Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

49925Re: [existlist] The Broadest sense of Metaphysical

Expand Messages
  • tom
    Dec 7, 2009

      I liked your post. Your statement of" Sorry to keep using the word `stuff'; it simply means that I
      don't know exactly what it is made of and how." reminds me of something I read by Carl Jung where he said the the concept of a subconcious like the concept of God or the Devil is a term referring to something that we don't know too much about. Interestingly, you later said " If I cannot
      say what I am then how can I say what THAT is?" That reminds me of the eastern story of a guy who once dreamed he was a butterfly, and now wonders whither he was a man who dreamed that he was a butterfly, or a butterfly that was dreaming he was a man.

      But I enjoyed it, and am very much in accord with it, and wish you well.

      ----- Original Message -----
      From: rwr
      To: existlist@yahoogroups.com
      Sent: Monday, December 07, 2009 9:33 AM
      Subject: [existlist] The Broadest sense of Metaphysical

      The Broadest sense of Metaphysical

      Strictly speaking any and all human experience is Metaphysical, and even
      if it is experience of physical things and objects; and even if one is
      asleep at the time. It is all human conscious experience, and it all
      affects our lives to some degree or other. Human experience can be
      ignored or it can be studied, in so far as one can study it, or has an
      interest to do so. We also know well enough not that the most dense of
      things which we find, such as a rock, are comprised mainly of emptiness.
      An emptiness with some bits of stuff in it. Is not the physical
      universe found to be the same? Emptiness with bits of stuff in it.

      However, the word Metaphysics is usually taken to mean conscious
      experience which does not contain those kinds of bits of stuff in it.
      Nonetheless, a conscious experience has to be an experience of
      something, and no matter what it is or what it is constructed from or
      by. There has to be a content to that consciousness. Consciousness must
      be conscious of something. That is why when I was a little boy I asked
      myself as to what exists for consciousness to become conscious of;
      become aware of by conscious experience itself. It is a good enough
      question. But naturally enough the only way to find out is live ones
      life and see what comes along. And stuff did come along; all kinds of

      Sorry to keep using the word `stuff'; it simply means that I
      don't know exactly what it is made of and how. One could call it
      Phenomena; this the study of Phenomena; or one could simply say the
      study of stuff. It is all energy of some kind or another. It also seemed
      plainly obvious to me when I was little, that there was stuff of what is
      seen and the stuff of what is seeing it. Hence I use the terms the
      Observer and the Observed. One could also say consciousness and the
      content of consciousness. It all means the same thing.

      Two things are sure here, one is that if stuff existed but nothing
      observed it then that stuff would never be known by anything. Another is
      that if consciousness existed but without any content (an observer
      without anything observed) then not only would that be boring, but it
      would also create a paradox. A Paradox in the sense that observing is
      what an observer does, and that consciousness always has a content; and
      even if that content is black empty space the observer still knows that
      it exists and is observing black empty space.

      Another thing that set my own path on studying things when I was very
      small was the realisation that an observer cannot really know what it is
      observing until it first knows what the observer itself is. If I cannot
      say what I am then how can I say what THAT is? This is the beauty and
      the complexity of the phenomena of self consciousness, for it always
      creates a duality - the seer and the seen, the knower and the known;
      the I and the THOU. But both the seer and the seen (the existential
      duality due to self consciousness) are but two parts of one thing, they
      are both a part of the sum of the ALL. The ALL meaning the sum of
      everything which exists. Even though the implication from the deepest
      known metaphysical experiences implies that it all comes from the same
      primordial energy, the same `stuff', the same ground of being;
      it does not alter that fact that here at least it is experienced as an
      existential duality of the observer and the observed.

      But ironically or otherwise the same applies in the deepest known
      (leastwise recorded as yet) metaphysical experience in that there is
      still an Observer and the Observed, and even though the observer is in a
      reunion with itself in its purest basic raw primordial cognitive
      condition at that point; and with nothing of the world and space and
      time there to encroach upon its encompass.

      So, we plainly enough have interesting mysteries to grapple with. Not
      least of which is the phenomenon of Consciousnes, the phenomenon of me,
      and all that other phenomena which is not me. Stops things getting
      boring anyway :- ) Such is life. What are you? Are you sure?



      [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

      [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
    • Show all 2 messages in this topic