Metaphysics

Underlying every philosophical position is a metaphysical one which is implicit in that position. It is not always stated explicitly. To complicate matters an explicitly stated metaphysical position is not necessarily consistent with what is implied by the philosophy.

Metaphysics deals with two fundamental questions:

Metaphysics can be as easy or as difficult as you want to make it. We all have a pretty good intuitive sense of what is, and what isn't. What you know, and what you choose to believe, is your responsibility, and yours alone. It will not change reality in any direct way, though it may have some indirect effect through the medium of those parts of reality that are dealt with by your choices, or lack thereof. Thus, what you choose to believe will have psychological significance at the very least.

The easiest way I know of to approach an understanding of the metaphysical and/or the philosophic concepts of existence is to talk about Nothing. Nothing is a very important concept. Considering the denial of existence takes us - each and everyone of us - to the limits of thinking. Contemplating Nothing and Nothingness can be a spiritual experience depending upon how far one takes it.

Philosophy can be approached in two ways: either as a philosopher or as a student of philosophy. Approaching it as a philosopher can be a terrible responsibility. It can also be fun. There are no experts. There are no authorities. The decision of what's true and what's false is based solely on faith, reason and intellectual honesty. Appealing to "authority" mitigates the responsibility to some degree, but one's beliefs are still based on faith in the reason and intellectual honesty of the authority rather than in one's own.

How does one develop an understanding of a word, or the concept that it represents? Generally, a dictionary is a good place to start. In the case of "nothing", however, it is only a starting point because the concept it represents is so fundamental that it must be experienced. Start with the idea that nothing is the absence of something. It is easy to imagine the non-existence of "things" and arrive at a concept of 'no-thingness"; i.e., the absence of "physical reality". It is another matter to imagine the absence of thoughts. The extent that one can systematically contemplate the removal of all thoughts from one's mind, is the extent to which one gets an understanding of nothing. The limit to that process is a mind contemplating it's own non-physical nature, i.e., it's spiritual nature. Attempts to go further could only produce a sense of some universal essence of existence that is beyond "self" which is understood by the surrender of "self".

The unusual conclusion that I come to from such considerations is:

That conclusion in no way implies the non-existence of anything else. It is merely an unusual - and I hope, a forceful - assertion that a denial of the existence of anything contains a self-contradiction.

Consider a void. If you are considering it you have some sense of it's existence. Now fill that void. Where does the void go? Since it is non-physical, there is no need for it to obey the physical law that no two things can occupy the same place at the same time. So the void, though filled, could still be there.

In terms of the metaphysical questions posed earlier, my answers are simple.

Anything that one can imagine exists even if it's existence is limited to the domain of one thinker's mind.

The nature of existence is non-physical, i.e., spiritual. It is also material. In addition to spiritual and physical existence, there are relationships which also exist. Thoughts exist, and they are relationships.

There are some interesting implications that may not be obvious. Contemplating them could be enlightening, so I shall just mention them as a transition to the conclusion of the present topic.

All knowledge of what exists emanates from the trinity of an existing universe comprised of the spiritual, the physical, and the relationship between them.

Man, created from that existing universe, shares some of its nature; i.e., was created in it's image and likeness.

Knowledge, being a creation of man, shares some of man's nature.

All knowledge is anthropomorphic; i.e., is understood in terms of man's nature.

I have already noted some limitations of a dictionary in trying to define the word "nothing". So far I have not done so either. Rather I have tried to get you to form your own understanding by your own direct experience through meditation. Just look around at various forms of meditation, Yoga, or even self-hypnosis and you will see the similarities to contemplating "Nothing". Some techniques suggest the use of "mantras", "chants", or rituals which serve as "white noise" to block out other "noises", or distractions.

Since what exists, and the knowledge of what exists, are so inextricably related, it would seem that the most useful way to "define" existence would be in terms of knowledge. That can be done by characterizing "nothing" and/or "existence" as having the property of being "knowable" as their most essential or "primitive" characteristic.

It should be clear that giving the properties of something can be taken as a "definition" which differentiates, delineates, or separates the thing defined from other things. Existence, and Nothing, however, have the peculiar property that they are not completely delineated or separated from anything else that can be considered. Defining "nothing" as that which has only the property of "knowability" and none other is crude but workable. If "it" is "known", "it" is "knowable", and "it" exists: being Known implies consciousness, and a mind, which all exist at the same time, and which are best understood through meditation from which their meaning is determined.

Hopefully this will resolve the problem of the philosophic absurdity - the self-contradiction - of trying to discuss things that don't exist!

Note:This page was posted to the newsgroup alt.philosophy on Oct. 10, 1998.
Responses and Replies