Everything is Metaphysics

This is the fun stuff I think about when not internally compelled to comment about the cesspool of national politics. The last Friday episode of the Doll House (episode 6) triggered this idea which I will embellish further; mostly the scene where the computer guru explained his fantasy. Life for most people is like an actor living in a fantasy about who they are & what they are up to. Some say that that which is outside the 5 senses & not directly observable by the 5 senses in a laboratory is metaphysics or fantasy. But, I say that in science atoms are metaphysics mixed with mathematics - nobody has seen a quark with the naked eye nor even an atom or an electron. The 5 senses are perception mixed with metaphysics mixed with experience in a concoction of fantasy about how the world works. We all have to go to concepts & not direct experience & not unfiltered perception, unfiltered by the cognitive processes of the past to make sense of the world. Science is metaphysics as much as physics, chemistry or psychology & seances; at least the ones that are not intended to be fake to start with. I include as an anchor to this item a favorite picture of mine which reminds me of a fantasy world I found myself in in an induced altered state over 40 years ago - I still keep looking for that state as it was the strangest state I have ever been in:

Comments

Mark de LA says

I think that only when people grok how much ideal (conceptual material) is in their real world & what is real in their ideal world -AND- how much material world things are in their spiritual world & how much spiritual is in their material world will genuine human progress be made.

Seth says

Well i'm looking forward to watching Twilight and maybe going up to Forks and visiting the scene. Is Dollhouse a similar drama?

The big difference between scientific theory and metaphysics is that the methods of the former are judged by their ability to predict whereas the latter is judged by its ability to excite the imagination. As you observe both are involved with indirect perceptions; but that is pretty much where the comparison between a scientific theory and a metaphysical experience must end.

Mark de LA says

The Logical Positivism side of the discussion might begin here with the Wikipedia on the subject. However, what I am pointing out is not philosophy. It is more of a call to watch what you are doing in your reality & then see how the various pieces of the puzzle we call reality fit together.

Seth says

MR 2009-03-27 08:41:21 11683

My question to you would be how do you judge the fit? The scientific method judges the fit by the accuracy of its predictions. How does the metaphysical method judge its fit?

Mark de LA says

seth 2009-03-27 08:39:54 11683

Doll House is more in the genre of Dark Angel & Kyle XY not quite as far out as Fringe set in today's world but the technology is ??. The opening of the episode I linked to explains it better than I just did in the opening few minutes. You can watch it all online with a good monitor. I don't grok what Forks is about - perhaps the book explains.

I am speaking more of ontological validation that predictive, since predictive is already in the imagination. The challenge, like so-called climate science, is that they keep having to change the theories to meet the continuous surprises in observation. Like very few hurricanes this year supposedly caused by global warming, etc. It's more like witchcraft with a political & economic component driving the so-called science rather than genuine scientific inquiry & curiosity. I & many others predicted Obama's behavior given his background & speeches & observable behavior pre-election; were we scientific?

The point is simply not to get back into politics or philosophy or science, but to observe how much of your reality is imagination; how much of your physical reality is spiritual; how much of your spiritual reality is material, etc.

Mark de LA says

seth 2009-03-27 08:50:45 11683

MR 2009-03-27 08:41:21 11683

My question to you would be how do you judge the fit? The scientific method judges the fit by the accuracy of its predictions. How does the metaphysical method judge its fit?

It is ontological or direct experience; similar to your direct experience of your ego or "I" - who you are. One gateway to that exploration is here. Otherwise, you really do know who you are if you are truly conscious. When that experience is real crisp, then you realize that you can't describe it at all - it is a direct experience. There are many levels of that experience, however.

Mark de LA says

I watched the movie Twilight last night, rather I slept through most of it. Yet another Vampire movie of the genre of True Blood - the Showtime series. There seem to be some people who are addicts in my midst to the Books like there are for the Harry Potter series. The scenery from the movie is great - rumored to be not actually Forks. Personally I like the true blood series better, more sex & violence & a bit raunchy.

Seth says

MR 2009-03-30 10:05:03 11683

seth 2009-03-30 09:56:49 11683

MR 2009-03-27 09:22:56 11683

seth 2009-03-27 08:50:45 11683

MR 2009-03-27 08:41:21 11683

My question to you would be how do you judge the fit? The scientific method judges the fit by the accuracy of its predictions. How does the metaphysical method judge its fit?

Well there are parts of your direct experience that is private to you and cannot be shared. As such it can be anything whatsoever to me including snake oil. So if you are selling those parts of you direct experience to me in seminars and tapes, as Peter Ralston is doing here, then sorry i am not buying.

Your stupidity & ignorance in these matters notwithstanding; enjoy your materialization of life. Having never mastered any of the Zen you are not qualified to judge it. Your credentials in science aren't that much either. Before you judge, remembering the Golden Rule, you should't you at least have some mastery of the domains.

What a hostile reaction ... oh well ... apparently you are not concerned at all with the point i raised (bolded above) which is certainly independent of any training that i may or may not have. Note that it is a cheep shot to claim special powers gained through practice ... an argument that i have known since childhood. Here i am merely questioning the nature and value of private direct experience that cannot be shared. Answering that question is, me thinks, the primary matter that any serious metaphysics must deal. But i doubt that you will deal with it ... rather you will proceed with your own self righteous feelings ... which, me thinks, are most of the reason behind the persuit of methphysics. My challenge to you is to take away those feelings and words and see what you have left. Who knows, there may be a whole world of value remaining.

Mark de LA says

seth 2009-03-30 09:56:49 11683

MR 2009-03-27 09:22:56 11683

seth 2009-03-27 08:50:45 11683

MR 2009-03-27 08:41:21 11683

My question to you would be how do you judge the fit? The scientific method judges the fit by the accuracy of its predictions. How does the metaphysical method judge its fit?

Mark de LA says

When I was a little kid I heard H.G.Well's The Country of the Blind played on radio. It is a good reference for what you must be going through. There are simply some things you have to train your senses to perceive & there are some outside of the 5 usual ones. There is training you must go through in order to become a first class cellist, you must hear differently. To become a first class martial artist you need to have all kinds of distinctions about your body & gravity. There is nothing that says you can't discover such on your own. OTOH, sometimes it is faster to study with a teacher. In the case of the "Who am I" question, in a contemplation intensive, the opportunity was provided to focus my study of the question with minimal distraction & the result was conclusive! Strangely enough, it pointed back to something I was aware of when I was around 6 years old. If you don't, can't or won't experience such an experience then you can't possibly know what a direct experience is. PR says that's not really a direct experience, but it's a good start. To restrict yourself to the Country of the Blind is unnecessary. But, as Larry Dodson used to say "Shoot your stick!"

Mark de LA says

RS & PR also point out the way to achieve such results which are beyond normal scientific empiricism. If you refuse to follow any such advice then again "Shoot your Stick!". Science also has a paradigm that requires years in school to get credentials & peer reviews of results; & publications etc. - not unlike what you decried in the above.

Mark de LA says

Then again if your whole world looks like an asshole ....

Mark de LA says

seth 2009-03-30 12:43:12 11683

Well i don't really need any further explanation of those arguments from our childhood ... i already know them perfectly well. If that is all you have to offer, or if you have no interest in investigating the value of metaphysical experience beyond what it does for you private feelings, then i am out of here.

"Shoot your stick" - you never got the the point then & perhaps you don't now. Presumably you could read the book on the internet, however. Mind made up, though! Lost the point in the body of the item which was to look how things overlap in that middle space you call reality. You're welcome -enjoy!

<=== Seth's country of blind

C says

Apparently Stanford has a Metaphysics Research Lab. Here is a pointer to some of their theory of abstract objects.

source: ... Whereas physics attempts a systematic description of fundamental and complex concrete objects, metaphysics attempts a systematic description of fundamental and complex abstract objects.

...

Lots to explore there.

Seth says

Wow this is from last year about this time ... we were dealing with similar issues back then. I never did understand why you got all hostile to me about it. It wasn't necessary and just distracted us from delving into matters more deeply and honestly. Oh well!

Note that the Stanford Metaphysics Lab paper is not dealing with extra sensory perceptions and the stuff you refer to when you say "there are simply some things you have to train your senses to perceive & there are some outside of the 5 usual ones". I think that is not what they are calling "metaphysics". Here from their paper is how they are refering to "metaphysics" ...

source: The Theory of Abstract Objects

Metaphysics vs. Physics

The theory of abstract objects is a metaphysical theory. Whereas physics attempts a systematic description of fundamental and complex concrete objects, metaphysics attempts a systematic description of fundamental and complex abstract objects. Abstract objects are the objects that are presupposed by our scientific conceptual framework. For example, when doing natural science, we presuppose that we can use the natural numbers to count concrete objects, and that we can use the real numbers to measure them in various ways. It is part of our understanding of science that natural laws exist (even if no one were around to discover them) and that the states of affairs that obtain in the natural world are governed by such laws. As part of our scientific investigations, we presuppose that objects behave in certain ways because they have certain properties, and that natural laws govern not just actual objects that have certain properties, but any physically possible object having those properties. So metaphysics investigates numbers, laws, properties, possibilities, etc., as entities in their own right, since they seem to be presupposed by our very understanding of the scientific enterprise. The theory of abstract objects attempts to organize these objects within a systematic and axiomatic framework.

... in other words: their metaphysics is what goes on in your mind (note the "meta" fragment of the word and its meaning). They are talking primarily about your thoughts; and those thoughts when they get written out in some language media outside of your mind.

Mark de LA says

If you are conscious of it it's in your mind & perhaps something else is going on as well. I ran into this while I was looking up stuff on Erhardt's integrity paper & found the Encyclopedia of Philosophy & other stuff surrounding 14319. The hostility you made is due to your attitude that extrasensory is to be disregarded in favor of ???. I say it is all part of the same Zen unity.

Seth says

source: MR above
...your attitude that extrasensory is to be disregarded in favor of ???. I say it is all part of the same Zen unity.

Obviously there are things going on in my mind that do not come from my senses or even from thoughts i read or hear in language. I have no attitude of disregard for those at all ... rather they seem to be what my life is all about. Perhaps some of those same kinds of things you also have going on in your mind. Problem with them is that between yours and mine there is a humongous tower of babel so that there is no way to talk about them with any semblance of clarity. Some of the things that you might call "knowledge of a spiritual world", i might call something totally different. Let me know if you ever want to talk about that kind of thing honestly and without any RWG.

Mark de LA says

M 2010-09-27 05:39:28 11683

I probably should have posted the find on the Metaphysics lab somewhere else like 14147 - since this was polluted by the rwg. It is interesting that AC uses the motto "The Method of Science, the Aim of Religion" on some of his AA books. RS also brought out Anthroposophy from Theosophy i.e. from Wisdom of God to the Wisdom of Man. Then too GW moved on from ritual magick to projective geometry leaving behind invoking alien beings to clear headed, but imaginative, mathematical thinking. I am not much interested in the airy-fairy, feel good delusions of today's crystal wearing crowd, nor invoking demons. Part of real science is that someone can take & duplicate an experiment & look at the results & compare with the previous. None of RS, PR or GW say believe my findings, they all say go try the methods I have discovered & see what you get. These are not Hadron Collider experiments - they are ones which are easily accessible to just about any human being. If you are willing to accept this & we might have a touch stone to play with.

Everything is Metaphysics

Tags

Comments

See Also