[ogden]

Ah ha, thank you Didymos, now I think I see what you are getting at.

Let me see if I understand the question better now. You are wondering if the constructs in our mind, I mean the metaphysical ideas, are shaped from something real and so formed in a particular fashion or if they have formed from an arbitrary array of possibilities, the latter pointing out that other possibilities may be as equally valid as the ones we hold now.

This is a struggle between idealism and materialism (the mind body problem). The great thing about metaphysics is that it is free from the bonds of the physical where the possibilities seem boundless. But we are material in a material world and so are bound to our physicality.

The instant you label/name (objectify?) a metaphysical idea you have made it physical and bound it with the constructs of the term. I like how the Tao-Te-Ching says that if you can name it then that’s not it. So there is this delicate balance between physical reality and imagination or perceived reality.

I think of a swinging pendulum with one apex that of physical and the other that of metaphysical. Either extreme is important and useful but not one without the other and neither without the balancing point of neutrality (pragmatism). Dogmatic empiricism, in and of itself, has no room for intangibles like emotions, spirit, or imagination and would be quite useless. Dogmatic idealism moves away from the physical and again becomes useless by itself. The two extremes are perhaps equally valid but become less useful as they move from center. Paradoxically, it is precisely the two extremes that create the balancing center. This quest for equilibrium is the crux of the universe, but once equilibrium is achieved there is stagnation. Likewise is the struggle with the subject object relationship and the seemingly never ending argument of science and religion.

A true philosopher takes in everything but keeps nothing. This statement has meaning because you have a concept of what everything and nothing are (and all the other words). It is precisely the language and symbolisms that contain meanings and to deconstruct them (words and concepts) is useful only to a point. So some things (like God) are wide open to possibilities and other things (like cat) are not served well by vast arrays of possibility.

I personally don’t think there is any possibility to disconnect the spirit from the body. I mean that I believe that the “me” that I am, is a function of my brain and when my brain stops I will cease to exist. I think that the things that are metaphysical are ultimately illusory, but to deny them would be to deny a very profound swing of the pendulum of my current state of existence and no one really knows so anything is possible. I also believe that certain concepts of the mind are antecedents of the physical constructs of the brain.

Sorry for going on and on and branching off topic.