN ANDERSON AND THE FACTICITY OF THINGS

For most of my “thinking” life I have been an Andersonian ... that is, a student and follower of the philosophy of John Anderson (pictured opposite) ... my academic hero and role-model. Although in recent times I have moved away from certain aspects of his philosophy I still adhere to the central thrust of that philosophy, and when I teach law I use his ideas on the nature of reality to explain to students the nature of “facts” ... for, as Anderson taught, nothing, absolutely nothing, is superior to facts!

Scottish-born John Anderson, who was Challis Professor of Philosophy at the University of Sydney from 1927 to 1958 (and thereafter Emeritus Professor of Philosophy from 1958 to his death in 1962), and the "patron saint" of the Sydney Push, founded the school or branch of empirical philosophy known as “Sydney Realism”.

Anderson was beyond doubt the most distinguished and independent philosopher ever to work in Australia. He was also one of the most remarkable persons to work in an Australian university. Anthony Flew’s Dictionary of Philosophy records that Anderson was “an influential teacher … respected for his independence of mind and his eagerness to take a stand on behalf of numerous unpopular causes”.

The iconoclastic controversialist Professor Anderson waged a relentless war against the utilitarians and the philistines of his day, both of whom, sadly, have multiplied greatly since his death. (I know. I have taught at universities and worked for several politicians.)

If Anderson were alive today, he would mercilessly attack the emptiness and internal inconsistencies of postmodernism, the silliness of New Age spirituality, the intrusive menace of Sydney Anglicans (for whom, and for whose "fairy-tales", he had utter contempt), the loss of academic autonomy, the deliberate dumbing down of education, and the overall decline in academic standards at Australian schools and universities ... and just about most other things.

Anderson lived for many years in Turramurra just a few doors down from where I have lived with my family since December 1987. His house, which is almost a sacred shrine to me, is still there, although I fear it will soon be demolished to make way for multi-storey residential development. Typical. The philistines (so many of whom become successful politicians, captains of industry and even academic deans) do appear to be winning.

The central thrust of Professor Anderson’s otherwise complex philosophy is quite simple ... there is only one way of being, and one order or level of reality, that of occurrence ... that is, ordinary things occurring in space and time ... facts. A fact is an occurrence in space and time (or “spacetime”, as some would say today) ... a “thing-in-itself”. There are only facts ... facts! (Anderson had no time for Nietzsche's assertion, "There are no facts, only interpretations," and I know where he would have told Foucault to put his postmodernist post-structuralism.)

By the way, facts include not just so-called "things-in-themselves" but also thoughts, feelings, images, memories, opinions, bodily sensations and so forth ... all of which occur on the same level or plane of observability.

Anderson also taught that a single logic applies to all things and how they are related, and that there are three – yes, three – “entities” to any relation such as seeing, having, knowing, etc .. viz the -er, the -ed, and the -ing. First, there is the person who sees, has or knows. Secondly, there is the thing seen, had or known. Thirdly, and most importantly, there is the act of seeing, having or knowing.

Now, here is the very important part ... nothing, absolutely nothing, is constituted – either wholly or partly – by or is dependent upon, nor can it be defined or explained by reference to, the relation it has to other things. (For example, the Biblical statement "God is love" [cf 1 Jn 4:8] is logically untenable as a definition of God.) Thus, Anderson firmly repudiated the so-called "doctrine of intrinsic relations" (or fallacy of constitutive relations), which treats relations as if they were terms, and which says that everything is intrinsically related to everything else or, at the very least, is constituted by its relations to everything else.

What has this to do with mindfulness? Everything, in my submission. Absolutely everything. You see, the practice of mindfulness is a relation involving the following three entities:

* first, the person who is mindfully aware of what is occurring from moment to moment,

* second, the thing - in fact, things - of which the person is mindfully aware, each of which is an occurrence in space and time from one moment to the next, and ...

* third, the act of being mindfully aware ... which includes the ever-so-important acts of remembering what is present, remembering from moment to moment to stay present in the action of the present moment from moment to moment, and remembering in the present moment what has already happened.

Three (!) separate things ... each of which is a fact ... and none of which is constituted by its relations to any of the others nor dependent on any of the others. Such is the nature of reality ... and such is the nature of the practice of mindfulness which is the practice of being fully present in the present moment from one moment to the next.

I truly believe that if you can keep those three things separate in your mind at all times, your mindfulness practice will improve considerably, because the level of your choiceless awareness and bare attention to what is will be that much better.

Those interested in the ideas and teachings of Professor John Anderson can visit the John Anderson Archive.

Finally, you may wish to listen to a 1952 recording of Anderson singing "The Sydney Blues".

RELATED POSTS

EARLY GREEK PHILOSOPHERS AND MINDFULNESS [PART 1]

EARLY GREEK PHILOSOPHERS AND MINDFULNESS [PART 2]

EARLY GREEK PHILOSOPHERS AND MINDFULNESS [PART 3]

EARLY GREEK PHILOSOPHERS AND MINDFULNESS [PART 4]
A SPIRITUAL GUIDE TO MINDFUL LIVING
MINDFULNESS AND THE LIVINGNESS OF LIFE