Carl-Richard

My Metaphysical Map

31 posts in this topic

Note: this is not a developmental model, nor is it about determining which framework is better or worse.

metaphysical map.png

 

What does it do?

It shows how these different metaphysical frameworks differ in terms of the trade-off between comprehensiveness and specificity, which realms they're mainly operating under (hyper-dimensional vs. three-dimensional reality), and which explanatory constraints they're operating under (mysticism vs. naturalism vs. myth).

 

Explaining the different explanatory constraints

Mysticism

- deals with methods, metaphors, anecdotes and stories that aim to facilitate the direct phenomenological experience of God/reality, and these explanations of reality are seen as a means rather than an end. There are no general guidelines for these types of explanations, only that they aim to encapsulate the nature of God.

Naturalism

- deals with analytic philosophy, the scientific method and scientific theories. The goal is to explain a phenomena by reducing it to some other known phenomena that is compatible with the naturalistic paradigm, e.g. explaining rivers by referring to the structural-functional properties of water. The general guidelines for a naturalistic metaphysics is coherence, internal logical consistency, conceptual parsimony, empirical adequacy, and explanatory power.

Myth

- deals with metaphors, anecdotes and stories in order to explain the nature of reality. For example, God created Eve from one of Adam's ribs, which explains the origin of man vs. woman. The general guidelines are specific to each tradition.

 

General -> specific, and hyper-dimensional vs. 3D human realm

The first distinction is a hierarchical one: the closer something is to the top, the more general, comprehensive, holistic, all-encompassing, and big-picture it is, and conversely, the closer something is to the bottom, the more specific and concrete it is. There is an inherent trade-off between these levels, meaning you can only have so much of one or the other, but the different levels also don't have to necessarily contradict each other (although sometimes they do):

For instance, the statement or metaphor "you are imagining everything" of psychedelic mysticism is able to encompass the experiences you encounter in the hyper-dimensional realm ("my couch just talked to me") as well as those in the 3D human realm ("my friend just talked to me"), but it seems to lack more specific explanatory power for the 3D realm. The same applies to nondual mysticism: "there is no separation" doesn't really explain the apparent illusion of separation (or at least the particularities of it, e.g. "why am I able to pick up a cat and not a car?").

On the other hand, the naturalistic frameworks are tied to conventional scientific investigation and analytical standards of reasoning, and these are more able to account for specific things in the 3D realm, like the weight of cats vs. cars, technological innovation and subsequent questions like "is AI sentient?" But these again lose some comprehensiveness, in that some things are either hard or impossible to explain:

One such example is the "Hard problem of consciousness", which has remained unsolved under physicalism (but is solved in analytic idealism, but conversely, it faces the "Decombination problem" which is solved under physicalism). However, analytic idealism seems to have a plausible solution for the Decombination problem (i.e. "dissociation"), but the research around that is still in its infancy. Mysticism has none of these problems, because again, it simply relies on metaphors, anecdotes and fuzzy concepts, not analytic philosophy and science.

 

Specific -> Pseudo-specific

On a less important note, with respect to the two "Myth" frameworks on the bottom, I denoted the tendency towards "pseudo-specific" in the sense that they're both less specific and incredibly specific compared to the naturalistic frameworks. For example, while physicalism can point to things like particles, forces and phase states to explain things like rain and fire, an animist explanation would for example be a "rain spirit" or "fire spirit" for each phenomena. Merely denoting these phenomena as "spirit" doesn't tell you much about their specific properties compared to say their chemical structure, but each explanation is in another sense incredibly specific to the phenomena.

 

Why did I make this?

Because I often see what I consider a harmful tendency towards "naive skepticism", i.e. to dismiss or deny especially analytically rigorous styles of investigation (philosophy & science). I think carefully spelling out these different levels of investigation and seeing the pros and cons in a visual way can help with that. The most important point in this respect is the naturalism vs. mysticism distinction, and that in any sort of inquiry, be it spiritual, self-help or intellectual, one should acknowledge the constraints of each framework and avoid blindly choosing one over the other.


Intrinsic joy is revealed in the marriage of meaning and being.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Judy2 said:

Do you personally think that there is not only a difference in the way the teachers are communicating the "insight", but also a difference in what they mean? 

Yes, but it's flavors on the same theme. It's not going to be something completely different from teacher to teacher, but there is certainly a spectrum. For example, the most commercialized and Westernized conceptions of mindfulness (where you treat meditation as a sort of stress relief) will point to the compulsive mechanisms of thought as a source of suffering, and that lessening it is the path to a more peaceful mind. In this "tradition", there isn't necessarily even a recognition of such a thing as enlightenment, but it certainly moves you in that direction. Other traditions may have such a conception, but the cut-off point of where "you've got it" might be completely different from some other tradition (e.g. a transient mystical state that doesn't stick vs. one who does). What even "sticking" means can also be problematic (or you can reject the sticking notion altogether like Leo).


Intrinsic joy is revealed in the marriage of meaning and being.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Nice, this is good shit! :)


“Did you ever say Yes to a single joy? O my friends, then you said Yes to all woe as well. All things are chained and entwined together, all things are in love; if ever you wanted one moment twice, if ever you said: ‘You please me, happiness! Abide, moment!’ then you wanted everything to return!” - Friedrich Nietzsche
 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I really like the motivation behind this metaphysical Map along with the schema for how its content is structured.

For what it's worth, I also went ahead and applied your structure to some of the thought systems I've been exploring over the past year or two.

Screenshot_20220623-153155~2.png

Edited by DocWatts

I'm writing a philosophy book! Check it out at : https://7provtruths.org/

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, DocWatts said:

I really like the motivation behind this metaphysical Map along with the scheme for how its content is structured.

I had a vision of it while falling asleep (l actually kinda saw the thing). Kinda neat :D

 

2 minutes ago, DocWatts said:

For what it's worth, I also went ahead and applied your structure to some of the thought systems I've been exploring over the past year or two.

 

Screenshot_20220623-151815~2.png

xD All natty brah!


Intrinsic joy is revealed in the marriage of meaning and being.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I simplified it because I felt the two inarticulation levels were firstly a bit distracting from the overall point, and that they didn't fit well with the blocks on the left, and that most people are already familiar with the "map vs. territory" distinction anyway. I'm also generally starting to favor elegance over detailedness (especially when it comes to things like visualizations which are supposed to be simple).


Intrinsic joy is revealed in the marriage of meaning and being.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
22 minutes ago, Carl-Richard said:

most people are already familiar with the "map vs. territory" distinction anyway

Exactly. I was originally going to suggest that you remove the old top one (mystics who teach that “the truth cannot be spoken”) because almost everyone within the “mysticism” category would already agree with that. In a way, even scientists who believe that everything is physical believe that! It is hard to speak in pure physics…

What makes you say that only the new top one is “hyper-dimensional”? The lower form of mysticism and even the idealism you describe could integrate hyper-dimensions within their metaphysics: there is no separation between dimensions, all dimensions occur within the mind.


Oh mother, I can feel the soil falling over my head… And as I climb into an empty bed, oh well, enough said… I know it’s over, still I cling, I don’t know where else I can go… Over…

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 hours ago, Oeaohoo said:

What makes you say that only the new top one is “hyper-dimensional”? The lower form of mysticism and even the idealism you describe could integrate hyper-dimensions within their metaphysics: there is no separation between dimensions, all dimensions occur within the mind.

Let me first preface by referring to something I said in the beginning (it's not a firm line):

On 23.6.2022 at 7:54 PM, Carl-Richard said:

which realms they're mainly operating under (hyper-dimensional vs. three-dimensional reality)

 

I'm secondly viewing the frameworks mostly through their "teaching style", i.e. which specific metaphors or explanatory constraints they're utilizing.

It's the case that some of the metaphors in nondual mysticism are more tied to something in the 3D realm (like "Mary and Jane's dream", an analogy used by Rupert Spira), i.e. normal human objects and events. It also reflects where the teaching style is derived from: the practices are generally done sober in human form, and even the peak states are considered "normal" to some extent.

On the other hand, psychedelic mysticism (Leo's teachings) is much less embodied in this respect. He will easily go to things like "you can imagine that the couch is sentient and start a conversation with it" or "you can stop imagining the entire universe right now if you were truly conscious". It too reflects where teaching style is derived from, namely the more overtly hyper-dimensional realm ("5-MeO/N'N-DMT hyperspace").

When it comes to the naturalistic frameworks, their "teaching style" is very much confined to the human side of things. If there is anything that linear human reasoning has a bad time grasping, it's the hyper-dimensional realms of those encountered in psychedelic states (maybe I should've just called it the "psychedelic realm" instead).

 

17 hours ago, Oeaohoo said:

Exactly. I was originally going to suggest that you remove the old top one (mystics who teach that “the truth cannot be spoken”) because almost everyone within the “mysticism” category would already agree with that. In a way, even scientists who believe that everything is physical believe that! It is hard to speak in pure physics…

This emphasis on teaching style is some of what I was trying to communicate with the two "inarticulated" levels, by pointing to that there are indeed teaching styles that utilize silence over speech ("the teachingless teaching"), e.g. aspects of Apophatic theology, which sort of collapses the comprehensiveness-specificity continuum and deconstructs the concept of teaching, and you can make the case that it merges with "the reality as it is".

 

I have to admit that I was experiencing a strong feeling of dissonance when I first made the thread, which was one motivation for simplifying the layout. I've definitely not resolved that dissonance yet (which may be indicated by my verbose explanations), and you pointing to inconsistencies might help with that process, so thank you :D 


Intrinsic joy is revealed in the marriage of meaning and being.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@Oeaohoo I've simplified the abomination of a response I made yesterday so it maybe makes more sense. I think I sat in the sun too long ?


Intrinsic joy is revealed in the marriage of meaning and being.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Carl-Richard said:

@Oeaohoo I've simplified the abomination of a response I made yesterday so it maybe makes more sense. I think I sat in the sun too long ?

Haha, it made sense before anyway!

I see what you mean about teaching style. I have recently been reading some Gnostic texts and they were extremely insistent on emphasising the apophatic aspect of God. On the one hand it is a very enigmatic and intuitive way to express truth; on the other hand, it is quite imprecise and lends itself to a vague and formless teaching which could be exploited to smuggle in anti-spiritual ideas. Incidentally, some of the Gnostic Creation myths have a slightly “hyper-dimensional” quality in that out of the “Pleroma” or Silence are produced various different worlds or “aeons”.

It might be interesting to expand this model to include those metaphysical systems which fit in between the gaps of the levels you currently have. For example, I would say that the German idealism of the 1800s (Hegel, Schopenhauer, Nietzsche) exists somewhere between Physicalism and Analytic Idealism in that, whilst everything here is seen as Will and Idea, the “everything” in question is mostly physical. I don’t have such a clear idea on what would fill the gaps of the other levels but here are some examples: between animism and religious dogmatism would be modern forms of paganism which are now forced to set themselves apart from Christian dogmatism, and between religious fundamentalism and physicalism would be Biblical literalists.

 


Oh mother, I can feel the soil falling over my head… And as I climb into an empty bed, oh well, enough said… I know it’s over, still I cling, I don’t know where else I can go… Over…

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Oeaohoo said:

It might be interesting to expand this model to include those metaphysical systems which fit in between the gaps of the levels you currently have. For example, I would say that the German idealism of the 1800s (Hegel, Schopenhauer, Nietzsche) exists somewhere between Physicalism and Analytic Idealism in that, whilst everything here is seen as Will and Idea, the “everything” in question is mostly physical. I don’t have such a clear idea on what would fill the gaps of the other levels but here are some examples: between animism and religious dogmatism would be modern forms of paganism which are now forced to set themselves apart from Christian dogmatism, and between religious fundamentalism and physicalism would be Biblical literalists.

I would if I had the chops to do that, trust me! xD I mostly picked the examples that frequent this community, and I tried to add just enough of them to get my point across, which if I were to state it again, would be that different frameworks can tell you different things, and that you have to know when it's appropriate to invoke them to solve a problem.

The type of naive skepticism I see most often is that you're hiding behind a spiritual framework (mysticism), which can only tell you extremely general things about reality ("absolute infinity wooow") — as a way to ignore a scientific-rationalist framework (naturalism), which tries to tell you very specific things about reality ("magnets wooow").

It's actually not true skepticism, but a sort of insincere pseudo-skepticism; spiritual bypassing. In fact, in recent years, the word "skeptic" itself (a la Michael Shermer and Matt Dillahunty) has been co-opted by this kind of pseudo-skepticism, where instead of hiding behind a spiritual framework, you're hiding behind a naturalist framework (most notably physicalism). It's ridiculous! xD


Intrinsic joy is revealed in the marriage of meaning and being.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 hours ago, Carl-Richard said:

The type of naive skepticism I see most often is that you're hiding behind a spiritual framework (mysticism), which can only tell you extremely general things about reality ("absolute infinity wooow") — as a way to ignore a scientific-rationalist framework (naturalism), which tries to tell you very specific things about reality ("magnets wooow").

; spiritual bypassing. In fact, in recent years, the word "skeptic" itself (a la Michael Shermer and Matt Dillahunty) has been co-opted by this kind of pseudo-skepticism, where instead of hiding behind a spiritual framework, you're hiding behind a naturalist framework (most notably physicalism). It's ridiculous! xD

Well said, and a good illustration of the pre-trans fallacy when it comes to some types of New Age mysticism.

If the former falls prey to scientific illiteracy, it's equally fair to say that the misuse of skepticism falls prey to epistemic illiteracy in that they're unable to recognize the ontological assumptions baked into their skepticism.

Hardline physicalists handwaving away the incoherency of consciousness somehow arising from inert matter are arguably just the other side of the coin of New Age magnet mysticism. xD

 


I'm writing a philosophy book! Check it out at : https://7provtruths.org/

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Natty brah.

I like Bernardo Kastrup's — everything is in mind, similar to animism in some ways. 

Aligns a lot with jungian. 

 


♡✸♡.

 Be careful being too demanding in relationships. Relate to the person at the level they are at, not where you need them to be.

You have to get out of the kitchen where Tate's energy exists ~ Tyler Robinson 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@StarStruck

  • It's a categorization/typology, not a developmental stage theory.
  • It deals with metaphysical frameworks, not vMEMEs ("value systems").
  • It focuses on how reality is explained (philosophy), not how people think or behave (psychology).
  • The hierarchical organization is a continuum of specificity-comprehensiveness, not simplicity-complexity.

Intrinsic joy is revealed in the marriage of meaning and being.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@Carl-Richard I don't know why it constantly reminds me of a reductionist version of spiral dynamics for some reasonxD


♡✸♡.

 Be careful being too demanding in relationships. Relate to the person at the level they are at, not where you need them to be.

You have to get out of the kitchen where Tate's energy exists ~ Tyler Robinson 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@Carl-Richard I get it that you aren't basing it on values. But could you tell me how you're differentiating animism from psychedelic mysticism without taking into consideration the inherent values pertaining to these frameworks? 

 


♡✸♡.

 Be careful being too demanding in relationships. Relate to the person at the level they are at, not where you need them to be.

You have to get out of the kitchen where Tate's energy exists ~ Tyler Robinson 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Tyler Robinson said:

@Carl-Richard I don't know why it constantly reminds me of a reductionist version of spiral dynamics for some reasonxD

If you substitute the specific-comprehensive spectrum for the simplistic-complex spectrum in SD, then the organization of naturalism above myth correlates with Orange over Blue-Purple, but mysticism does not correlate with Green and up (only very weakly). To think that mysticism is a sign of SD maturity would be to conflate what Wilber calls "growing up" and "waking up". For instance, mysticism has existed along slavery.


Intrinsic joy is revealed in the marriage of meaning and being.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Carl-Richard said:

  "growing up" and "waking up". 

How do you differentiate the two? 


♡✸♡.

 Be careful being too demanding in relationships. Relate to the person at the level they are at, not where you need them to be.

You have to get out of the kitchen where Tate's energy exists ~ Tyler Robinson 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
23 minutes ago, Carl-Richard said:

@StarStruck

  • It's a categorization/typology, not a developmental stage theory.
  • It deals with metaphysical frameworks, not vMEMEs ("value systems").
  • It focuses on how reality is explained (philosophy), not how people think or behave (psychology).
  • The hierarchical organization is a continuum of specificity-comprehensiveness, not simplicity-complexity.

Values influence metaphysical frameworks. Spiraldynamics and AQAL is not just about value systems but also about consciousness(metaphysics) itself. But that is just my limited understanding. Personally I still don't understand why Ken Wilber made a seperate model from SpiralDynamics. It is almost the same.

Edit: I think I confused Spiral dynamics and AQAL with Level Of Consciousness by Dawkins. You are right about the one being a value system and the other about metaphysics.

Edited by StarStruck

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now