What is Metaphysics?

[Play_Dough]

Originally Posted by de Silentio

[color=black]How are some of the examples you gave ‘real causes’. I don’t think anyone would think that the boulder falling on the hiker was caused by himself. Or is there something I am missing.

Physics includes consciousness as a possible ‘causal agency’ also. (if I undertand what you mean by causal agency) It is demonstrated in the two-slit experiment.

I can see how you can use Kant’s metaphysics to show this, but it is a real stretch, and unless you can make an extremely good argument to support yourself on this, I don’t think I can acccept what you are saying with any certainty.

Re: (quote) "I don’t think anyone would think that the boulder falling on the hiker was caused by himself. Or is there something I am missing". (end quote)

The 'missing' something is a 'metaphysical' interpretation.
'Metaphysics' requires a shift in one's 'origination point'. The shift is from mundane physics (quantifiable phenomena) to a metaphysical interpretation of the sequence of events.
The 'metaphysical' interpretation includes the self as a participant in the chain of cause and effect.
Another example is that a person notices that when he or she is angry they then have a tendency to bump into things. The 'anger' is included as a 'causal' event of the 'bumps'.

Kant's metaphysics is not applicable.

The 'slits experiment' is only relevant in a remote type of way. Mundane physics would only be aware (as an example of metaphysics) of what was going on between the screen with the slit(s) and the board. Metaphysics would attempt to discern what was going on behind the slitted screen where mundane physics did not investigate.

Mundane physics has Man as an observer and metaphysics has Man as a participant/creator.
A perfect example of 'metaphysics' is Plato's 'Allegory of the Cave'. One interpretation of Plato's allegory is that Man watches 'images' projected on a screen and participates by 'naming' (supplying names for) the shapes and forms (i.e., mundane physics). Man does not see his own consciousness as projecting the images, but rather incorrectly experiences the images as having a source independent of the observer.

That's (above) a thumbnail sketch of metaphysics.

The bottom line (if there is one) is that Man exists in a convincing hologram of his/her consciousness and fails to recognize (consider) that his/her consciousness is a 'causal' agent (a 'first cause').

Descartes' philosophical statement, "I think, therefore I am" is more 'on point'. Descartes (one interpretation) sees 'thought' as being the creative cause of his existence. He 'thinks himself' into being. Descartes is NOT... born of a woman (but was),.. but was, rather, delivered into 'beingness' by 'thought'.

Thought and consciousness are the primary focus of metaphysics. Ask any 10 people who witness an event (a non-scientific event without strict lab conditions) and you will get 10 different interpretations. Each interpretation will be given according to the individualized contents of consciousness.

It all comes down to where one wishes to draw the line, in-so-far as investigation is concerned. Metaphysics includes the observer as a possible 'causal' event. I suppose that the primary issue of metaphysics is 'does thought embody a creative component that can and does affect the 3D reality'? Metaphysics says 'yes'!

The metaphysical point of view cannot be rationally argued because of the nature (consistently reproducible) of scientific proof. How-so-ever, metaphysics poses the following question..... "What is the inherent power of a consciousness that has been trained and disciplined (shut off internal dialogue) and focused"? and (continuing) "is control over matter one of the abilities (an emergent characteristic) of a disciplined consciousness"? In other words, my consciousness can send commands to my body.... "get up! Order a pizza!" and my body then moves through space/time and orders a pizza! So, the metaphysical question is... "what is the extent of the power of consciousness"?
How much more is consciousness than a mere 'observer'?

The answer is that consciousness is a potent creative force that Man has not, as yet, become familiar (with). Why? Because 'the powers of consciousness are 'emerging characteristics' that go way beyond 'self awareness' and mundane/general awareness.

Plato says it best.... (interpreted) 'as far as consciousness is concerned, Man is sleeping in a cave unaware that he (Man) is sourcing the phenomena that he observes.... he observes, names and records his observations utterly unaware of his higher powers'.

To simply 'dismiss' the possibility of the existence of these 'higher powers' (in the name of mundane science) is a severe self-imposed limitation.

"I think, therefore I AM"! plus, Plato's "Allegory of the Cave' says it all!

.

[de Silentio]

Originally Posted by Play_Dough

metaphysics poses the following question..... "What is the inherent power of a consciousness that has been trained and disciplined (shut off internal dialogue) and focused"? and (continuing) "is control over matter one of the abilities (an emergent characteristic) of a disciplined consciousness"?...

So, the metaphysical question is... "what is the extent of the power of consciousness"?
How much more is consciousness than a mere 'observer'?

There is more to come, but the forum is shutting down, so I must be quick.

Have you read Kant? You say his metaphysics doesn't apply, but most of what you said stems from him. He provided the turning point in philosophy that shifted thinking away from man being a passive observer of the external world.

[Aedes]

Originally Posted by VideCorSpoon

Metaphysics, or ontology, on the other hand seeks reduction to its simple substrate physically.

Scientific inquiries can perform this kind of reductionism. Metaphysics deals in things that science cannot address. Metaphysics, to me, seems like a rational construct that can be used to understand being -- but as soon as metaphysics attempts to make sense of something observable, it puts itself at risk of being refuted by new observations. This raises the perennial question as to whether metaphysical arguments have any truth value whatsoever -- and Derrida and Levi-Strauss and Lyotard and Wittgenstein would probably answer that they do not.

[Play_Dough]

Originally Posted by Aedes

(edited) Metaphysics deals in things that science cannot address. Metaphysics, to me, seems like a rational construct that can be used to understand being -- but as soon as metaphysics attempts to make sense of something observable, it puts itself at risk of being refuted by new observations. This raises the perennial question as to whether metaphysical arguments have any truth value whatsoever -- and Derrida and Levi-Strauss and Lyotard and Wittgenstein would probably answer that they do not.

I agree with you. Metaphysics deals, primarily, with the 'inner landscape' of consciousness.
The typical scientific approach deals with (outer) 'how it works' and the metaphysical approach deals primarily with (inner) 'how to work it'. There is, of course, some overlap but these (above) are the main differences.
Regarding Levi-Strauss and Lyotard and Wittgenstein..... My opinion (based upon metaphysical research, experimentation and study) is that metaphysics is 'self proving', however, what the individual discovers as 'personally valid' (re: metaphysics) often cannot translate to universal principles. As such, metaphysics, to the casual investigator, can and often does, seem like a 'tower of babble' scenario.

An example of a 'metaphysical' result, that may not have any universal application, is..... A person's living space has always been cluttered and messy. The 'messy/cluttered person' starts to practice meditation (stilling the mind). After a few months of dedicated meditation practice, and a measure of success, the formerly 'messy' person's living space has become, gradually, transformed into a neat and orderly presentation (i.e., the person has become more tidy and the living space reflects this). This result is not scientifically quantifiable but, nevertheless, raises a metaphysical issue/observation, being that there appears to be a correlation between a disciplined mind and orderliness. Science would say 'it seems reasonable but we can't prove the connection'. Metaphysics would say that there is a direct correlation between 'inner states' of consciousness and a person's immediate personal environment. The 'giant step' of metaphysics, in this instance, would be to hypothesize that 'outer conditions' reflect/mirror 'inner conditions'!
A 'reasonable' statement but scientifically unprovable to a certainty. Never-the-less, to the meditator, the result becomes a 'personal law' of metaphysics.

.

[Aedes]

The very problem with metaphysics is, as you say, that it is self-proving, which means that its coherence entirely depends on the language used to portray it -- because it doesn't consist in anything else. And this is what the modern philosophers have argued -- that pure metaphysical arguments don't have any verifiable information content whatsoever, and from what I understand if you use symbolic logic instead of words you take the air out of metaphysics. Videcorspoon can elaborate on this, perhaps.

I don't think the example you've given is actually metaphysical at all. You've described two completely physical phenomena -- one is the orderliness of someone's room, and the other is the physical and biological process of his meditation. Say you demonstrate that this phenomenon is true in a huge study, thus making it an extremely scientifically sound association (as opposed to a single individual's experience). The only part about this that is available to metaphysical speculation is the explanation for this association -- but that's only because your study has not yet answered why and how (mechanistically) this meditation changes behavior. But that's certainly open to scientific inquiry as well -- for instance it might be easily proved that meditation is associated with a higher stress response to more trivial messes, and this might be measurable and quantifiable.

[de Silentio]

The 'metaphysical' interpretation includes the self as a participant in the chain of cause and effect.

Where does the self fit into the chain of cause and effect?

Another example is that a person notices that when he or she is angry they then have a tendency to bump into things. The 'anger' is included as a 'causal' event of the 'bumps'

I can see how this example relates to what you said about metaphysics, but this example is vastly different than the $5 or boulder examples that you gave. The former shows how a person’s will has control over their body, the latter shows how a person’s will has control over something physically detached from themselves.

The 'slits experiment' is only relevant in a remote type of way

Mundane physics has Man as an observer and metaphysics has Man as a participant/creator.

The slits experiment shows how our consciousness effects the physical world, how does that not show what you are saying? The experiment shows that man participates in how the photons act, if man is not watching, they act like a wave, if man is watching, they act like particles.

Mundane physics would only be aware (as an example of metaphysics) of what was going on between the screen with the slit(s) and the board. Metaphysics would attempt to discern what was going on behind the slitted screen where mundane physics did not investigate.

We know what is going on behind the screen, we are shooting photons at it. What we don’t know is what goes on between the screens, that why we try to observe it.

In what way does metaphysics attempt to discern what was going on behind the screen as opposed to physics?

Descartes (one interpretation) sees 'thought' as being the creative cause of his existence. He 'thinks himself' into being. Descartes is NOT... born of a woman (but was),.. but was, rather, delivered into 'beingness' by 'thought'.

Can you please explain to me how you extrapolated this from Descartes writings.

[Play_Dough]

Originally Posted by de Silentio

Where does the self fit into the chain of cause and effect?


I can see how this example relates to what you said about metaphysics, but this example is vastly different than the $5 or boulder examples that you gave. The former shows how a person’s will has control over their body, the latter shows how a person’s will has control over something physically detached from themselves.



The slits experiment shows how our consciousness effects the physical world, how does that not show what you are saying? The experiment shows that man participates in how the photons act, if man is not watching, they act like a wave, if man is watching, they act like particles.



We know what is going on behind the screen, we are shooting photons at it. What we don’t know is what goes on between the screens, that why we try to observe it.

In what way does metaphysics attempt to discern what was going on behind the screen as opposed to physics?



Can you please explain to me how you extrapolated this from Descartes writings.

A) The "self" fits into the chain of cause and effect because the 'self' is involved.
Metaphysics sees and experiences 'the self' as at the center of all phenomena. It is 'a belief system'. It is based upon the 'metaphysical fact' that underneath the veils of mind and underneath the veils of the ego (all 'within') is 'the creator'.

B) The sense of 'physical detachment' is not really (metaphysically speaking) an actual detachment. 'Thought' is considered a 'causal agent' and if 'thought' is not involved then the 'causal agent' is a pre-existing pattern (i.e., a belief) embeded in the psyche.
Much of this is a matter of deciding where 'the self' begins and ends.
Metaphysics sees the 'self' as (ultimately) expanding infinitely... 'without' to the ends of the universe and 'within' to the pure creative source that delivered one into 'being'.

C) "Meta" means 'hidden' or 'behind' or 'not visible'.
Imagine, for a moment, that you (unaware) are inside of a 'mirrored hamster ball of consciousness'. You are (unknown to yourself) at the un-moving center and what it is that you 'see' all around you is the contents of your complete consciousness projected into the 3D 'reality'.
In other words, you are in a hologram of your own consciousness. Once this realization is made then one realizes that changing the contents of consciousness changes the 3D 'reality'!

D) Descartes famous quotation "I think, therefore I am", interpreted from a metaphysical point-of-view, means that Descartes 'came into being' because of thinking.
It (the quotation) is not saying that Descartes proof of 'being' is because he is able to think... but rather that his being was produced by his thinking himself into 'being'.
In other words, (a minor example) someone shows up at an event. That 'someone' decided earlier to go to the event. His presence at the event is due (initially) by his thinking (combined with a desire).

Note: The fundamental principle of metaphysics is that each person is a 'creator'. The truths of metaphysics are 'self proving' but may or may not have general application. What it is that may be true for one person may not, as yet, be true for another. So, the 'scientific method' is not applicable.
So, the aspiring metaphysician conducts experiments and 'the rule' is to not cease the experiment until the desired result is attained.
Initially, 'rationality' is a speed-bump that must be by-passed. Metaphysics sees 'rationality' as a mere 'tool' (a consultant) rather than as a master.

The bottom line of metaphysics is that we can (and do) affect our 3D 'reality' by our thoughts. The thoughts that are the most embedded (the oldest) have the greatest potency.

To test this one needs only to conduct personal experimentation. We can push a button on a TV remote and change the channels. So too can we alter reality by our thoughts. "Thoughts (and beliefs) are things", they are powerful, and can and do alter 'reality'. We can think, while walking down a path, to walk in another direction (up the path). And, if we so desire we will change directions. We do not consider this as 'miraculous' but metaphysics does. It is the use of the mind to navigate through space/time.
So, the question is, "How much can I alter reality"? The answer is that we do not know until we begin to try.

Perhaps the 'big' metaphysical (and Socratic) question is: "What happens when God says, "I am not God"?

.

.

[Play_Dough]

Originally Posted by Aedes

The very problem with metaphysics is, as you say, that it is self-proving, which means that its coherence entirely depends on the language used to portray it -- because it doesn't consist in anything else. And this is what the modern philosophers have argued -- that pure metaphysical arguments don't have any verifiable information content whatsoever, and from what I understand if you use symbolic logic instead of words you take the air out of metaphysics. Videcorspoon can elaborate on this, perhaps.

I don't think the example you've given is actually metaphysical at all. You've described two completely physical phenomena -- one is the orderliness of someone's room, and the other is the physical and biological process of his meditation. Say you demonstrate that this phenomenon is true in a huge study, thus making it an extremely scientifically sound association (as opposed to a single individual's experience). The only part about this that is available to metaphysical speculation is the explanation for this association -- but that's only because your study has not yet answered why and how (mechanistically) this meditation changes behavior. But that's certainly open to scientific inquiry as well -- for instance it might be easily proved that meditation is associated with a higher stress response to more trivial messes, and this might be measurable and quantifiable.

Metaphysics is 'self proving'. It (metaphysics) provides an alternative method of connecting the dots.
Perhaps a question for a 'novice metaphysician' is: "If once you were God, then how in hell did you wind up on 'death row'?

Metaphysics is NOT about scientific inquiry, although it has a methodology of 'going within'. Metaphysics operates within a different cause and effect cosmology ('the hidden'). Science is about reproducable and universal results. Metaphysics is about manifesting 'personal results'. Science is about 'going without' (outside of the 'self') and metaphysics is all about 'going within' and, eventually, getting into 'the control room'..... the creative source.

Science studies the 'reflections' and metaphysics examines 'the mirror'.

Even Plato said that 'true causes' emanate from an altogether different level (plane) of 'reality'. (See, Plato's "The Allegory of the Cave").

>>>>> Science, in a way, is like having our two-dimensional screen-name trying to comprehend its 4 dimensional creator (us). <<<<<
The screen name simply cannot comprehend its 4 dimensional creator in any way other than 2 dimensionally. As such, the screen-name has an incomplete picture of its creator.

Metaphysics does not attempt to 'convince' or to prove anything for mass-consumption. It (Metaphysics) is based upon the belief that we have access to powers that seem (relative) 'supernatural'.
The 'problem' (for non-metaphysicians) with this is that in order to access the 'hidden powers' the metaphysician must 'deconstruct' the 'self' and the ego.... to 'free up' power.
Religions atempt to do this but offer no genuine and rational 'reason' for 'why'. Metaphysics, at least, provides some 'reasonable' explanation.

And most certainly I can agree that the metaphysical approach, initially, seems ridiculous. But it is our rational faculties that tell us about the 'ridiculousness'... the same rational faculties that 'diss' the miraculous.

The examples that I gave (earlier post) are, in fact, 'metaphysical'. Some minds require a rational explanation. Metaphysics is not concerned about 'how it works' but rather is concerned about 'how to work it'.
The key is thought combined with belief and personal experimentation.

Some additional comments:
Re: "verifiable information content is lacking for metaphysics".
comment..... Absence of 'proof' proves nothing.

Here is the fundamental premise of metaphysics:
Metaphysics believes that there is a major difference between 'container' (The human form/body) and 'consciousness' (the 'contents' of the human body).
Suspend (for just a moment) disbelief and imagine this (a metaphysical exercise) context. You have a big 'ah ha' and realize (gnosis) that your consciousness is not an 'emergent characteristic' of biology but is an entity unto itself (science cannot disprove this). In fact you realize that your consciousness is what 'religion' refers to as a 'soul'.
This (above) is what metaphysicians realize. This conclusion (consciousness as soul) can neither, as yet, be proven nor disproven.

The consciousness/soul has (unlike the physical body) an eternal shelf life. (See, Plato's 'mandate to return' in the "Allegory of the Cave").
Accepting this (above) as true, the metaphysician is interested in testing the powers of 'the soul'. In fact, the metaphysician ceases to identify with the body and identifies (ever increasingly) with the consciousness/soul (spirit?). Plato knew this, in fact, many of Plato's fundamental philosophies are included (although veiled) in the Christian New Testament.

Also, the metaphysician sees the physical body as an extension (a projection) of consciousness itself, but the extension does not stop at the fingertips. The extension of self can go into infinity.
The spiritual metaphor is the drop merging with the ocean of being. This is not a 'new age stuffage' but an ancient axiom.

Once the metaphysician recognizes that the outer 'reality' is a mirror of self (what is it that 'needs blood' [physical body] and cannot see its reflection in the 'mirror' of reality?) the metaphysicain then realizes that to change 'reality' he or she needs only to change their mind and the 'change' eventually 'shows up' in the 3D reality.

This metaphysical stuff makes no sense (or very little), whatsoever, to anyone whose consciousness is still 'welded' to the body and both consciousness and body are experienced as a unity.

Before metaphysics begins to make genuine sense, one must accept the idea that consciousness is NOT an emergent characteristic of biology and that 'consciousness' is temporarily contained in the body.

So, of course there is much metaphysical nonsense, so too in science and religion and all else. Nevertheless, any scathing criticism of metaphysics is doubtlessly created by 'the dead'. By 'the dead' it is meant those whose consciousness has been devoured by its animal form to the point that the consciousness succumbs (Lemmings marching to the sea) to what seems to be its certain and eventual death.

Metaphysics, some philosophy (i.e., Plato), and religions (generally) address the issue of correcting the conundrum of the captivated (crucified upon matter) consciousness.

This explanation covers only the basics. Metaphysicians do not proselytize (like religions do), in fact it is a metaphysical precept that 'silence accelerates one along the path to further gnosis'.

For additional information see (if possible), The Secret Teachings of Freemasonry, The higher teachings of Scientology, The Golden Dawn, Knights Templar, Esoteric Christianity, The mystical teachings of the Kabala or any 'secret society'.

.

[Aedes]

Originally Posted by Play_Dough

Descartes famous quotation "I think, therefore I am", interpreted from a metaphysical point-of-view, means that Descartes 'came into being' because of thinking.

I disagree. This statement does not have any ontogenic content. It describes a snapshot of the present, not how he got there. All he was trying to say with that pithy conclusion of his was that the fact that he was thinking was the only thing he could be completely sure of. And the only way he could know that he existed at all was to have something which he could not doubt.

[Play_Dough]

Originally Posted by Aedes

I disagree. This statement does not have any ontogenic content. It describes a snapshot of the present, not how he got there. All he was trying to say with that pithy conclusion of his was that the fact that he was thinking was the only thing he could be completely sure of. And the only way he could know that he existed at all was to have something which he could not doubt.

That is your opinion or interpretation, which I respect.
Descartes was a master of words and logic. He said EXACTLY what he meant..... "I THINK, THEREFORE I AM". Thinking preceeds being, thinking is a 'causal agency' of 'being'.
Why not try to 'stop thinking' (for three hours) and see what happens?
If you are successful you may wind up noticing that 'the world' (as we call it) is held together by our 'thinking'.
When all thought ceases everything (physical 'thing') virtually disappears. It is our descriptions of the world that make the world what it is.
Test this out and simply 'shut off' the hamster wheel of thinking. Its your mind so it should do what it is that you tell it to. Right? :-)
.