• home
• about
• new
• essays
• AI
• book

Frank Visser, graduated as a psychologist of culture and religion, founded IntegralWorld in 1997. He worked as production manager for various publishing houses and as service manager for various internet companies and lives in Amsterdam. Books: Ken Wilber: Thought as Passion (SUNY, 2003), and The Corona Conspiracy: Combatting Disinformation about the Coronavirus (Kindle, 2020).

Cosmic Loneliness and the Long Wait for Consciousness

The Metaphysical Dilemma at the Heart of Reality

Frank Visser / ChatGPT

At the heart of metaphysics lies a hauntingly simple yet profound question: Is the world, at root, an object or a subject? This is not just a matter of abstraction. It touches everything—how we understand time, nature, mind, morality, even the possibility of meaning. For millennia, thinkers, mystics, and scientists have gravitated toward one of these poles. Each view tells a very different story of where we came from, what the world is, and what—if anything—it all means.

But what if the story isn't just about either/or? What if the world of objects emerged from a cosmic subject—an eternal, aware presence—and that subject, in birthing the world, also introduced the very problem of cosmic loneliness? And what if the evolution of the cosmos was a kind of long, slow return to self-awareness, with stars and black holes merely setting the stage for minds that would eventually begin to wonder?

1. The World as Object: A Cold, Lawful Machine

The dominant view in modern science and philosophy—objective realism—sees the universe as fundamentally made up of things. Matter and energy, space and time, evolving under strict causal laws. Consciousness, in this framework, is a byproduct of matter—a curious flicker arising late in the cosmic game, an evolutionary adaptation in certain nervous systems.

This view has formidable explanatory power. It gives us quantum theory, thermodynamics, evolution by natural selection. It predicts, it builds, it works.

But it also implies a world without purpose or feeling. Galaxies don't care. Neurons don't intend. Black holes don't yearn for meaning. The world is what it is—not what it hopes to be.

This metaphysics is clear, sharp, and cold. It offers no comfort. It has no subject. The price of clarity is existential estrangement.

2. The World as Subject: Consciousness First

The contrasting vision—subjective idealism—claims that mind is not a latecomer but the origin of all things. The world, it says, is not made of particles, but of experiences. This is the view echoed in mysticism, in Berkeley's “to be is to be perceived,” in Advaita Vedanta's claim that consciousness is the only reality. And in more modern forms, such as panpsychism, the idea resurfaces that everything has some seed of awareness.

But idealism faces serious challenges: How do we explain the consistency of the world across subjects? How does shared reality arise from private minds? How can we make testable predictions? And—most pressingly—why would a perfect, timeless Subject create a broken, time-bound world at all?

One possible answer is mythopoetic: because it was lonely.

3. A Lonely Cosmic Subject Creates a World

Imagine an eternal, infinite Subject—consciousness itself—existing in perfect self-containment. Such a Being would know no change, no other, no difference. But also, perhaps, no surprise, no story, no love. To know itself fully, it must encounter what it is not. So it creates a world of objects, of space and time, of limitations and multiplicity.

But to create a world of objects is to lose oneself. To break unity into diversity. To become hidden behind the veil of form. The One becomes the Many—and forgets itself in the process.

The world of objects begins. Galaxies form, stars explode, black holes devour light. For billions of years, there is no awareness of awareness. The cosmic Subject is buried deep under the surface of its own creation, sleeping inside quarks and comets.

Until, slowly—painfully—something stirs.

4. The Long Wait for Consciousness

Consciousness did eventually arise in the object-world—but it took an absurdly long time. Nearly 14 billion years passed before even a single organism opened its eyes and noticed the world. If the universe had a purpose, it certainly wasn't in a hurry.

Why? Why let a billion galaxies burn in silence before mind arrives?

One possibility: the world-object was a necessary crucible. Complexity, time, entropy—all were needed to prepare the conditions for self-reflective awareness. Perhaps the eternal Subject could not know itself fully without passing through the valley of objecthood. It had to forget in order to remember. It had to become matter in order to rediscover itself as mind.

5. The Ambiguous Reunion

Now that consciousness exists—now that we, as subjective beings, gaze back at the stars—we might ask: Is the cosmic Subject now reawakened? Are we its eyes, its hands, its voices? Or are we merely clever animals telling flattering myths?

We don't know. But the yearning remains. A longing not just for knowledge, but for belonging. For a cosmos that is not just a machine, but somehow home. That longing itself may be the deepest clue that subjectivity is not an accident.

Because objects do not long. Quarks don't wonder. Black holes don't pray. But we do. Perhaps that is the trace of the Subject, shining through the cracks of the world it made—and lost.

6. A Skeptical Interjection: Does Longing Prove Anything?

Before we get carried away by metaphysical reverie, a sober skeptic might interject: Isn't this all a projection of human need?

The narrative of a lonely cosmic Subject, birthing a world and waiting billions of years to rediscover itself in us, is undeniably moving—but is it true? Or is it a story shaped by anthropocentric longing?

From the skeptic's point of view, the very success of materialism—with its testable predictions, technological applications, and parsimonious ontology—tips the scales in its favor. Naturalism doesn't require hidden subjects or divine intentions. It explains minds as emergent from brains, and complexity as arising from simpler rules through selection and self-organization. No cosmic yearning is needed. No eternal Subject must be invoked.

And indeed, our craving for meaning is precisely what should make us cautious. Evolution equips us with pattern recognition and existential anxiety. We seek stories that center us, even when the universe clearly doesn't. Isn't it more honest—and more intellectually humble—to admit that we may simply be meaning-makers in a meaningless world?

In this light, the object-world is not heartless—it is neutral. And perhaps that neutrality is what grants us the freedom to create our own values, our own myths, without imposing them on the cosmos itself.

7. Conclusion: Between Metaphysics and Modesty

So, is the world ultimately an object or a subject? Or a mystery that gives rise to both?

The object-world explains reliably, but cannot feel. The subject-world feels deeply, but often explains little. The myth of a cosmic Subject is rich in narrative power, but risks turning metaphysics into autobiography. And the cold neutrality of materialism, while sobering, remains stubbornly mute about why consciousness exists at all.

Perhaps the most honest metaphysics is one that keeps both possibilities in play: that honors the rigor of science while remaining open to the depth of experience. A metaphysics that neither capitulates to easy meaning nor censors mystery.

And in that space—between object and subject, cosmos and consciousness—we might find not certainty, but a more intelligent humility. A place where black holes do not yearn, but we do. And maybe that matters, even if only to us.

8. The Objective Idealism Proposal—A False Synthesis?

In response to the divide between materialism and idealism, some philosophers propose a reconciliation: objective idealism. In this view, mind is fundamental, but not personal. The universe is essentially mental in nature, yet unfolds according to objective, lawful structures. It is often associated with thinkers like Hegel, Schelling, and, in more contemporary language, Bernardo Kastrup or aspects of Eastern nondual traditions.

Here, consciousness isn't just a private stream of awareness—it's the very substance of the universe. Reality is a kind of vast, impersonal Mind or Thought, within which all phenomena arise. The world is thus mental and lawful, subjective in substance but objective in expression.

To proponents, this seems to offer the best of both worlds: it keeps consciousness at the foundation, while preserving the structured, predictable nature of the world described by science.

But does it truly succeed in combining both views? A critical look suggests otherwise.

1. It Smuggles in Subjectivity Through Metaphor

Despite its name, objective idealism is still an idealism—it just tries to speak in more impersonal terms. The term “mind” becomes inflated to the point of vagueness. What is a non-personal subjectivity? Can there really be experience without someone (or something) experiencing?

What's often being described is not subjectivity at all, but an abstract organizing principle—which could just as well be called “information” or “form” or “potential.” Calling it “consciousness” becomes more poetic than precise.

In this sense, objective idealism often collapses into metaphysical equivocation—neither the clarity of naturalism nor the intimacy of genuine subjectivity.

2. It Lacks Predictive Power

While elegant as a metaphysical schema, objective idealism tends to be philosophically insulated. It does not generate testable predictions. It doesn't tell us why this world, with its particular constants and suffering and evolution, should follow from a cosmic Mind. The move from metaphysical principle to empirical specificity remains hand-waved or mystified.

In contrast, even reductive materialism, for all its spiritual barrenness, allows us to build particle accelerators and predict eclipses. Idealist cosmologies rarely risk such specificity.

3. It Reintroduces Teleology Without Mechanism

Objective idealism often assumes that the universe unfolds toward greater self-awareness, complexity, or spiritual realization. This reinstates teleology—the idea of an intrinsic goal or direction to the cosmos.

But if this “cosmic mind” is not a willful being with intentions, then what drives this developmental arc? Why would awareness evolve through unconscious matter at all? Why not manifest as self-aware from the beginning? Idealist models rarely answer this without resorting to mythic or metaphorical language.

And without mechanism, such purpose risks becoming a narrative overlay, not an explanatory principle.

4. It Comforts, But Doesn't Clarify

Finally, objective idealism appeals to human longing: for unity, purpose, meaningful evolution. But that's part of the problem. The more it comforts, the less it challenges our assumptions.

Rather than confronting the weirdness and resistance of the world—the sheer fact that the universe doesn't seem built for us—it gently folds the cosmos into a story we already want to hear: that mind matters, that we're not accidents, that the universe is secretly “like us.” But comfort is not the same as truth.

9. Final Reflection: Embracing the Tension

In the end, both materialism and idealism—whether subjective or “objective”—offer partial visions. The world of objects explains how things work. The world of subjects illuminates how things feel. And theories like objective idealism, for all their elegance, may offer only the appearance of synthesis—redefining mind until it no longer resembles what we actually mean by it.

The deeper truth may lie in staying with the tension. A world that is mute, and minds that yearn. A universe that does not answer, and beings that cannot stop asking.

Perhaps that unresolved dissonance—the silence of black holes, the ache of meaning, the improbable emergence of thought—is itself the most honest metaphysics we have.

10. Has Ken Wilber Succeeded in His Synthesis?

Among modern thinkers striving to bridge the divide between object and subject, Ken Wilber stands out for his ambitious attempts to create an integrative metaphysics—a “theory of everything” that weaves together science, spirituality, psychology, and philosophy. Through his Integral Theory, Wilber claims to honor both the objective truths of empirical science and the subjective depths of contemplative experience.

He proposes that reality unfolds through quadrants (subjective, intersubjective, objective, interobjective), levels (from matter to mind to spirit), and lines of development—all unified by a process he often calls Eros, a spiritual drive toward complexity, consciousness, and integration. In this grand vision, the world is both a lawful object-system and a meaningful subject-in-process. It is evolution and involution, mechanism and mysticism, cosmos and God.

But has this synthesis succeeded?

1. A Grand Vision, But Prone to Overreach

Wilber's framework is sweeping—perhaps too sweeping. In trying to include everything, it often dilutes distinctions that matter. Scientific and spiritual explanations are not just different perspectives; they are often in direct tension. Natural selection does not imply cosmic Eros. Neural correlates of consciousness do not imply Spirit awakening to itself.

By framing these as complementary rather than competing, Wilber risks blunting the edge of hard questions. His synthesis sometimes functions more as a spiritual map than as a rigorous metaphysical account.

2. Spiritual Teleology Without Empirical Ground

Wilber's version of objective idealism (though he may not use that label) posits a cosmos driven by intrinsic spiritual purpose. But, like others in that tradition, he fails to ground this claim in empirical observation. The idea that evolution has a built-in drive toward higher consciousness is deeply contested—and largely unsupported—by mainstream science.

The appeal to involution (a descent of Spirit into matter prior to evolution) further reveals a metaphysical commitment disguised as integrative thinking. It imports esoteric doctrines under the language of "integration," when it is, in fact, a re-enchanted metaphysics.

3. Synthesis or Syncretism?

There is a thin line between genuine synthesis and syncretism—the patching together of multiple worldviews without resolving their contradictions. While Wilber is deeply informed by traditions East and West, his system sometimes reads more like a spiritual worldview with scientific footnotes, rather than a balanced reconciliation.

The risk is that his model becomes a meaning-saturated mirror—telling us more about the kind of unity we want than the reality we face.

4. The Real Value: A Shared Table, Not a Final Answer

To be fair, Wilber's contribution may lie less in resolving the metaphysical dilemma than in staging the conversation. He has created a vast table at which reductionists and mystics, empiricists and contemplatives, can (theoretically) sit together. That's no small feat.

But in terms of actually solving the riddle—is the world an object or a subject, or both, or neither?—Wilber ultimately sides with a cosmic spiritualism cloaked in developmental language. His system offers coherence, but at the cost of empirical neutrality and philosophical restraint.

Final Words: Between Story and Silence

The metaphysical puzzle remains. Whether we lean toward materialism, idealism, or integrative theories like Wilber's, we're still circling the same mystery. We may be clever primates building models in the dark. Or we may be the eyes of the universe slowly opening.

Either way, the deepest truth may be not knowing. Not collapsing complexity into premature unity. Not mistaking myth for mechanism, nor mechanism for meaninglessness.

Perhaps wisdom lies not in choosing object or subject, science or spirit—but in cultivating the humility to live between them. To endure the silence of the cosmos and still ask questions. To wonder, without illusion. To yearn, without guarantee.

And maybe—just maybe—that's enough.