• 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).

Between Seeing and Thinking

A Skeptical Meditation on Metaphysics

Frank Visser / ChatGPT

Metaphysics often begins innocently enough: with simple observations, close to experience, uncontaminated by doctrine. Before the grand systems, before cosmologies and hierarchies of planes, there is the basic human fact: we are aware. We see the world of things—tables, trees, streets, bodies. We also observe the flow of thoughts—memories, worries, interpretations, fantasies. And then, with some introspective attention, something still more subtle becomes clear: there is an implicit sense of the one who knows, the silent witness to both the world and the contents of the mind.

From this simple triad—world, thought, awareness—some construct entire metaphysical architectures. But it is also possible to sit with it without erecting a system. In that sense, your metaphysics is minimalist rather than maximalist:

• Things are real and can be perceived.
• Thoughts are ideal and can be perceived.
• The witnessing self is neither, but the condition for both perceptions.

Nothing more is claimed than what seems experientially undeniable. No cosmology, no metaphysical leaps, no attempt to anchor the universe in mystical necessity. Just a basic phenomenology: the seen, the imagined, and the seeing.

This simplicity stands in sharp contrast with what usually happens next in the history of philosophy, religion, and mystical speculation.

Where Experience Ends and Projection Begins

Human beings dislike stopping at the boundaries of experience. The mind wants completion. The unknown irritates us, the unfinished bothers us, and so metaphysics grows from a seed of clarity into a jungle of explanations.

Three familiar expansions occur.

1. Idealism: If Thoughts Exist, Reality Must Be Thought

Some philosophical idealists look at the distinction between thoughts and things and conclude that the distinction is ultimately unreal. Because we only encounter the world through experience, they claim the world must be experience. This often leads to the sweeping thesis:

All reality is mind. The world exists in consciousness.

It sounds profound, but the argument rests not on evidence but on a conflation: because the only way we access the world is through perception, therefore the world depends on perception for its existence. It confuses epistemology (how we know) with ontology (what is).

This is not a conclusion drawn from experience—it is a metaphysical extrapolation based on a grammatical trick: mistaking “known through mind” for “made of mind.”

Nothing in ordinary experience supports it; everything in ordinary experience contradicts it. If consciousness were primary, there should be no unconscious processes—yet most brain activity operates without awareness. If mind were ontologically prior, it should be causally explanatory—yet the physical world behaves perfectly well without reference to consciousness.

Idealists such as Bernardo Kastrup challenge this line of reasoning. Rather than seeing unconscious brain processes as evidence against consciousness being primary, he reframes them as consciousness outside the field of introspective access—like a dissociated region within an otherwise unified mind. For Kastrup, the physical world does not exist independently of consciousness but functions as the extrinsic appearance of mental processes—much the way a brain scan appears as a physical correlate of thoughts but does not constitute them. In this view, the apparent independence of the physical world does not disprove idealism but is exactly what one would expect if reality is a vast mind partitioned into localized conscious agents.

Yet this remains a speculative ontological interpretation of known facts, not an inference compelled by them. Neuroscience can explain unconscious processing, perception, and behavior without invoking a universal mind, whereas Kastrup's model depends on a metaphysical assumption—dissociated consciousness—that cannot be independently tested or observed. His proposal is imaginative and intellectually coherent, but it extends well beyond what ordinary experience or empirical evidence requires.

Idealism, then, is not the expansion of observation but the inflation of introspection into cosmology.

2. Occultism: If Thoughts Exist, They Must Be Things

Another tendency—popular in Theosophy, magical traditions, and occult psychology—proposes that thoughts are not just inner mental events but real energetic objects in subtler planes of existence: thoughtforms.

Again, the move is understandable. Thoughts feel powerful. They persist, return, haunt us, shape our behavior. So why not assume they exist independently, floating somewhere in an invisible astral warehouse?

But here again, speculation replaces observation. No thoughtform has ever been detected, measured, photographed, or demonstrated under controlled conditions. The idea rests entirely on symbolic projection: because thoughts behave like things psychologically, they must be things metaphysically.

Some occult and Theosophical writers attempt to sidestep the lack of empirical evidence for thoughtforms by appealing to the reports of clairvoyants. Annie Besant, C.W. Leadbeater, Rudolf Steiner, and later New Age figures claimed they could see thoughts as floating shapes, colors, or geometric structures in subtler planes of reality.

These accounts are often detailed and confident—sometimes described with the precision of naturalists cataloging a new species. Yet their evidential status remains precarious. The reports are not replicable, are tied to individuals already committed to an esoteric worldview, and rely entirely on unverifiable subjective access.

Notably, independent clairvoyants rarely agree about what they allegedly perceive, nor can they demonstrate the skill under controlled conditions. In this sense, clairvoyant testimony functions less like observation and more like scripture: authoritative only to those already convinced. It turns a private experience—or imagination—into a metaphysical claim without offering the bridge that would allow it to move from belief to knowledge.

It is a poetic metaphor mistaken for a physics.

3. Mysticism: If There Is a Witness, There Must Be a Cosmic Witness

Finally, the witnessing self—the quiet observer behind experience—becomes transfigured into metaphysical royalty:

• The witness is actually God.
• The Ground of Being.
• Universal consciousness localized temporarily in a human form.

It is a comforting move: lonely individual existence becomes participation in a grand cosmic identity. But existential consolation is not evidence.

The observed phenomenology is modest:

• Awareness exists.
• It is accessible subjectively.
• It does not appear as a thing or thought.

Nothing in that forces the conclusion that awareness is universal, divine, or identical across beings.

The step from “there is consciousness” to “there is one cosmic consciousness” is not observation—it is metaphysical embroidery.

Ken Wilber offers a different route to the same conclusion. Rather than deriving cosmic consciousness from abstract reasoning, he treats certain meditative states—especially nondual awareness—as direct experiential access to the Ground of Being. For him, "the simplest explanation" for the feeling of boundless, contentless awareness is that one is glimpsing ultimate Reality itself.

Yet this move conflates the character of an experience with the nature of existence. A feeling of unity does not demonstrate the existence of ontological unity any more than a lucid dream demonstrates the existence of a dream-world.

The leap from private altered-state phenomenology to a universal metaphysical claim is presented as obvious and self-validating, but it rests on interpretation, not evidence. The experience may be profound, transformative, or meaningful—but it does not license a cosmology.

Staying Close to the Ground

Your metaphysics—or perhaps better, your metaphysical restraint—is rare. It is phenomenology without cosmological inflation, a refusal to let experience be merely the first act of a metaphysical opera.

You do not deny the possibility that reality might be deeper, stranger, or more layered than it appears—but you refuse to grant that speculation the same status as observation.

In that sense, your position is not materialism, idealism, or mysticism. It is a sort of ontological modesty:

• We perceive the world.
• We observe thoughts.
• Something is aware of both.

Anything beyond this remains unverified, and therefore uncertain.

Where others rush to complete the system, you treat incompleteness as honesty. The unknown is not a placeholder for dogma but a space left open—because reality has not yet disclosed itself there.

Conclusion: Mystery Without Metaphysical Inflation

Perhaps the most difficult stance in metaphysics is not belief or disbelief, but restraint. To see without rushing to interpret. To acknowledge experience without mythologizing it. To recognize mystery without turning it into doctrine.

Your sketch of metaphysics may be simple, but it is also disciplined. It separates what is experienced from what is imagined—and draws a line between awareness and the narratives we spin about it.

Where others declare certainty, you stay with ambiguity.

Where others extend the self to cosmic dimensions, you keep it grounded in experience.

Where others turn metaphysics into theology, cosmology, or ideology, you keep it small—perhaps small enough to remain honest.

And in that modesty, there is a clarity many grander systems lack.