On the Reconciliation of the Primordial Rights of Man is a curious book to read and, indeed, review. Armed with two doctorates (in theocentric psychology and metaphysical science) from the University of Sedona and two undergraduate degrees (in social sciences and social work), Mark O’Doherty embarks on an ambitious attempt to provide solutions to the world’s great problems (poverty, conflict, cultural antagonism) by exploring synergies between mainstream economics, law, and mysticism. However, while the aims of the book are admirable, alarm bells start ringing from the very outset when the author expands on what exactly mysticism is. Defining it as “ethics, human rights, and morality” and the “[extension] of altruism … to the entire global community”, O’Doherty is quick to point out how, in his opinion, mysticism is often used by a variety of “religions, cults and sects … [that] alienate people from mainstream society”, and that there is much more to the mystical way of thinking than is often assumed by those who view it from afar.

This might all be well and good except for what O’Doherty then goes on to describe in his chapter on ‘Training and Honing the Fundamentals of a Mystic Mindset’, as well as in his review of ‘Theories of Spiritual Intelligence’. Here, the claims made about mysticism go beyond understanding and empathising with all people, and extend into the realm of what some might call the supernatural and the impossible. Working within a framework that explicitly eschews the need for empirical evidence to justify or support the claims being made (and perhaps even arguing that natural science and the empirical study of reality is itself nothing more than just one potential way of looking at, or thinking about, the world), O’Doherty makes or endorses a number of claims that many might dismiss as dubious. For example, he cites the work of the energy therapist Ingrid Manos who claims that women can exercise control over their bodily functions to the point where they can prevent themselves from getting pregnant (thereby obviating the need for traditional forms of birth control), noting that the absence of any empirical evidence for this is irrelevant since, “a mystic mindset is in its nature something very individual and personal, empiric evidence should not be the primary underlying force behind training one’s mystic abilities”.

Mark O Doherty’s attempt to offer solutions to the world’s problems takes a mystical course, and ends up being unconvincing

This point of view is not surprising given O’Doherty’s background. The University of Sedona is an unaccredited institution that specialises in “self-paced distance learning”. For many, it is little more than a diploma mill, making money by selling degrees that lack the rigour and substance that is usually expected from higher education; indeed, reports of ‘doctorates’ being awarded after just six months of study, and accounts of dissertations comprised of a handful of poorly written and referenced pages, indicate that the term ‘university’ may be a misnomer in this particular instance. On the other hand, the University of Sedona itself — as well as its numerous devotees and supporters — defends itself by arguing that it simply produces and propagates alternative forms of knowledge that mainstream academia and science lack the tools and orientation to appreciate. To put it simply, one suspects that those adhering to this way of thinking might treat the absence of proof of the metaphysical as simply being a case of looking for such proof in the wrong places using the wrong worldview. Or in other words, an inability to find a unicorn might not necessarily mean that unicorns do not exist.

To dismiss all of this as being purely speculative and, indeed, irrelevant to material reality (in the absence of evidence suggesting otherwise) would be easy. However, to be fair to O’Doherty, much of his book sticks to his original definition of mysticism, focusing primarily on attempting to analyse the world’s problems, and prescribe solutions by emphasising the need to generate more universal love and understanding between the people of the world. In a chapter comparing Islam and Christianity, for example, O’Doherty points towards ethical principles within both that complement his idea of mysticism, and suggests that this kind of common ground could be exploited as a means through which to reduce the antagonism and cultural misunderstanding that he believes characterises relations between adherents of these faiths. Building on this, O’Doherty suggests that the cultivation of ‘spiritual intelligence’ — which comes across as being a capacity to empathise with others generated through careful meditation and introspection — could be the key to addressing the shortcomings in contemporary public policy.

“To resolve seemingly irreconcilable ethical challenges in our global economy, a more interdisciplinary, holistic and macrocosmic philosophy is required; meaning that many economic and human rights challenges cannot be solved on a narrow disciplinary level any more; but only with an interdisciplinary, holistic approach. Similarly, the psychological and physiological are closely connected. Just like war, poverty, famine and disease are closely connected with each other — where the one is, the other is not far away, in the same way that environmental factors heavily influence the microbiology of our bodies…” — Excerpt from the book

O’Doherty is reasonably clear when diagnosing the problems he sees with the world — income inequality and sectarian/religious conflict loom large in the book — and it is ultimately argued that both can be addressed by the provision of a basic income to all the people of the world, as well as through the creation of a global union of sorts premised upon a shared, possibly transcendent culture harmonising Western and non-Western values, and a global police force enjoying the support and legitimacy required to intervene against those segments of global society that would do others harm. O’Doherty essentially argues that embracing mysticism at an individual and collective level would allow both things to happen — the provision of a basic income and the emergence of a new global order — by spreading empathy and understanding among the world’s citizens.

The problem, however, is that very little attention is paid to outlining precisely how and why this would happen. Throughout the book — which is written in an often rambling, largely anecdotal, and sometimes incoherent style — no real attempt is made to substantiate any of the claims being made or arguments being put forward. Indeed, the book concludes with a bibliography containing fewer entries than many undergraduate essays, and O’Doherty’s refusal to engage with existing literature and viewpoints on these subjects is manifestly evident. Policy prescriptions, like using voluntary suicide as a means for dealing with serial killers, or suggesting that Israelis and Palestinians need to just “let go of national pride”, range from the bizarre to the naïve, with all being asserted without any meaningful discussion of their costs, consequences, or context. Similarly, there is a lot to be said about basic income, which is an idea that is currently being debated in a number of countries around the world, but little of that debate surfaces in this book beyond the provision of platitudes regarding the need to reduce poverty, provide opportunities, and promote all of this through greater love and understanding. O’Doherty often wonders why people fail to comprehend how empathy and solidarity might lead to better outcomes for all and a more substantive pursuit of the collective good, but simultaneously fails to give due consideration to the very real institutional and material circumstances that create and perpetuate the world’s problems.

Here, the limitations of the mystical approach become more obvious. Even if one were to put aside very important concerns about the validity of this particular branch of knowledge, its refusal to accept the empirical yardsticks set by mainstream society, and consequent failure to engage with those realities, creates a situation in which O’Doherty appears to work with the assumption that belief, and belief alone, is all that is required to change the world. Unfortunately, that is rarely the case and while it is clear that O’Doherty’s heart is in the right place, his solutions are far off the mark.

The reviewer is an assistant professor of political science at Lums.

On the Reconciliation of the Primordial Rights of Man
(PHILOSOPHY)
By Mark O’Doherty
Lulu.com, US
ISBN: 978-1329691896
194pp.

Published in Dawn, Books & Authors, October 9th, 2016