Ignorance Is No Defence: If Objective Metaphysical Laws Exist, Their Consequences Are Unavoidable

Ignorance Is No Defence: If Objective Metaphysical Laws Exist, Their Consequences Are Unavoidable

There is a principle recognised throughout much of human society: ignorance of the law is no defence. Whether someone understands a legal statute or not, they remain subject to its consequences. Gravity provides another example. A person does not need to believe in gravity, or even understand it, to experience its effects.

This raises a question that I believe deserves serious consideration:

If objective metaphysical laws exist, why should ignorance protect anyone from their consequences?

This is not an attempt to prove that such laws exist. Rather, it is an exploration of what follows if they do.

The Problem with Symbols

For years, I have written about the careless use of symbols. What originally drew my attention was seeing public figures adopt imagery without any apparent appreciation of its historical, religious, or esoteric significance. One example that concerned me was Jeremy Corbyn's use of what some interpret as the inverted cross or "Todes Rune" symbolism.

To many people, such observations appear trivial. They are dismissed as aesthetic choices or matters of personal taste. Yet symbolism has occupied a central role in virtually every civilisation, religion, mystery school, and empire throughout recorded history.

This raises an obvious question.

If symbols are merely meaningless decorations, why have they been treated with such importance for thousands of years?

Conversely, if symbols possess objective influence—whether psychological, spiritual, metaphysical, or otherwise—then using them without understanding them may carry consequences independent of our intentions.

Can Intention Override Law?

A common argument is that intention is all that matters.

If someone wears a symbol innocently, then surely no harm can result.

But this assumption only holds if intention is capable of overriding objective law.

Physical reality offers countless examples where this is not the case.

A child who unknowingly touches a live electrical wire is still electrocuted. A person who accidentally drinks poison is still poisoned. Someone who steps from a great height still falls.

The laws governing these events are indifferent to ignorance.

If objective metaphysical laws exist, why should they behave differently?

Ignorance and Spiritual Practice

This question extends beyond symbols.

Many people pray, meditate, perform rituals, repeat affirmations, or invoke names they scarcely understand.

Sincerity may be present.

Good intentions may be genuine.

But are intentions alone sufficient?

Suppose reality operates according to principles that require understanding as well as desire.

A person can desperately want to solve a mathematical equation without possessing the necessary knowledge.

Likewise, if prayer, ritual, or symbolic action functions according to objective principles, then ignorance may limit effectiveness regardless of sincerity.

In that case, emotion would not replace understanding.

Patterns Worth Considering

One reason I continue returning to this subject is because I repeatedly observe similar patterns.

People use symbols they do not understand.

People invoke concepts whose origins they have never investigated.

People adopt rituals because they are fashionable.

Then, when circumstances become difficult or confusing, they struggle to explain why.

This does not prove causation.

But recurring patterns deserve investigation rather than dismissal.

The scientific method itself begins by observing patterns before attempting to explain them.

Mythology, Deities, and Historical Memory

Over the years I have written about symbolic figures and deities.

Whether one interprets these figures literally, psychologically, historically, or allegorically, they demonstrate humanity's long-standing tendency to encode ideas within stories and symbols.

One particularly interesting claim comes from a school of thought that argues Europa was an African woman and that ancient references to Ethiopia—or A-E-T-E-O-P-I-A in certain interpretations—once referred to much or all of Africa.

If true, the implications are significant, suggesting that even Europe's name may preserve memories very different from those commonly accepted today.

Whether this claim ultimately withstands historical scrutiny is less important here than the broader point.

Names, myths, and symbols often preserve meanings that later generations forget.

The symbol remains.

The understanding disappears.

Biology and Historical Context

Questions surrounding human origins, migration, and biological adaptation also intersect with these discussions.

For example, lactose tolerance varies considerably among populations.

That simple biological observation raises broader historical questions concerning adaptation, migration, agriculture, and environment.

It also reminds us that history, biology, religion, and symbolism frequently overlap in ways that deserve careful examination rather than simplistic conclusions.

None of this proves metaphysical law.

But it demonstrates how multiple disciplines often intersect around questions of origin and meaning.

The Limits of Semantics

Too often discussions become trapped in semantics.

People argue over terminology rather than substance.

They debate labels instead of examining the underlying principles.

Whether someone calls something occult, symbolic, metaphysical, psychological, spiritual, or religious does not necessarily change its function.

Changing the name of gravity would not change its behaviour.

If objective metaphysical laws exist, then changing our vocabulary would not alter them either.

A Missing Conversation

What surprises me most is how little serious investigation appears to be directed toward these questions.

If symbols genuinely influence thought, behaviour, consciousness, or reality itself, then understanding their function should not be dismissed as superstition.

Instead, it deserves rigorous inquiry.

That inquiry should not begin with unquestioning belief.

Nor should it begin with automatic dismissal.

It should begin with observation, evidence, historical analysis, and intellectual honesty.

Conclusion

I have not reached a final conclusion.

I continue to explore these questions because they remain unresolved.

What I find increasingly difficult to accept, however, is the assumption that ignorance is always an adequate defence.

If there are objective metaphysical laws woven into reality, then they may operate with the same indifference as gravity, mathematics, or biology.

Our belief in them may be irrelevant.

Our intentions may not exempt us.

Our ignorance may not protect us.

And if that possibility deserves even a fraction of the attention we give to physical law, then perhaps it is time we began asking better questions—not only about the symbols we inherit, but also about the unseen principles that may govern them.