experience of the metaphysical

[vajrasattva]

The mundane world is defined by the laws we come to know in physics. But when do we cross the line from physics into metaphysics? Because, metaphysics lies for the most part outside possible experience, it therefore also lies for the most part, outside of possible knowledge as well. However the questions of metaphysics still weigh heavily upon the human experience, thereby making experiential knowledge possible to some extent to the individual who seeks knowledge of the super mundane. But due to the fact that this knowledge of the super-mundane level of reality is strictly a priori and experiential, it is individual to the one experiencing it and is not, strictly speaking knowable or even understandable to any other individual in a posteriori sense.
I believe that this has partly to do with the varying fabric of the mind itself. What i mean is that some are more in tune to the transcendent nature of reality, and as such perceive either more, or differently then the next person and this causes varying views on the nature of reality in its raw essence. As such one cannot make reasonable conjecture upon a purely a priori concept that also lies outside of the common experience of mankind.
So my question is how dose one come to experiential knowledge of the metaphysical?
Comments are much appreciated
thanks

[Aedes]

All metaphysics originates in human thought. There's no way to rationally argue that metaphysics exists somewhere outside of human thought except insofar as it can be shared among humans using language.

So metaphysical concepts can be 'experienced' only through contemplation, reflection, reasoning, interpreting.

[vajrasattva]

so how do we make progress in the science and for that matter why is it a science

[Didymos Thomas]

How is metaphysics a science?

[de Silentio]

There's no way to rationally argue that metaphysics exists somewhere outside of human thought except insofar as it can be shared among humans using language.

Can metaphysics also be shared among humans through necessity, and thus universality? For example, it is necessary that certain conditions must be met in order for us to have experience.

[Aedes]

Originally Posted by de Silentio

Can metaphysics also be shared among humans through necessity, and thus universality?

Are you presupposing a common psychology among humans that seeks metaphysical answers? I would agree with that.

For example, it is necessary that certain conditions must be met in order for us to have experience.

Just cognitive conditions as far as I'm concerned.

[nameless]

Originally Posted by vajrasattva

So my question is how dose one come to experiential knowledge of the metaphysical?
Comments are much appreciated
thanks

The arcane becomes mundane..
One doesn't seem to "experience the knowledge of the metaphysical", one experiences the metaphysical directly, that is why you cannot get it from a 'book' or a 'teacher'. (Nothing of 'value' comes easy!)
There are many paths that you can follow to 'learn of metaphysical basics'; magic, mysticism (in all it's shapes and forms), all sorts of disciplines, ... If the intent is pure and dedicated, I see no reason for the practice not to be fruitful. It might take a few decades, but that does speak to 'integrity and sincerity of intent'.

[vajrasattva]

I feel that the metaphysical knowledge if their is such a thing, I feel that such a thing would be a manifestation of divine truth (hence its experience in mysticism and magic) and as such is transcendental. But as no words can describe divine truth, because of its omniscient, omnipotent, all encompassing nature. The knowledge of it is contradictory in that in the divine sense, truth to one is falsehood to another (i.e. jesus is lord to one and Allah is lord to another). And as such the truth only manifestly understood in the individuality of human experience. Hence the wars not to mention the close mindedness and argumentativeness over the god concept. If we take the individuality of human experience and the individuality of the experience of truth (considering that metaphysical reality is truth) we must accept the fact that metaphysical experience is wholly up to individual conception based on experience. With that said one must surely accept and be open to differences in conception and most importantly expression between individuals. As well as accepting that their is a definite psychological alignment in the mass consciousness in order for metaphysical progression of thought to take place. This requires an open mindedness which a lot of would be philosophers do not possess. So from there how do I make progress in this science?
Thanks

[Paracelsus]

I don't know if progress is the correct word here, isn't it more of an experiential perception of a broader reality not confined to the present here and now?

For example I attended a performance of Mahlers Second Symphony, have seen it before and know the score very well. As the music progressed I began to notice an affective change come over me, that and the fact that I was involuntary rising out of my seat in the Opera House. I began not only to feel the music on a deeper physical and emotional level, but began to experience an intense physical euphoria with accompanying physical changes, my pupils dilated and i experienced more light that what i would normally in the auditorium, My breathing at first became shallow and i just simply blissed out for the whole performance. Obviously i was responding to the spiritual aspects of the music and the physicality of the music its self.

Meditation induces changes in the physical state of the body, and so does solid blocks of exercise by activating particular chemical reactions in the body. So do drugs, think of Huxley and the Merry Pranksters for that matter.

But an experience which transcends the everyday is an indicator of a 'more than this' element to what we perceive as the world we live in. Even Sarte in Nausea has the central character experience a moment of transcendence, and he was an Existentialist with no time for the divine.

I think if you want to call it the spiritual that's fine but experiences which transcend the normal human condition have been documented by artists and intellectuals throughout history, the issue is i think how to actually induce them or are they mere random occurrences triggered by a combination of internal chemistry and external stimuli? And do they lead to any specific insight into the human condition? Or are they manifestations of the spiritual fabric of life?

[Aedes]

Originally Posted by Paracelsus

I attended a performance of Mahlers Second Symphony

Lucky! It's one of my favorite pieces of music, that first movement kills me every time I listen to it. It's been a number of years since I last saw it live.

As the music progressed I began to notice an affective change come over me, that and the fact that I was involuntary rising out of my seat in the Opera House. I began not only to feel the music on a deeper physical and emotional level, but began to experience an intense physical euphoria with accompanying physical changes, my pupils dilated and i experienced more light that what i would normally in the auditorium

Sounds like an autonomic effect that can indeed be mediated emotionally. Remember that western tonal music is VERY much focused on dissonance and resolution, as well as contrasting via dynamic range (i.e. loud vs soft). Particularly in the first and last movements of Mahler's 2nd Symphony, he uses those contrasts and conflicts to tremendous effect. If you are familiar with Mozart's Requiem, think of the HUGE crescendo towards the beginning of the Lacrimosa.

So you are experiencing tension and release, which produces stress and catharsis, and there is a big interplay between your sympathetic and parasympathetic nervous system here.

Also be aware that responsiveness to music is well-established to be culturally ingrained. So you may find Chinese opera to be bizarre and unlistenable; but they may have the same reaction to Mahler.

But an experience which transcends the everyday is an indicator of a 'more than this' element to what we perceive as the world we live in.

But you haven't made the case that this is intrinsic to the world as opposed to intrinsic to us. Certainly when you experience the sublime it seems as if it should emanate from the world. But the sublime is an experience, not an intrinsic quality.