[MD] Betterness - 4 levels of!

[118]

Hi Tim,
>
Some comments to the paragraph below.
Mark

>
> [Tim]
> none of us are.  No one ever has been.  Mark and I have been talking
> about it though.  This was a provocative question on my part.  And
> perhaps I am using Physics too strongly; maybe I should have said
> something about a formal, concrete, aspect of meta-physics.  I was
> really looking for your intuition on this though.  For my part I am
> wondering whether metaphysics is a wandering in the high country or a
> descent into the abyss.  does our wandering lead to another valley, or
> is the benefit of our wandering realized by our ability to get back out
> of the abyss.  You have an intuition, or a sense, or a feeling about
> this, and I was hoping you would share.  Does all this precise
> discussion of the realm beyond physics (meta) work?  Does it hold
> together?  Does it hold water?  I don't know what the best way to state
> this is.  For my part I think that metaphysics must ultimately point to
> something concrete: this could be a physics, it could be a social order,
> or it could be a religion/spiritualism.  The question is whether
> metaphysics is eternally isolated from these concrete fruits or not.  I
> was looking for ... something from you.  (And Mark also, etc.)
>
> [Tim]
> I am having a great time so far, but if metaphysics is eternally
> isolated from concrete fruits I don't think I will last all that long.
> Though there is something to be said for effects on the concrete through
> the back door, through one-on-one personal interaction.
>
> [Mark]
>
Certainly any metaphysics must be in some kind of agreement with other
disciplines that are accepted as meaningful.  Physics in no exception.
 Providing complete credibility for a metaphysics using physics is another
thing.  Physics is an objective approach to providing meaning to the world
around us.  It is arrived at through agreement that certain things happen.
 As such, it is often hard to dispute except at the frontiers.  But even
seemingly lasting concepts such as Newtons billiard ball analogy, do fall.
 Physics progresses mainy much through technology.  Who knows what
technology will be developed in the future.

If there is indeed a spiritual side to man, and if such a side cannot be
described through a model in physics then such a science provides only part
of the structure of metaphysics.  When the limits reached by such a science
are heavily theoretical and generated by possible solutions through math,
then physics resembles metaphysics and there can be cross-over on an equal
plane.  The conversion of physicists to religions is quite regular these
days.  I believe that creating bridges from one discipline to another
provides modes of thinking that strengthen a metaphysics.

Rather than traveling through a valley and uncovering clues, it might be
more appropriate to consider metaphysics as an adventure in building.
 Whether such a building can provide unanimous agreement has yet to be
established.  The purpose of such a structure is to model the nature of
things in a way that provides answers.  Such answers must be applied to the
inner nature of man as well as the outer nature.  The answers are agreed
upon concepts which are universal to man.  The notion that the nature of man
is somewhat universal at a certain level is not out of the question.

For an intellectual structure to model such a thing is not impossible, but
takes a lot of work and agreement.  If there is something about the great
religions that they all may have in common, such a thing should be
considered.  Huxley provided a book on this, but, in my opinion it was not
wide enough.  It is certainly a task too big for one person.  There are
departments of comparative religions that exist, but many kinds of
philosophies need to be incorporated.  It is my opinion, that the internet
(perhaps in its next incarnation) will be of great use in developing a
metaphysics.  As you know language is a barrier and there have been
philosophers who say it is insurmountable due to the inherent nature of
language.  Who knows?  It is also my belief that we are far behind the
metaphysics that was created several thousand years ago in India.  I have
been told that Sanskrit was heavily loaded with metaphysical concepts, many
more than we have today.

The nice thing is that metaphysics is only for those that need to think
about such things.  In my opinion, metaphysics should never be used for
social order or politics.  It has no place there.  This may be contrary to
some ideas of the MOQ when it subscribes to levels of control, but, so be
it.  I think it should remain descriptive and not become intrusive.  In this
way, it can coexist with religions and such.  In a way, metaphysics could be
considered a form of priesthood.  People who have questions can have them
answered and go on their way.  This was written about quite well by Herman
Hesse in The Glass Bead Game, which I read a translation of.

So yes, concrete support is good.  Science always changes, so any support
coming from there will change.  It is not a good idea to expect a long
living metaphysics to be based too heavily on science.

Cheers,
Mark

>
> Moq_Discuss mailing list
> Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc.
> http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org
> Archives:
> http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/
> http://moq.org/md/archives.html
>