Hello, everybody.

This video is about something that I consider like the most important point in spirituality and I can say even in all spiritualities; the most important point and I would even say the biggest mistake or the big misunderstanding in all spiritualities. Not only in a negative way. I mean, I think, once we understand this, we can realize the biggest solution - not the solution - let’s say the best ways that make spirituality and every spirituality fruitful. So let’s go to the topic.

The essence of the topic is about something that would make you think “Oh, this is so much theoretical, so much intellectual, so distant from life”, but actually I think it’s not. So, at least, if you have the patience to follow this explanation, I think you should realize that actually this is strongly connected to life.

So, what is the point? The point is about metaphysics.

Now what is metaphysics? It seems like an unknown word, a confusing word. If you are thinking... if you are feeling confused, you are in the right way, because, actually, today I would say most philosophers or all philosophers, I would say even everybody, have very confused ideas about what metaphysics is. So we can even say that today nobody knows clearly what metaphysics mean. So, this way this means that what I’m doing is not clarifying something that is not clear for anybody, but trying to recover its value, because, in the middle of this confusion, I’m sure we have been wasting a treasure.

It’s the same that is happening about spirituality, something about... a lot of people talking about them, but nobody has clear ideas about what it is. This is another treasure that is being wasted.

Now I want to concentrate about this point, this question: metaphysics. I will try to make it easy as much as possible, so you don’t need to have a PhD in philosophy or being highly educated to understand what I’m going to explain. I want to be simple, clear and short as possible, although, you can understand, something like this cannot be explained in just five minutes; a bit more than five minutes.

What is metaphysics? What we call “metaphysics” is normally considered first started by a philosopher who lived around 300 years before Christ. The name of this philosopher was Aristotle. This philosopher tried to understand how we know reality, how we know object, things: what is that thing, what is this, how do I make an idea of things that are under my nose? He tried to reflect a lot about this, especially considering that our senses, that is our eyes, our ears, our body, are so easy to be deceived in knowing the objects, so that I can think that something is distorted, but actually is straight and vice versa. So how can we gain some good understanding of how things are?

Another philosopher that came much later, he embraced this big problem, because he realized that we can doubt about everything. So it’s like we don’t have a stable ground to walk on. This philosopher, his name is Descartes. He lived about 1,600 years after Christ. He tried to be very clever, that is he tried something that is used in philosophy, that is trying to turn problems into resources. He thought: I’m doubting, I have no certainties. Is there really anything, nothing that I can rely on? He made a reasoning. The reasoning is: if I am doubting, that is I’m thinking, if there is this doubt, this means that there is somebody who is doubting, somebody who is thinking, otherwise there is no doubt, no thinking, no uncertainty. So he turned the uncertainty, the problem of doubting, into a resource, into a ground: if there is doubt, this is evidence that there is somebody who is doubting, otherwise it’s impossible for doubt to exist. There is this famous phrase, this famous statement of Descartes, that is: “I think, therefore I am”. He thought that this was a strong certainty, a certainty that nobody can attack, because it’s so logical, so evident: are you doubting? Then you exist! Am I doubting? Then I exist! Here is the strong certainty, the undeniable certainty.

After Descartes, this reasoning of him actually was criticized strongly and I don’t want now to go deeply into all the complex questions that arouse from this reasoning of him. I want just to point two things, because I want to maintain our topic into metaphysics, as we said.

In this context metaphysics is when we try to understand how things are, how things really are, how they work. What is the existence of this object? What is the existence of me? What is the existence of doubt, of reality? This is a good idea of thinking what metaphysics is. Metaphysics are normally understood as the problem of reality, the problem of what exists. When I say: is this object here or not? This is metaphysics. If I say “You are there”, this is metaphysics. But we will explain a bit better while going on.

When Descartes tried to establish this truth, that is “I’m doubting, therefore I am” ,there are two things that he did not realize; at least for me are the most important things about the topic that I want to develop.

One thing is about dictatorship. That is: of course wanting to reach certainty, a solid ground to develop our reasoning, obviously is a sincere desire, because it’s the need to make clear and understandable and reliable discussions, but actually, since his intention was to be free from doubt, free from uncertainty, something that must be solid, sure, free from discussions, we can reflect a bit. Who is the person who is free from uncertainty, free from doubt, a person who doesn’t make discussion, that just says “This is what it is, no discussion, no doubt”? This is the dictator actually. So it happens that, when we sincerely try to reach certainty, we don’t realize that this search from certainty makes us, unintentionally, all dictators. I don’t want to be a dictator, but it happens, it’s something that makes me dictator against my will, while I’m unaware of what is going to happen. Now I don’t want to say that, whenever we say that this object is here for sure, does not mean that every one of us is a Hitler, but the root, the essential root, the essential mechanism is there. That is you are not Hitler, but you are starting, without being aware, to be a very little Hitler, because you are trying to avoid any doubt, any uncertainty, any discussion, any dialogue, and to reach something that is free from dialogue, it’s here, it’s this, and this is the truth, no discussion, no problem. This creates some comfort, some feeling with a solid ground, but we should realize that this creates the ground, actually, for dictatorship. This is a huge problem that is is mostly ignored.

The second problem that Descartes didn’t realize is the problem of inaccuracy, that is: when I say something, my idea is like a mirror, that the tries to give a picture of reality. So I say “There is a tree there”. My statement “There is a tree there” works like a mirror, that shows to every people the truth: “There is a tree there” and we consider this the truth: if there is really a tree there, saying that there is a tree there is true, is the truth. But we should actually realize another thing, that is: a mirror, exactly because it is a mirror and it is not the original object, cannot ever be true, because it’s not the object. A mirror that pictures, that shows a tree that is there, and the mirror is here, the tree that I see in the mirror is not the tree. The real, the true plant, the true tree, is there, is not in the mirror. This is the problem of whenever we say something: we think “truth”, but every truth is never true, because it’s never the object, it’s a copy of the object, and a copy of the object cannot ever be that object, the mirror will never be able to be the tree, what I say, what I think, will never be able to be the tree. I can say something that I think it is the tree and I make a copy. So, the idea is that a copy, exactly because it is a copy, it’s not true, it’s not the object, it’s a copy, so it’s an imitation, so we should not forget that a copy is always wrong, always different from the original object. This means that, when I think that I’ve reached the truth, like Descartes says “...then I am”, when you say “I am” you are expressing your perception of something and your perception of something is like the mirror and as such it is different from what is real. So what is the truth, since every truth is never the reality that it mirrors? This is the problem.

Let’s go back to metaphysics. Again, let’s try to clarify: what is metaphysics? I said metaphysics is whenever we say “This is that, this is a tree, I’m here”. We can say metaphysics is whenever we build, actually, a system of ideas. When I say “There is a tree there” I’m building a system of ideas, because there is the system of being, being there, the idea of tree, the connection between me and the tree, this is a system of idea, a building of ideas. We can even say, with different words, that whenever we use the verb “to be”, we are always building a system of ideas and, since every system of ideas has the problem that we said, problems of taking us to dictatorship and the problem of being just a copy and not the real reality, every metaphysics has this problem, that is making us thinking that we reached something good, because it is solid ground, to develop good reasoning, but actually every metaphysics has this problem, it makes us little dictators, makes us far from reality, because we forget reality and we follow the mirror, instead of following reality.

Since, whenever we use the verb “to be” we are going towards all of these problems, how can we escape? Because we use the verb “to be” almost everywhere, almost in everything we say and we think. Actually there are things that are clearly, we can say almost clearly, not metaphysics, not strongly pretending to be true, so they escape the problems of metaphysics, so they don’t make us dictators. What are these things?

I can suggest four ways of thinking that make something different.

One is telling. When I tell a story, I’m not saying “This is true”. It’s just a story, for fun. So this is not metaphysics, I’m not building a stable system of ideas, so I’m not a dictatorship, because the story can be easily discussed and I’m not saying this is a copy of some reality, it’s just my idea. So, building stories, telling stories, is outside the problem of metaphysics.

Another way to be not metaphysics is telling emotions. If I say “Ah, this is so beautiful!”, this is not a system of ideas that I build as a truth, something that must work, that must be solid. I’m just expressing my emotions. So, expressing emotions is another way to go away from the problems of metaphysics.

Or art. I can draw a tree, or the sun, or the sea, not because I want to show how they are, but because I want to show how I perceive them. So it’s like a different way to express emotions. So, again, when I paint a tree, I’m not saying “This is the truth”, so I’m not a dictator, I’m open to discussions, it’s just my perception, it’s just my idea, so it’s again another way of being away from dictatorship, away from the problems of mirroring reality.

Another way is just everyday language. When I say “Hello, how are you?”, or when I say “Oh, this thing is here”, I’m not necessarily doing deep philosophy, deep reasoning, deep analyzing, all the structures of my thoughts. I’m saying it in a quick way, involving just my everyday life, but not my deep reasoning. So everyday life, even when we use the verb “to be”, actually is free from metaphysics. What is dependent on metaphysics is when we want to make strong statements and we want to insist and we want to say “This is true, this is out of discussions”. When we say this we are meeting the two problems that I say: becoming dictators and inaccuracy, that is being just mirrors that, as such, makes us forget reality and looking at the mirror.

We can say, in a word, that what is opposite to metaphysics is subjectivity. When something is subjective, then it’s not something strong, it’s just my opinion. This is the essential way to avoid being metaphysics. I said that this is the big problem that happens in spirituality: why is such a big problem, why such a big misunderstanding? Because, as I said, this deep reflection on reality, on metaphysics started at a time, let’s say, near Aristotle or around that period, that is some few hundred years before Christ. But there are a lot of religious texts, like, let’s think about, for example, the Bible: they were written in periods when there was not this analytical way of wanting to understand certainty, reality, a philosophical way of understanding things. For example, when the Bible says “God created the earth and the skies, the heaven”, who wrote those words was not a philosopher, was not a metaphysicians, was not Aristotle. So there is no point in saying “Oh, that’s not true, because we know that scientifically the world was not created by God, was not created in seven days”. This is pointless discussions, nonsense, because this way I’m debating about a metaphysical understanding of something, towards the author who wrote those things completely outside the metaphysical mentality. Another example is, for example, a child who is happy to hug his mom and he is smiling, he is so joyful. We might think “Oh, the baby is absolutely sure that his mom is there, so he is thinking in a metaphysical way”. Actually he’s not, this is us projecting in the mind of the child this mentality, but the child is just expressing his happiness, his emotions, his life, but he’s not reflecting philosophically. We must make a distinction between ways of behaving, that are not metaphysical, even if they in our reasoning imply the existence of of something, but this is us making a philosophical reasoning, but it is not there a philosophical reasoning. This creates a lot of misunderstanding. I have seen a lot of atheists debating against the Bible, against the faith, but they just project to that text, that religion, a way of thinking that it’s not there actually. This happens actually to believers as well. Coming from the Christian context, I’ve seen personally that a lot of believers conceive what is said in the Bible in a metaphysical way. They think “Oh, okay, if there is God who is in heaven, so there must be heaven somewhere, there’s God somewhere”, but this is a metaphysical way of thinking, but the text, the Gospel, the Bible, did not write these things with a metaphysical mind. The alternative, as I said, is a subjective mentality, emotional mentality, we can even say existential mentality, that is wanting to reflect our experience of life. I want to say again: the fact that this would imply that we what we are talking about must exist, that is the same reasoning made by Descartes, does not mean that those people, the people who wrote the Bible, were with a metaphysical mentality. We must be careful not to project to them our scientific or metaphysical mentality.

Another misunderstanding is, I said atheists, or humanists. Actually they call them “humanists” but in my opinion they are not so humanist, because this group of people, who call themselves humanists, actually they are in a, I would say, dogmatic way, grounded on rationality, and they don’t criticize rationality. So how can you be human if you transform rationality in a dogma, in something that should not be discussed? This is not so rational actually.

Another problem in spiritualities, who, as I said, don’t realize what is the problem with metaphysics, is that they say “Oh, we are not dogmatic”. So let’s see what you say, I’m happy that you are not dogmatic. But then, when I go to the details, I see that they actually believe in the existence of forces, or energies, or gods. This implies some dogmas, because how can you talk about God without stating some idea about God? All of these things cause great misunderstandings and infinite debates, not only between atheists and spiritualities, but between religions, between spiritualities, between different ways of conceiving things. They just don’t consider the problem of conceiving things in a metaphysical or in a non-metaphysical way.

Another problem is that actually the boundary between metaphysical and non-metaphysical way of thinking is not so hard. Actually, when we say “God created the world” it’s not 100% non-metaphysical or 100% metaphysical, because we are humans. There is a kind of mixture in this and this contributes to make things even more difficult to understand. But, at least, if we are aware of the problems of distinction between metaphysics and non-metaphysics, at least we are more confident in moving in this problem. It happens also that in some religions some questions are just either ignored or they say “Oh, this is the mystery of God, it cannot be explained”, but actually it is just because there is a confusion between a metaphysical way of thinking and a non-metaphysical way of thinking. It depends how we want to deal with a problem, like the problem of the existence of God, or the problem of God who is supposed to be good but there is evil in the world, that is the problem of theodicy, and so on.

The point is that when we want to follow something, some spirituality, whatever it is, it is good to be aware that every kind of spirituality can be practiced either in a metaphysical way or in a non-metaphysical way. Being aware of this solves a lot of problems and avoids a lot of discussions that are useless, actually, without any fruit.

We can realize that one thing that happens in spirituality is this, that, if we don’t want to be metaphysic, then it seems that the alternative, as I said, is being something like subjective, artistic, that is equivalent to being generic, approximate, or relativistic, but then it happens something like a contradiction, because, when we talk in the context of spiritualities, or religions, we know that spirituality and religions are supposed to be about the essential things of our life, the most important things of our existence, the fundament, the absolutely most important things of our life. If we want to be non-metaphysical, which implies being approximate, being generic, how can something be fundamental, the most important thing of my life, if it has to be approximate, generic? You see that there is a conflict. I am either metaphysic and this way it seems that it becomes easier to deal with important and essential and big things, or I am generic, approximate, and this way I cannot talk about essential and necessary and vital things of existence. It seems now a way without solution. Actually there is a way, that is exactly what I said, that is trying intentionally to build a kind of spirituality that works to elaborate a kind of thought that tries to be not metaphysical. The opposite is a spirituality, or any kind of spirituality, that tries intentionally to be based on weakness, humanity, that is not humanistics that I said based on rationality, humanity, humbleness, subjectivity, fragility, vulnerability, respect, pluralism, and you can realize that all these things are the opposite of being dictators, of being with strong certainty, or pretending that the mirror is the reality. It is very humble. The problem is that, when we follow this way, it seems impossible to find something strong, essentially, that is, this is the important thing of my life, but it can be exactly this. Actually this is already present in, we can say, in all religions, it’s just confused and mixed, because in all religions and spiritualities we can find this appreciation for human fragility, for humbleness, and it’s normally solved saying “Oh, the great, the big one is God, I’m the fragile one”. But actually a whole spirituality can be built based on fragility and vulnerability, including God. But how can God be conceived in a vulnerable way. I don’t want to go now deeply inside this question.

This means that the way that I said, that is telling stories, telling emotions, making art, the everyday language, all of this can become part of a conscious and intentional project, to build spirituality that is non-metaphysical spirituality, an authentic spirituality not exposed to the flaws of metaphysics. This is not just spiritualities based on going back, denying, so no certainty, no strength, no great things, but it’s able to be actually positive, constructive, because art, emotions, telling, are not just negative things. It’s, instead, free from all the flaws, all the problems caused by metaphysical thoughts that I already referred to.

We can feel some nostalgia about this, because the dictatorship of certainty can give some comfort, can make us feel protected. This is actually what happens in a lot of dictatorships, that is people want it because they feel protected and, when we abandoned this context, we feel a bit not orientated, a bit confused, oh, where shall I go now, what is the direction. But we can can build directions exactly in this context, directions of respect, emotions, telling stories, interest in diversity, in the pluralism and so on. It’s like a challenge, because people have not worked so far so much in this field. It’s up to us, now, to build alternative spiritualities, that have this courage, take this challenge of building something that is really alternative, something that is based on vulnerability, but is not something just of low quality, is exactly the opposite, it is the highest quality of spirituality.

This is what I consider the main problem of all spiritualities, that, I think, if it’s understood, it solves a lot of problems and it helps to create good spiritualities. Today, actually, there are a lot of spiritualities that are going being built, alternative spiritualities, that try to be free from God, free from dogmatism, but they are just very confused, very unclear. I think the fundamental reason why they are confused is exactly this: they are not aware that the essential point is being non-metaphysics. That is they are trying to be not metaphysical, but they are just not aware that this is the point to work on, this is the point to develop, to understand and to explore in all directions.

Now just a note to suggest what will be built with this alternative. We can build

- new rituals, rituals not based on certainties, not based on dogmas, but on our freedom;

- new meanings of art, art not just to enjoy art, but art instead to find our life, to be the ground, the essential ground of our life, instead of something that is certain and strong;

- the idea of visiting religions. We can visit and share another religion without need of agreeing with their beliefs. I can say “I want to visit your religion, I want to pray with you, I want to pray your God, even if don’t believe in your God, but I’d like to share you, because I appreciate your practice, your emotions. This is a non-metaphysical way of sharing spiritualities. You don’t even need to be either a believer or non-believer, there are ways of believing in God in a non-metaphysical way, but this would be something deeper that we would need to explore in detail.

It’s just opening of another horizon and I think this would open a whole new life to everybody because, at the end, spirituality is life, so I hope that this would be appreciated and this makes you see how wider horizons are opened this way.

So see you in next discussions, in the forums, in the website, in meetings, whatever it is.