Ludwig Wittgenstein - Cynic or Sage?

Philosopher Ludwig Wittgenstein’s Lecture on Ethics, delivered in November 1929 to the Heretics Society at Cambridge University, is a problematic provocation with a cynical and pessimistic flair.

Wittgenstein begins his lecture by giving an explanation for Ethics as “the general inquiry into what is good”, however, neglects to explain what “good” actually is, perhaps, because he will soon go on to discredit the word “good” with a few examples. But first, he seeks to offer more clarity on the matter of Ethics through a series of synonyms, which he compares to the composite portraiture of Sir Francis Galton, who in the 1880s used photographic superimposition of two or more faces by multiple exposures to create composites, which he presented as human ideal types and concepts. Galton considered his technique to investigate common types of humanity an extension of the statistical techniques of averages and correlation.[1]

Wittgenstein talks about showing his audience a Galtonesque collective photo to make them see “a typical Chinese face” as a simile for his attempt to give them “a rough idea as to what it is that Ethics is concerned with” by listing several possible definitions. Whether he succeeded in giving the Heretics Society such an idea, we will never know. Nonetheless, his proposition suffers from a problematic undercurrent. To even speak of “a typical Chinese face” is sheer ignorance, at best, given the vastness and diversity of the Chinese population, not to mention its culture, with fabulous philosophies, and languages in the several hundred. Between 1850 and 1931 the Chinese population grew from an estimated 436,100,000 million to 474,780,000 million![2] The only typical face is the human one, millions of times over, and this one varies in great detail. Unfortunately, the attempt by certain movements to typify select portions of humanity has never had good consequences, instead, underlining the unethical streaks of human hubris[3]. Seriously, what can a 19^th-century British technique reveal about the realities of humanity across the globe? To superimpose various images of real faces in order to create some abstract ideal, is to erase the human right to be an idiosyncratic individual variety of the vast human collective. Erasure is unethical and leads nowhere good. Galton’s 19^th-century Britain also brought forth the eugenics movement, which spread to most European countries, like Germany, but also to the United States, Canada and Australia. The word “eugenics” comes from the Greek composition “eu – good, well” and “genes – born, come into being, growing/grown.” On the surface it can mean good genes or born well, but this name was deceiving, for the eugenics movement were a set of cruel and murderous beliefs and practices that aimed to improve the genetic quality of a particular human population.[4] The kind of misguided and unethical movement that went hand in hand with racism and the antisemitism that fueled the rise of the Third Reich in Germany. Little did Wittgenstein know in 1929, that the worst was yet to come, in the form of death camps and a Second World War killing and causing inconceivable suffering for many millions of humans across the world.

Of course, Ethics doesn’t claim to actually know what is good but merely to inquire into what might be. That’s why it is of utmost importance to carefully review the terms on which the inquiry is made. Wittgenstein settles on the following notions about ethical inquiry:
- what is good
- what is valuable
- what is really important
- on the meaning of life
- what makes life worth living

Thus, what might a “rough idea”, as he proposes we imagine, look like? Because we already encounter a very rough and problematic road to imagining what’s genuinely good or valuable or important or meaningful, with the loose guidance Ludwig bestows upon his interlocutors, a group of, probably gentlemen – though the Heretics Society was open to women. Jane Ellen Harrison, a British scholar, linguist and England’s first paid woman career academic, found an audience at the Society. Doctor Harrison is one of the three founders of modern studies in Ancient Greek religion and mythology, and her methods of applying 19^th-century archeological discoveries to the interpretation of ancient Greek religion have become standard today.[5] On Decemeber 7^th, 1909, she gave an inaugural talk at the Heretics Society, which was published in 1911 as the essay Heresy and Humanity, “an argument that warned of the dangers of group-think and implored the audience to realize that we are constantly negotiating the line between egotism and herd instinct, but that how we navigate that line matters.”[6] On May 18^th, 1924, influential modernist English writer Virginia Wolf used the Heretics forum to reply criticism of her novel Jacob by the writer Arnold Bennett. Her much-cited phase addressing the arrival of modernism “on or about December 1910, human character changed” has gone down in history. She was referring to English painter and critic Roger Fry’s exhibition Manet and the Post-Impressionists and argued, through the examination of two generations of writers, that as times change, writers and the tools they use must evolve as “the tools of one generation are useless to the next”.[7] Wolf viewed modernism as an inherently unstable society and culture in flux. Overall, the Heretics Society appears to have been characterized by nonconformism and the exposition of novel ideas.

So, what were the gentle souls like in the auditorium of the Heretics Society in 1929, when Ludwig Wittgenstein stepped up to the podium? What would they have imagined as good? A humanity characterized by abstraction, whereby the conception of a typical face was viewed as valuable? Or a humanity where various points of view are really important and diversity gives meaning to life? Unfortunately, it is not clear what rough idea Ethics has for Wittgenstein.

My own rough idea of what is good, valuable, important and makes life worth living goes something like this:

Ethical is what takes variety and idiosyncrasy into account in a way that guides and serves the common wellbeing of not only humanity but also planetary life at large. Ethical is what makes life worth living through inclusion, justice and equal opportunities to pursue health, wealth, happiness, equanimity and liberation from suffering for living creatures alike. Ethical is what gives all humans the right to shelter, water, food, hygiene, healthcare, education and protection from injury and disaster. Ethical is what enables individuals to come together as communities and express their creativity freely. A meaningful life is possible when the basic necessities of survival are accounted for all and the means for thriving available to all.

Perhaps, Wittgenstein is unspecific to make his provocative claim on linguistic doom. That “we cannot express what we want to express and that all we can say about the absolute miraculous remains nonsense.” A philosophical punch line to appeal to an audience who is into nonconformism. Why offer clear definitions and ideas? The Heretic Society was founded on the questioning of traditional authorities in general and religious dogmas in particular.[8] To hear the absolute miraculous be dismissed as nonsense may have tickled the anti-dogmatic fancy of the Society more than presentation of genuine wisdom with clear guidance, often misread as traditional authority, as opposed to being understood as timeless truths enabling the surviving and thriving of humanity for millions of years. Could Ludwig imagine that tickling the heretics would result in a paper considered Western philosophical canon? Or did his joke of the moment merely blow their minds like a cannon?

Wittgenstein resorts to negative definitions, like guilt, and weak measures, like pleasure, to continue exploring the relative notion of the absolute good, that is Ethics. He also employs strong measures for good, such as awe, appreciation and safety. But he uses them to prove what can’t be imagined. For example, he claims that “it is nonsense to say that I wonder at the existence of the world, because I cannot imagine it not existing.” This is kind of a silly assessment, because you can naturally wonder about the world not being around. As the old Indian sage Markandeya did, who “had a vision about how the world would come to an end. Just as human beings die, the world also experiences death. This is called Pralaya, when all the mountains, forests, lands and rivers get under the sea, where they dissolve into the waters. This frightening sight where even the stars and the planets are consumed by the sea was witnessed by Markaya.”[9]

The story of Markaya’s envisioned doom underlies the yoga position known as Child’s Pose or, in Sanskrit, Balasana. Because the sage Markandeya, who indeed imagined the world not existing, also visualized “a banyan leaf, cradled by the waves of the waters of doom. On this banyan leaf was a child, a baby sucking its toe. […] Markandeya was reassured that what he had seen as the terrifying end of the world was just an event in the lifecycle of the cosmos. Death would be followed by rebirth, not only for all living creatures, but the world itself. The gurgling happy child represented how the divine considers even the greatest of catastrophes and calamities as just one event in the infinite flow of events that take place in the universe.”[10]

Asanas, or positions, are not only ancient, but they represent basic Yoga canon, philosophical guidelines for good living, physical Ethics, if you will. An ancient Indian sage, exponent of visions, inspired a very accessible solution for dealing with doom – which results from the inevitable conclusion that the world, too, will cease to exist – in the form of a simple pose. Balasana is a calming position available to anyone, anytime, anywhere and is conducive to individual and collective well-being, health, equanimity, happiness and creativity. Child’s Pose, amongst many others, is a concrete and clear expression of Ethics that all humans can employ.

Just kneel on the ground with your knees together or spread apart. Then, drape your torso over your thighs or let it settle between them. Allow your head to hang loosely resting on the ground. Place your arms stretched out in front of you on the ground or next to along the sides of your body. With every inhalation feel your torso expand and lift you gently. With every exhalation feel yourself drop deeper into the calm of the ground beneath your body. Breath on, in and out, always aware of the breath moving through your body until you feel yourself let go into calmness of a grounded space.

The yogic child position captures Ethics beyond language, as it offers a way for the well-being of everyone, a strategy for and expression of goodness in terms of health, happiness, equanimity and calm. Yoga positions, or asanas, capture Ethics in a very physical and complete way that transcends words. And yet, each position also has a name. For a yoga practitioner “Balasana” can mean an absolute miraculous kind of calm.

But maybe it would have been too much to ask of a group of post-World-War-One Europeans, embedded in a Great Depression and surrounded by the rise of fascism, to imagine the non-existence of the world. In this context, Wittgenstein’s provocative cynicism, maybe makes sense, when he states that: “To be safe essentially means that it is physically impossible that certain things should happen to me and therefore it is nonsense to say that I am safe whatever happens.” In truth, Europeans were not safe. For, fascism and another war were about to erupt and destroy millions of lives.

And Wittgenstein insists on the notion of nonsense throughout his lecture. He considers it nonsense to say that experiences and facts have absolute value. “It is the paradox that an experience, a fact, should seem to have supernatural value,” he states. But experiences can, in fact, even as expressed in words, give insight into phenomena that transcend them, insight into what lies beyond.

Still, Wittgenstein considers what’s miraculous to be irreconcilable with science. “The truth is that the scientific way of looking at a fact is not the way you look at it as a miracle,” he states. But this must not be the case.

We could understand what Wittgenstein considers as “miraculous” to be that which lies beyond facts and experiences, which science is devoted to capturing in structured and systematic ways, rendering miracles beyond the capture of science, even though these can be experienced on a different level, one out of the reach of language according to Wittgenstein. Indeed, another approach is possible to the reconciliation between science and that which may lie beyond, as explored by the Western yogi, mediator and author Michael Singer in his book The Untetheres Soul – The Journey Beyond Yourself (2007). Singer considers spirituality to be “the commitment to go beyond, no matter what it takes”, essentially the pursuit of the miraculous in the absolute sense, to use Wittgenstein’s language.

“The foundations of spiritual growth and personal awakening are very much strengthened by the findings of Western science. Science has shown us how an underlying energy field forms into atoms, which then bind together into molecules, and ultimately manifest into the entire physical universe. The same is true inside of us. All that goes on inside also has its foundation in an underlying energy field. It is the movements in this field that create our mental and emotional patterns as well as our inner drives, urges, and instinctual reactions. Regardless of what you call this inner force field – Chi[11], Shakti[12], or Spirit – it is an underlying energy that flows in particular patterns through your inner being.”[13]

Thus, science can strengthen spiritual experiences, or that which is miraculous. Science is a form of language. And Wittgenstein does consider that words gain meaning through their use within forms of life, and that language has a fluid, social character.[14] It follows that, precisely because language has a fluid and social character, and words gain meaning through their use within forms of life, that the most important aspects of life give language its descriptive capacity, expanding it rather than being limited by it. Thus, rendering language, a significant tool of Ethics. Language feeds on everyday life, fixed definitions and abstract correspondence to reflect an interlocutor’s intentions. Not language limits life, but speakers do. Sadly, Wittgenstein appears to limit language by rendering it absolutely useless and nonsensical.

Even more sadly, science, too, is but an expression of humanity and subject to its ingenuity, inspiration and impulsivity. Perhaps, Wittgenstein was wary of human expression and sought to pull people off their high horse by questioning the most fundamental aspects of human interaction: ethics and language. What is meaningful in a world full of nonsense, indeed?

The late 19^th century didn’t only give rise to the Heretic Society that gave the philosopher Ludwig Wittgenstein a platform for his rough ideas. The father of nuclear chemistry, Otto Hahn, was born on March 8^th, 1879, and lived to witness the abhorrent consequences of his extensive research. He discovered nuclear fission, the science behind nuclear reactors and nuclear weapons, with the support of woman nuclear physicist Lise Meitner (1878-1968) and others. In the early 1920s, Hahn created the new line of research known as “applied radiochemistry” taken up all over the world. The United States detonated two atomic bombs over the Japanese cities of Hiroshima and Nagasake during the final days of World War Two on the 6^th and 9^th of August, 1945, killing up to 246,000 civilians. This represented the first and only uses of nuclear weapons in an armed conflict. The war in Europe had ceased on May 8^th with Germany’s surrender. Hanh and other scientists, almost all of whom had worked on the German nuclear weapons program, had been put under arrest on April 25^th by an armored British-American task force. They were informed of the atomic bombings in Japan in captivity and were shocked that the Allies were more advanced than them. Hahn noted that he was glad they had not succeeded, but the German nuclear scientist drafted a memorandum that made sure it was known who had discovered nuclear fission to begin with. Hahn received the 1944 Nobel Peace Prize in Chemistry “for his discovery of the fission of heavy atomic nuclei” and found out about it via the Daily Telegraph on November 18^th, 1945.

Back in 1909 at the Heretic Society, Jane Ellen Harrison had implored the audience to realize that we are constantly negotiating the line between egotism and herd instinct and that how we navigate that line matters. But the German nuclear scientists still satisfied their thirst for recognition and an egotistical Otto Hahn cashed in on the Nobel Peace Prize, despite the abominable destruction and devastation he had fathered. But the instinct for survival of the German scientists was stronger than any ethical considerations, and they went on to use the pseudo-apologetic narrative that Germany lost the war because of the moral superiority of its scientists to secure the survival of German academe.

“[I]t is not difficult to see that the most primal energy flow is the survival instinct,” Michael Singer writes at the turn of the twenty-first century. “During eons of evolution, from the simplest of living forms to the most complex, there has always been the day-to-day struggle to protect oneself.”[15]

When considering the unethical story of nuclear science, one that led to unimaginable suffering, Wittgenstein’s observations are plausible. Language can be deceiving. A peace prize for war crimes? Does it get more unethical than that? While truths can seek expression in language, however, they only have meaning if expressed in lived experience as well. Thus, knowledge is stored and taught in order to recreate meaningful human experiences and to avoid repeating unethical mistakes.

Language plays an important part in carrying human experience forward and philosophy finds meaning in abstractions capable of transcending mundane misgivings. Both definitions and daily use determine meaningful language. Words are shaped by circumstance, but meaning, embedded in words, also shapes activities, contexts and life itself. One sentence alone can capture meaningfulness that transcends a given time, space and activity, or a contextual interpretation thereof. For example, the isolated sentence “Death is part of life.” encompasses a larger existential context, that embraces countless mundane situations faced by creatures beyond humans themselves.

While it is true that there is no single universal rulebook for language, we must acknowledge that underlying structures exist and must be taken into consideration. Both in a courtroom and at a family dinner, phenomena like power dynamics and social stratification can play a role. Racism and other isms can show up similarly in various contexts, as can justice, empathy and love.

What makes language possible in the first place, is an interesting question. Language works because it is an expression of human experience. Words are robes for meaning. The greatest challenge is to capture meaning beyond it’s many cloaks, the art of language is to reflect meaning in the nude. Thus, it would have been more appropriate to award Otto Hahn the Nobel War Prize in recognition of the destructive extent of his impactful scientific work. Of course, such a prize is nothing to celebrate. Such suffering is too big a prize to pay for human games of nonsense, such as making weapons with no other purpose but to kill and cause harm. Does it get more unethical than that?

Meaning is both something we participate in together and something we can privately construct in isolation. Otto Hahn constructed the meaning surrounding his nuclear discovery privately, while writing his memoirs in captivity and subsequently found support in his fellow scientists, ultimately going down in history as the father of nuclear science, regardless of his role in the terrors of World War Two.

So, how does language actually work? Language works in tandem with meaning. And meaning is rooted in life. If language appears mysterious and paradoxical when abstracted from ordinary use, it’s because life itself can appear mysterious and paradoxical. Philosophical problems arise because unethical situations challenge the mind’s love for wisdom. Zero wisdom lies in the creation of weapons. Warring is driven by pathology and fear. Philosophical problems arise when the weakest and most afflicted aspects of humanity seem to drive society into insanity to the point that language itself appears as nonsense. But words have functions that transcend ordinary speech. And languages are designed to dance with meaning to reflect life and stop at nothing. Thus, languages abound with great diversity, creativity and variety.

For Wittgenstein, what matters most is not something we can neatly define, but something we can only gesture toward in action, attitude and lived experience. And yet, we must seek to define ethics in a way that is meaningful to following generations. A national or multi-national constitution, for example, must reflect clear guidelines for the actions, attitudes and lived experiences of the people it seeks to embody in a way that is conducive to a collective well-being while honoring individual idiosyncrasies. It is irresponsible to claim that definitions don’t matter, because they very much do as they transcend individual experiences and carry on meaning for living for hundreds and thousands of years. More importantly, we must seek our definitions carefully to elicit meaningful lives for generations to come. We must seek ethical lives that are free of destruction, war, hunger, suffering, deceit and senseless strife.

As logic exists outside of language, so do other phenomena. Patterns are expressed in the structures of life and language seeks to recreate these patterns. Mathematics and physics are examples of language varieties that seek to express the patterns humans observe in the universe and to make human creation and manipulation possible. Ethics must be a wise guide for human creativity and manipulation. Ethics must teach humans to enable individual and collective well-being instead of war and destruction. And there are many ways to describe meaning. Language can be expressed beyond words through art, as well.

There is no humanity without expression and sharing. Thus, Wittgenstein’s proposition that what cannot be spoken of must be passed over in silence is problematic in the context of both wisdom and injustice. Wisdom needs to be shared to protect well-being. And mistakes cannot remain unnamed for justice to prevail. It may be true, that not everything important can be captured in theoretical terms, but, perhaps, it must for the sake of wisdom and education. Everything is significant for the human creature as exhibited by their tireless attempts to express it through language and art. Meaning that is embedded in lived practice is felt, but meaning embedded in language can transcend the one and become knowledge and life for many. This is the undeniable responsibility of ethics, the inquiry into what is good, important and valuable. As we define the meaning of life for humanity, will determine how we live.

Indeed, any aspect of human experience, whether mystical or mundane, can remain unexpressed. Plenty of day-to-day experiences go largely unarticulated, like going to the bathroom, eating, taking care of the body, et cetera. Repetitive mundane experiences go unarticulated far more than mystical ones. Speculatively, in terms of quantity due to the sheer amount of experiences required to through life on a day-to-day basis. But, sadly, in Western culture also in qualitative terms. How many of us habitually meditate, pray, light fires, engage in daily rituals, chants or other spiritual practices, like venerating a deity or engaging reverently with nature or the universe, like kissing the earth or staring up at the sky? Plenty of practices died as they got waved off as pagan by religion. Can they be revived? We have language to thank for holding on to ancient traditions! But how many monks, nuns, renunciates and devotees actually spend more time in mystical experiencing than taking dutiful care of the daily demands of terrestrial mortal life?

What is the absolute sense of the term miraculous? Wittgenstein doesn’t say. Perhaps, “absolute” is but an exaggeration, while “ethical” is a useful aspiration.

If “all we can say about the absolute miraculous remains nonsense,” is all Wittgenstein can say about the “absolute miraculous”, then it is nonsense. Is to qualify certain experiences, such as the existence of the world and language, as absolute miracles too ambitious? Can we agree that life is miraculous and that this word is indication enough? “Miraculous” expresses how marvelous life is and invites us to experience the awe, reverence, humility, gratitude, appreciation and sheer joy the realization of life’s miraculous existence evokes.

Perhaps, Wittgenstein simply remained too scarce in his use of language, while synonyms and literary techniques abound to capture the value and importance humans express through language, of the miraculous life and fascinating world they’re a part of. Perhaps, the tendency of all men who ever tried to write or talk Ethics or Religion was to run against the boundaries of their own minds. But would it have been too offensive to tell this to the men of the Heretics Society to their face? That their minds are bound. Language can be used as a scapegoat, too.

I’m left to wonder, was Wittgenstein a sage provocateur or a disillusioned cynic?

The closing statement of his lecture sounds bleak. “This running against the walls of our cage is perfectly, absolutely hopeless, Ethics so far as it springs from the desire to say something about the ultimate meaning of life, the absolute good, the absolute valuable, can be no science.” Yes, science fails humanity every day that it produces weapons of mass destruction, which are neither good nor valuable nor meaningful for life. “What it says does not add to our knowledge in any sense. But it is a document of a tendency in the human mind which I personally cannot help respecting deeply and I would not for my life ridicule it.” Which he does. Wittgenstein not only ridicules science but also the human mind, and rightfully so, we’ve seen what atrocities it is capable of. But at the same time, only if we can transcend our afflictions through genuine ethics, characterized by the respect for the miracle of living, do we stand a chance to call ourselves good philosophers and human beings, who seek well-being for all and the common good for generations to come.

Switzerland, May 2^nd, 2026

---

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Composite_portrait

[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Population_history_of_China

[3] hubris – exaggerated pride or self-confidence; arrogance (www.merriam-webster.com)

[4] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eugenics

[5] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jane_Ellen_Harrison

[6] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_Kay_Ogden

[7] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mr._Bennett_and_Mrs._Brown

[8] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_Kay_Ogden

[9] Devdutt Pattanaik with Matthew Rulli. Yoga Mythology – 64 Asanas and Their Stories. 2019. HarperCollins Publishers, Noida, Uttar Pradesh, India. p.255

[10] Ibidem, pp. 255-256

[11] Vital force in traditional Chinese philosophy.

[12] The Universal Power that underlies and sustains all existence in Hinduism.

[13] Michael A. Singer. The Untethered Soul – The Journey Beyond Yourself. New Harbinger Publications, Inc., Oakland, CA. p. 59

[14] Christopher Bray. Philosophy Club Notes – Ludwig Wittgenstein and the Philosophy of Language. Sandy Library, April 18^th, 2026.

[15] Michael A. Singer. The Untethered Soul – The Journey Beyond Yourself. New Harbinger Publications, Inc., Oakland, CA. p. 59

Breaking Point - On the Question of Beginner's Mind (Part I)

As I finally broke, I succumbed to a state of paralysis, a state of peculiar contemplation. I reached a state of being broken within which letting go suddenly came naturally, with no one, nowehre and nothing to hold on to any longer. And it became easy to let go of everyone and everything. For a moment, it appeared easy to let go of even life itself, contrary to all existential compulsion. But first, there were two more days. And what comes next, who knows?!

* * * * *

Sunday. Day 2 of building a yoga practice at home.
The first thing my lover does when he gets up in the morning, is make himself a coffee. I heard him from the yoga chamber, where I'd snuk into, while everyone was sleeping, for the first time. For the second time, I set out the new black yoga mat with the golden mandala moon-phases running along the middle. I laid it down in the center of the small room facing the window with a view of the Eastern sky and a fairy-tale, baby-green, spring-time lanscape of forests, the park on the hill with giant trees, old houses with solid slanted roofs, and the train tracks. In this position, I would have plenty of space to stretch out the arms without hitting the walls of a chamber barely big enough to accomodate a single bed. Thus, a room deemed just right for yoga, just big enough for a mat and a static stretching body in sporadic motion.
A train rolled by as I began Sun Salutation A. And I tolerated my distracted mind. But my body felt particularly stiff that morning. It felt heavy, acid and sore from the workouts of the previous days. A few repetitions at the machines for training abdominal muscles, the transverse and obliques, plus yoga class with my teens, after a long walk to the river in the morning, on Friday. At the gym on Saturday morning, European Tae Bo beat up our bodies in its customary way. Sitting in the sauna wasn't enough to sweat out the pain, nor was the body appeased by rinsing it off with ice-cold water thereafter. Even my seventeen-year-old son, the one with the most endurance and strength finally felt fatigued, after weeks of working out regularly at the gym and taking long walks around the landscape.
On Tuesday evening, my teens went to Fitboxing without me. It's a class characterized by a tough and charismatic female trainer with otherwise only men. My daughter trained with her brother, and I felt bad for not being there to train with lady coach like the week before - as if she weren't used to being the only woman amidst men, a condition I know all too well here in conservative Switzerland, where traditional gender role expectations prevail. But I had gotten my period for the third time in six weeks and was bloody exhausted. Have I had my period on average every two weeks since we moved here because of stress or perimenopause? Who knows? But it sucks, it literally sucks the energy out of me. Yoga Mistress Geta Iyengar thinks that bleeding gets rid of excess heat in the body. I'm left to wonder whether it's a good thing. Perhaps, all these changes are so exhausting, that the body wants to force rest through blood.
Sun Salutation A: once.
Sun Salutation B: once.
My feet never felt so heavy on my hands in Pada-Hastasana (foot-hand position).
Then, Lover peeked into the room sweetly saying "beautiful woman" while I struggled in Utthita-Parsvakonasana (extended side-angle). And I snapped at him as he triggered my ADHD. "What the fuck!? You know how hard it is for me right now to even get on the mat?" He understood, I hope, and left. I feld kind of bad, especially as I feared that my mind had already succumbed to the interruption.
But I managed to push through Prasarita-Padottanasana A (spread-leg stretched-out position). I widened my legs enough to feel my hair on the floor as my yearning to get my head on the mat and lift my body into the air expressed itself. I woefully noticed that especially my lower back is so awfully tight. All this muscle fatigue makes me feel heavy and incapable. But I have also begun to notice changes over the weeks in the condition of my muscular structure, as I'm determined to get ripped and develop portruding abs for the first time in my life. I am also curious to explore what muscularity might do to a yoga practice. 
However, I confess that the extent of my motherly physique fills me with doubts. Not to mention this perimenopausal affliction womanhood reserves for the middle-aged! Alas, I'll keep trying still, pushing the weekly work-outs with my ambitious kids, who believe in me like no one else, who love me unconditionally and hold me to account ruthlessly.

* * * * *

I find myself questioning the wisdom of "beginner's mind" lately. It's supposed to be a very zen-y notion that caputres the importance of having a non-judgemental, open and fresh mind or something like that. But it feels more like a con concept, an empty promise, a fool's way out. What is beginning without knowledge? What is an unpracticed mind? A student without a teacher, what wisdom will they find? What is choice without judgement? What is intelligence without a context? Is experience unkind? Putting and end to illusions and delusions takes devotion, training and perseverance. Stubborn is the meditator who continuously returns their attention to the breath, and persistent the yogis and yoginis who pour Prana all over their mat as they emulate death.

(to be continued)

Geyser

I didn't get dressed for the mat, I got dressed for the desk. I got on the mat anyway. One Sun Salutation. It's better than nothing. One step in the desired direction. But I wonder, as self-doubt lingers suspiciously, will a second step be possible tomorrow or will self-sabotage win again? The goal at the moment is clear: one step a day on the mat, every day, whatever it is.
But I'm afraid. Afraid to fail alone. Afraid to be my own worst enemy. As my body aches and my self-esteem is shit. Too old. Too ugly. Too stiff. Unfit, unable, incapable, never enough...
The subconscious geysers of negative complexes bubble up daily and create a backdrop of disheartening noise. The sulfuric stench of self-loathing becomes an inescapable part of the inner landscape. Can I learn to love it, too?
Unconscious waters, so colorful and clear, reveal truths that are hard to conceal. Truths that burn with acid aches. Why dip my limbs in them, poisonous as I know they are?
Thus, I become too much to bear for myself and exit reveries arise. But exit how and exit where? The human landscape has so much to bear. I must do my duty and keep trying. A philosophical duty to try for the sake of humanity. Why not? If I'm going to be a dumbass loser about it, might as well lose while trying...

Prakrity - Cartoon Prayer (3-5-5)

I hate her.
Because I love her.
I can't take my eyes off her.

Off
the black to colorful, geometric, two-dimensional
Goddess of apparent infinity.
Who, single-mindedly,
lights up one's periphery.

T.V.
I love thee!
Though art the most tempting deity.
For all that you give,
I thank thee.

Fixin' it

All I can think about is the fix. I calculate the minutes and hours at my disposal. Until the next showing-up, the next social performance where I have to appear "normal".
All I want is to fix this mess in my mind. I know what will do it. I don't care that it's temporary. I don't care how bad the crash later might be. I just want to feel better, pretend, even temporarily.
There's a recklessness to my urgency. Because fixin' it makes me feel free. 
Needing it is better than needing anyone. Because who cares anyway? Who doesn't have a pile of shit to deal with? No one needs more shit.
That's why I fix it, my way. Albeit temporarily.

Asylum IV

I was about to play
with his crotch
when he asked me
to get up and look.
"I'm looking," I said
as I stared into his underpants.
"You're going to miss it,"
he insisted.
So I looked out the window
with him
at the two sun-bathing cats in the yard.
After a while,
he had to get back to work.
I stayed glued to the window
staring at the sunny cats,
nice and high.

Letter from a Nexistentialist

Esteemed fellow Philosophers –

Introduction:

[1] I appear before you today not so much to make a presentation as I am here to extend an invitation.

[2] I invite you to query: What’s next?

[3] I deliberately ask “what is next” instead of “what comes next” because, I believe, what comes next is already here.

[4] Everything that arises is preceded by a seed. (Samkhya[1])

[5] Considering ancient and modern philosophy, what kind of philosophy will the Twenty-First Century breed?

Objective:

[6] Nexistentialist philosophy seeks to capture inherited and timeless truths of what binds us, to guide humanity forward as we exercise our creative expression.
[7] Nexistentialism is a means for humans to explore our creative impulses and bonds (art). 

Question: What inherited wisdom can you think of and how it may guide us forward?

[8] Nexistentialist philosophy also seeks to understand what links exist between phenomena, for example, between the mind, its kin and the universe.

Question: What interrelated phenomena do you perceive in yourself and the world?

[9] Thus, I would like to invite you to inquire with me, what perceptions, on this planet and beyond, guide humanity today and will guide humanity tomorrow?

Question: What do you imagine next after Ancient and Modern Philosophy?

Perception:

[10] Nexistentialism views philosophy as the Art of Perception – amidst other natural arts.

[11] Linked cognitive paths represent webs of meaning,

[12] which create perceptive nets that sustain illusions of

[13] fantasy (what an individual imagines) and

[14] reality (what is shared amongst individuals).

[15] What is the mind designed to do? The mind binds.

[16] Nexus is the act of binding together thus creating information and experiences to perceive.

[17] Nexistentialism is the exploration of what binds humanity and all that surrounds us. For, [18] nothing exists in isolation.

Question: In your view, what binds humanity?

Origin:

[19] Let me tell you how Nexistentialism happened.

[20] At the nexus of nexistential philosophy lies the inquiry of what follows post-existentialist philosophy at the dawn of the twenty-first century.

[21] Existentialism culminates in the twentieth century as an exploration of human existence, which postulates that existence precedes essence. If subjectivity must be the starting point (Sartre) of perception, Nexistentialism asks: what follows?

[22] In the early 2000s, the concept of an Existential Carnival emerged, which included notions of atheism, absurdity, authenticity and ambiguity inspired by existentialist philosophy. I viewed life as a carnival and sought my authentic expression within it.

[23] At first, the word “Nexistentialism” arose as a merging of “next” and “existentialism” combined with the notion of creating a version of existentialism that is authentically my own, as my name starts with an “N” -> N’s existentialism, in the Sartrean spirit of subjectivity being the starting point.

[24] But in 2005, a Washingtonian writer introduced me to the word “nexus”, which gave nexistentialism a new dimension of meaning.

[25] Thus, nexistentialism came to be from the love of existentialist philosophy, the inquiry into what is philosophically next, the search for my own authentic philosophical expression and coming to understand the meaning of the word “nexus” as a foundation of human existence.

[26] In 2008, this blog “Nexistential Carnival” was born.

Question: What would you name a contemporary authentic philosophy and why?

Nexistentialism on the Meaning of Philosophy

[27] Philosophy is an Art of Perception – amidst many other natural arts.
[28] To philosophize requires effort, practice and a devotion to the pursuit of truth.
[29] Sure, philosophy can be understood as a system of thought. But,

[30] Can any system of thought, even an immoral one, be considered philosophy?

[31] Inherent to philosophy, from Greek literally meaning “love of wisdom”, is
[32] a notion of love, characterized by a healthy (balanced) pursuit of
[33] wisdom, an equanimous and blissful existential guide.
[34] Not any form of thought or system of thought can be considered loving and wise.
[35] In the pursuit of philosophy, it is important to ask what characterizes a system of thought as love for wisdom. What is lovely about it? What makes it wise?

Question: Can you think of a philosophy and describe what makes it lovely and wise?

[36] “The fate of philosophy and that of civilization are directly and intimately linked,” according to 20^th century Existentialist philosopher Gabriel Marcel.[2]
[37] At the dawn of the 21^st century, Nexistentialism emerges as a philosophical path that explores the human Art of Perception beyond ancient and modern philosophical orientations.

Question: Given all the human love and wisdom leading up to this present moment, where do we go from here?

[38] Nexistentialism’s orientation lies with Planet Earth as a whole and humanity at large, [36] unlike other place-and-time specific philosophies, like French Existentialism, for example, which Jean-Paul Sartre characterized as atheistic:
[39] “There are two kinds of existentialists; first those who are Christian, among whom I would include Jaspers and Gabriel Marcel, both Catholic; and on the other hand the atheistic existentialists, among whom I class Heidegger, and then the French existentialists and myself. What they have in common is that they think […] existence precedes essence, […] subjectivity must be the starting point.”[3]
[40] Nexistenlism has no particular religious orientation or lack thereof.
[41] For, philosophy applies to everyone, all populations organize information through some form of language, culture, arts and belief systems.
[42] Shared wisdom is characteristic of humankind.

Question: What wisdom did you learn from your family, community, tradition or culture?

[43] Nexus is a center for connection. Not unlike New York City, where humans from the entire world live together, 8.5 million New Yorkers with unique individual backgrounds. Its Mayor Zohran Mamdani beautifully captures the human spirit of co- existing in his inauguration speech:

[44] “That love [of New York] will be our guide as we pursue our agenda. Here, where the language of the New Deal was born. We will return the vast resources of this city to the workers who call it home. Not only will we make it possible for every New Yorker to afford a life they love once again. We will overcome the isolation that too many feel and connect the people of this city to one another. […]
[Our] policies are not simply about the costs we make free but the lives we fill with freedom. For too long in our city, freedom has belonged only to those who can afford to buy it. […]
We will answer to all New Yorkers, not to any billionaire or oligarch who thinks they can buy our democracy. […]
And while we will encourage New Yorkers to demand from those with the great privilege to serve them, we will encourage you to demand more of yourselves as well. The movement we began […] lives on with every battle we will fight together.
Every blizzard and flood we withstand together. […]
Every way we pursue change in working people’s interests rather than at their expense, together.
[…] we will understand victory very simply: something with the power to transform lives, and something that demands effort from each of us, every single day.
What we achieved together will reach across the five boroughs, and it will resonate far beyond.”

[45] Mayor Zohran Mamdani’s speech is a contemporary example of genuine philosophy, characterized by the pursuit of wisdom as collective well-being and through the exercise of love as our common responsibilities.
[46] Wisdom is collective well-being.
[47] By logic, if all are well, the individual is well.
[48] All humans, all creatures and ecosystems deserve a best possible life.
[49] When everyone thrives, the few, too, thrive!
[50] Because a collective includes all individuals, while an individual includes no one else.
[51] Thus, genuine philosophy is a declaration of love, of common responsibilities.
[52] Love is the recognition of a reality that binds us, kindly.
[53] In stark contrast to philosophy stands faux-philosophy, characterized by delusion through the exercise of irresponsibility, ignorance, and afflictions like greed (that faux-favor a few at the cost of the many).
[54] Fake philosophy may appear intelligent but is unwise.
[55] Faux-philosophy is a declaration of indifference.
[56] A historic example of false philosophy is the Friedman doctrine, which espoused profit as the only moral imperative, otherwise indifferent to people and the world.

[57] “In 1970, the so-called Friedman doctrine became the corporate bible of greed. [E]conomist Milton Friedman wrote that the only social responsibility of a business was to increase its profits. Fifty years later, that sentence has done more damage to working people than any law that has ever been passed. Friedman published his essay in the New York Times on September 13th, 1970. He argued that corporations should only serve one master, the shareholder, and that everything else, like paying fair wages or protecting the environment, was a distraction from freedom.
His logic was simple. If businesses focus solely on profit, the market will magically solve everything. But the free market he preached wasn’t freedom. It was deregulation, privatization, and union busting disguised as philosophy. By the Reagan era, Friedman’s doctrine had become corporate gospel. CEOs stopped seeing themselves as employers and started seeing themselves as share price managers. […] Pensions disappeared, wages froze, and they modeled corporate profits at historic highs while the working class’ share of income collapsed. The Friedman doctrine […] rewired capitalism into a one-way pipeline from labor to shareholders.
Just about every modern crisis, climate collapse, healthcare monopolies, mass layoffs, financial crashes, traces back to this idea that profit is the only moral duty. When companies poison water, underpay workers, or automate entire towns out of existence, they can point back to Friedman and say, “we’re doing our job.”
Milton Friedman called that economic freedom. But what he really created was moral bankruptcy, a world where profit isn’t just the goal, it’s always the excuse.”[4]

[58] Could this faux-philosophy have reflected a response to what preceded it?

[59] “Between 1948 and 1973 the United States became very egalitarian.
The distance between the richest person and the poorest person had shrunk and there was enormous wealth in the United States. It was the heyday for the United States economically. It was a 25-year span of time post World War Two. Piketty, the French author who wrote ‘Capital in the Twenty-First Century’, [in his book] he says it’s the only time in human history where you could get a job and work your way to wealth. He said, all the other times in human history you need to either marry into wealth or be born into it or win the lottery.”[5]

[60] The greatest collective prosperity in history, which took place in the United States of America, was a result of president Franklin Roosevelt’s New Deal.

[61] “The idea of government regulation and a basic social safety net to permit Americans to live their lives to their fullest potential was a key principle of the New Deal launched by Democratic president Franklin Delano Roosevelt in 1933, [which] was born in New York City [where] reform quickly became bipartisan […], where Republicans had their own history of progressivism under Republican president Theodore Roosevelt.”[6]

[62] According to American historian Heather Cox Richardson, “Mamdani’s speech was a declaration of a new kind of modern politics that focuses on ‘freedom to’ rather than ‘freedom from.’ For decades, the Republican Party has called for dismantling the government, arguing that regulations and taxes were destroying Americans’ freedom from constraints. But for most Americans, government regulation and investments in social welfare like education and infrastructure guarantee freedom to build a life that is not cramped by preventable obstacles, including those imposed by the wealthy and powerful.”

[63] On a cold New York Monday, January 5^th, 2026, Attorney General Lititia James thanked her colleagues “for the opportunity to join them as we draw a line in the sand against basically corporate greed and those individuals who put profit ahead of people”[7], before Mayor Zohran Mamdani signed two executive orders[8] to protect New Yorkers against misleading fees and deceptive subscription traps because these are making goods and services less affordable for people.

[64] Alternating points of view, genuine philosophies and fake ones, reflect a world of contradictions.
[65] Notable is the extent to which even faux-philosophies influence the lives of real people, systems of thought that deny the reality of our shared humanity and result in widespread injustice and suffering.

[67] The establishment of the Mayor’s Office of Mass Engagement (OMC) in New York City on Friday, January 2^nd, 2026, aims to bring unprecedented mass-organizing success to City Hall[9] and is a great example of taking into account the shared reality of an entire population. As its Commissioner Tascha Van Auken expressed:
“Knowledge, curiosity and possibility belong to everyone. […] At a time when many people feel cynical, overwhelmed, or isolated, often alone with their phones, we found a way back to one another. […] [The Office of Mass Engagement] is about organizing participation at scale, strengthening feedback loops so public input shapes policy, and building the relationships and systems, human and digital, that make long-term co-governance possible. […] As Commissioner my commitment is simple and serious. To help build a government that works for all New Yorkers, invites them in, and treats their participation as consequential. A government that doesn’t just ask for input but acts on it. And one that helps New Yorkers see themselves not as spectators but as co-creators of our shared future.”

[68] Information is worthless without action. Or, in the spirit of Simone de Beauvoir’s (1908-1986) “Ethics of Ambiguity” (1947), life and thought are inextricably linked, which means that we are what we do.[10]
[69] Throughout the history of philosophy, dialectics (from Greek “to talk”), the logic of contradiction or method of critical and contradiction-informed philosophizing, informed a variety of systems of thought leading to cross-roads. In 1956, French existentialist Marcel Gabriel (1889-1973) wrote:

[70] “Existentialism stands today at a parting of the ways: it is, in the last analysis, obliged either to deny or to transcend itself.
It denies itself simply when it falls to the level of infra-dialectical materialism.
It transcends itself, or tends to transcend itself, when it opens itself out to the experience of the suprahuman, an experience which can hardly be ours in a genuine and lasting way this side of death, but of which reality is attested by mystics.”[11]

[71] Nexistentialism doesn’t deny but it does transcend existentialism.
[72] Dialectical materialism, amongst other things, recognizes the evolution of the natural world, and thus the emergence of new qualities of being human and of human existence.[12]
[73] A nexistential illustration of the dialectics of the time is an exploration of contemporary events (i.e., a new administration in New York City) and historical moments with significant consequences (i.e. the New Deal, the Friedman article).
[74] The juxtaposition of perspectives is a characteristic of philosophy.
[75] Exploring different points of view and possibilities is an important step in the process of making decisions, and it is the responsibility of philosophy to inform particularly collective decisions wisely.
[76] For the philosopher, humility is of the highest order as one who perceives is alone only in appearance.
[77] Philosophy has a collective and universal dimension that transcends any individual perspective.
[78] In the words of existentialist philosopher Simone de Beauvoir, “No existence can be validly fulfilled if it is limited to itself.”

 

 

---

[1] “According to the Sankhya Philosophy, a non-entity can never be made an entity, that is to say, that which has never existed can never be brought into existence […] Thus we find the effect is always […] related to the cause.” The Samkhya Karika of Ishvara Krishna with the Tattva Kaumudi of Sri Vacaspati Mishra by Swami Virupakshananda. 1995, 1^st edition. 2021, 8^th print. Sri Ramakrishna Math Printing Press, Mylapore, Chennai-4, India. page vii.

[2] Dictionary of Existentialism. Compiled and arranged by Ralph B. Winin. 1960. The Wisdom Library, Philosophical Library, New York. Page 80.

[3] Ibidem, p. 33.

[4] Transcribed from Instagram, “The Friedman Doctrine: How Profit Became the Only Moral Imperative” @theepochofshadows (The Epoch of Shadows), posted on Nov. 4th, 2025.

[5] Transcribed from Instagram post “What happened to the United States?”, an excerpt from an interview with Dr. Roy Casagranda @ageofempires_history on December 4^th, 2025.

[6] Heather Cox Richardson, contemporary American historian. “Letters from an American”, January 2^nd, 2026.

[7] Mayor Mamdani Signs Executive Orders to Crack Down on Junk Fees, Save New Yorkers Money - YouTube https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F-doQOgXjxM @ 10:31 min.

[8] Executive Orders No.9 – Combatting Hidden Junk Fees and No.10 – Fighting Subscription Tricks and Traps.

[9] “On Mayor Mamdani’s campaign, Tascha spearheaded a historic field operation — mobilizing more than 100,000 volunteers, knocking on over 3 million doors, and making more than 4.5 million calls to New York City voters. Now she will bring this experience and approach to City government. The Office of Mass Engagement will revolutionize how City government conducts community engagement. City government functions best when there is a direct line of communication between the Mayor, his team and the people who built this city and keep it running. The Office will transform community engagement to ensure that it reaches New Yorkers where they are, organizes them, and builds long-term participation. It will also serve as a constant drumbeat within City government to ensure that New Yorkers’ needs and perspectives are integrated into all elements of New York City government.” https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vz55h4gbGuE&t=745s

[10] “Simone’s Existentialist Ethics”,  Anja Steinbauer on Simone de Beauvoir’s Ethics of Ambiguity (2016); Simone’s Existentialist Ethics | Issue 115 | Philosophy Now https://philosophynow.org/issues/115/Simones_Existentialist_Ethics

[11]Dictionary of Existentialism. Compiled and arranged by Ralph B. Winin. 1960. The Wisdom Library, Philosophical Library, New York. Page 32.

[12] Wikipedia