The answer is that 40 years experience in the Law Courts gives you a confidence about human nature which can never be gained amidst ancient colleges and their ivory towers. And I am confident my Theory of Consciousness revolutionizes the whole concept of thought.
Examining my theory in more detail, its influence on philosophy is best summed up by saying, “There is no such thing as pure logic”. Reasoning always takes place in an attitude of mind, and this attitude itself moulds the reasoning within it. For example; worthwhile legal thought or worthwhile military thought can only take place within the professional frames of mind of these two professions. We all know that the opinions of an armchair strategist are worthless, unless he is a retired soldier who has spent his life in the Army. Similarly in the Law, the opinions of a newly qualified lawyer on how to conduct a case, are more likely to lose it, than win it. Very seldom does the mental discipline of one profession illuminate another. And my symbolism is that every attitude of mind has its own logic.
So I postulate a single consciousness, “the Perfectly Relaxed Consciousness”, (or the Consciousness of God), in which thought as we normally understand it is not possible, and which at least approaches the ideal of being universal. Even if this is seldom, if ever, realized in practice, it is a useful concept; and the practice of meditation may be considered a close approximation to it. To think therefore, you need an attitude of mind under tension. For example: countless times when prosecuting I have imagined myself in the shoes of the accused to see how things looked through his eyes, and very interesting it was; but rather to my surprise I found you could not work out your cross-examination that way. To do that required an attitude of mind under tension; and with this tension went certain unspoken and usually unconscious assumptions, on which that attitude of mind was based. For example: as I have said, science has two basic assumptions, and in addition at least one other, namely that you can ignore any spiritual content which the matter you are investigating may have. This is why science always discovers that the Universe is mechanical – because it assumes it is mechanical before it begins! Indeed you could say that science’s job was to provide a mechanical description of the Universe, that provides at least a rough approximation to what one experiences in life.
So even in religion, the validity of thought, and its conclusions, will depend on the validity of the assumptions which the mind makes to start with. It is so easy to get into the frame of mind of Thomas Aquinas, who assumed God existed, and then proved he did exist. In just the same way, biologists assume that God does not exist, and is delusion, and then lo and behold they prove, to their own satisfaction, that He does not exist. But are we any further on? All logic, which ignores its basic assumptions, is like Achilles and the Tortoise.
Professor Eddington, who did much to popularise Einstein’s Relativity in this country, had intimations of this towards the end of his career, and veered towards epistemology. He saw that what you discover is often predictable by considering from whence you start. All I do is make this a universal vision, that applies to all mental disciplines; to the most abstract theology, to the most casual conversation. What you say, and what you regard as a valid conclusion, is governed by the unconscious assumptions you make before you begin. The nervous tension they generate itself moulds your reasoning. So it follows that error and distortion are written into all human thought and communication, as a necessary part of our human condition, because your assumptions are never going to be wholly true.
The obtuseness of much of modern thought to the non-specialist is due, in my opinion, to the unfortunate habit of making false assumptions. To imagine that the mind is “private” to the individual is completely false; we can all read each other’s thoughts to some extent. In every serious trial, the jury is asked to read the mind of the accused, often from his actions, and to say “beyond all reasonable doubt” that the mens rea of the offence is proved. And where you have the interpenetration of two minds, you can read thoughts with crystal clarity. It is simply untrue that the mind is a private place. To imagine that one can pontificate