We Are Metaphysical Beings

 

What does it mean to be “self-conscious” as opposed to sentient or conscious, as are all of the animals closest to us to some degree or other? (It seems plants, especially trees, might even be conscious in some way not well-understood.) There are different ways people have thought about this, including:

·        Having a soul vs. not having a soul

·        Reason vs. instinct

·        Being in the world vs. adapting to a natural environment

·        Having language (ideas, logic, symbols) vs. signals

·        Living in history (having a past, projecting a future) vs. the mere present

·        Having a story (biography) vs. being an exemplar of a master model

·        Living in a realm of meaning vs. instinct

·        Awareness of one’s mortality vs. unawareness

 

One that especially interests me is this: we are metaphysical creatures. That means: we live always assuming or believing some interpretation about Being, reality as such, the world as a (limited) whole. Often these interpretations are in the form of myth. Almost every culture tells stories about the origins of things and what it all means. There are many stories of creation, for example, with the essence of the world depending on the nature of the Creator.

1.    Fundamental constituents of the universe, such as particles, forces, and spacetime, governed by physical laws. No inherent meaning or value.

2.    Transient phenomena without inherent self; ultimate reality is transcending the cycle of birth, death, and rebirth.

3.    Act of existence received from a necessary Being, who is Love; created beings participate in existence but do not possess it inherently.

4.    Existence devoid of inherent purpose, meaning, or value; life and the universe lack intrinsic meaning. The self creates any meaning.

5.    Being linked to social order and moral virtues, which is embedded in the order of nature; understood through relationships and roles within society.

6.    Essence of Being as an irrational and blind force that drives all existence; the world as a representation shaped by perception.

7.    Single substance constituting reality; all things as modes or modifications of this one substance, which is “God.” Nature is like the body of “God.”

 

The thing is: we necessarily live as though we lived in one of these worlds or another. That fact that our actions, thoughts, feelings, and indeed lives are related to meaning – even to consider something as meaningless sets up a relationship to meaning – forces metaphysics on us since the meaning of anything depends on an overarching account of Being to frame it.

A thought experiment. What is intelligible, what is unintelligible for a person inhabiting these world versions if they came upon an ancient forest:

 

1. Fundamental Constituents (Physics)

• Intelligible: The forest's biodiversity, the physical processes governing the ecosystem (photosynthesis, water cycle, soil composition), and the interactions between different species. They would understand the forest as a complex system of energy and matter.
• Not Intelligible: Any notion of intrinsic purpose or meaning within the forest beyond its physical and biological processes. The forest's aesthetic or spiritual significance might not be inherently clear from a purely physical standpoint. Perhaps it would only be intelligible as a subjective-psychological (anthropomorphic) projection. Nothing would be violated if a capitalist deforested it for profit.

2. Transient Phenomena (Impermanence, Non-self)

• Intelligible: The forest as a transient and impermanent entity, constantly changing and evolving. The interconnectedness of all living things within the forest and the absence of a permanent self in any of its inhabitants.
• Not Intelligible: The idea of the forest having a fixed, inherent identity or eternal significance. The concept of owning or permanently preserving the forest in a static state might seem nonsensical. Nothing about the being of the forest makes a claim on us to let it me though as an expression of will or desire it would be undesirable to do so.

3. Act of Existence (Participation in Being)

• Intelligible: The forest as a manifestation of existence, with each element participating in the act of being. The beauty and order of the forest reflecting a higher purpose or design. The interconnectedness of all living things as part of a greater whole.
• Not Intelligible: The view of the forest as merely a collection of random, purposeless entities. The absence of a deeper significance or order behind the forest's existence might seem unintelligible. It makes a claim on us. To damage it might be analogous to damaging a great painting, though in this case the Creator is divine.

4. Existence Without Inherent Meaning (Nihilism)

• Intelligible: The forest as a physical reality devoid of inherent meaning or purpose. The ecological interactions and biological processes occurring within the forest. The forest as a resource or a natural phenomenon.
• Not Intelligible: Any intrinsic meaning, purpose, or value attributed to the forest. The idea that the forest holds spiritual or metaphysical significance might be seen as baseless or irrational. It doesn’t matter what we do with the forest.

5. Social Order and Moral Virtues (Confucianism)

• Intelligible: The forest as a natural setting that could be respected and preserved for the benefit of society. The harmony and balance within the forest reflecting the virtues of order and proper conduct. The importance of stewardship and responsible use of natural resources.
• Not Intelligible: A purely individualistic or exploitative approach to the forest. The idea of the forest existing solely for personal gain without regard for its impact on society and future generations might seem incomprehensible.

6. Irrational and Blind Force (Will)

• Intelligible: The forest as an expression of the irrational and blind force driving existence. The forest's life cycles and struggles as manifestations of this underlying will. The aesthetic and sublime aspects of the forest reflecting the power of nature.
• Not Intelligible: The forest having a rational or ordered purpose beyond the raw expression of the will. The notion of the forest as a tranquil, harmonious place free from the struggles and conflicts inherent in nature.

7. Single Substance Constituting Reality (Pantheism)

• Intelligible: The forest as a mode or modification of the single substance that constitutes reality. The unity and interconnectedness of all things within the forest as expressions of the divine substance. The forest's beauty and complexity as reflections of the divine nature.
• Not Intelligible: The forest being seen as separate or distinct from the divine substance. The idea that the forest lacks any spiritual or metaphysical significance might be unintelligible, as all of nature is seen as part of the divine.

This thought experiment illustrates how different ontologies shape the way individuals understand and interact with the world around them. Each perspective provides a unique lens through which to interpret the discovery of a pristine forest, highlighting the diversity of human thought and experience. Since we will have to respond one way or other – to see the forest as this or that – we are related to some ontology.

 

  Here’s another thought experiment: What would be an intelligible and unintelligible response to the genocidal wars against the Indians in American history?

 

1. Fundamental Constituents (Physics)

• Intelligible: The physical actions and consequences of the wars—such as violence, death, displacement, and ecological impact. They might understand the wars in terms of human behavior influenced by biological and environmental factors.
• Not Intelligible: Moral or ethical judgments about the wars. The concept of intrinsic human rights or the deep cultural and spiritual losses suffered by the Indigenous peoples might not be inherently clear from a purely physical standpoint.

2. Transient Phenomena (Impermanence, Non-self)

• Intelligible: The recognition of suffering and the impermanent nature of human life. They might see the wars as part of the transient nature of human existence and the cycle of samsara, leading to immense suffering and the impermanence of cultures.
• Not Intelligible: Justifying the wars through any sense of permanent gain, power, or superiority. The notion that one group has an eternal right to dominate another would seem contrary to the understanding of impermanence and non-self.

3. Act of Existence (Participation in Being)

• Intelligible: Viewing the wars as a profound violation of the intrinsic dignity and act of existence that all beings participate in. The understanding that each human life has a purpose and is part of a greater whole, making such violence deeply immoral.
• Not Intelligible: The perspective that the wars are justifiable or acceptable. The idea that some beings could be inherently superior and others disposable would be unintelligible, as it contradicts the view that all existence is a participation in the divine act of being.

4. Existence Without Inherent Meaning (Nihilism)

• Intelligible: The acknowledgment of the brutal reality of the wars without attributing intrinsic moral meaning to them. Understanding the wars as expressions of power dynamics and human nature, without inherent purpose or ethical significance.
• Not Intelligible: Any notion that the wars have a deeper, intrinsic moral purpose or meaning. The idea that there is an ultimate ethical framework that makes the wars objectively right or wrong might be seen as baseless.

5. Social Order and Moral Virtues (Confucianism)

• Intelligible: Viewing the wars as a gross disruption of social harmony and moral order. The lack of benevolence (Ren) and proper conduct (Li) in the treatment of Indigenous peoples would be seen as a profound ethical failure.
• Not Intelligible: Justifying the wars through concepts of individual gain or national superiority. The idea that such actions could be morally acceptable or beneficial in the long term would seem nonsensical, as it destroys societal harmony and ethical conduct.

6. Irrational and Blind Force (Will)

• Intelligible: Understanding the wars as expressions of the irrational and blind force driving human behavior—the Will to power and domination. Recognizing the inherent conflicts and struggles as part of the human condition.
• Not Intelligible: The idea that the wars are rational or justified through ethical or moral reasoning. The notion that there could be a rational, ethical justification for such acts would be unintelligible, as they are seen as expressions of irrational will.

7. Single Substance Constituting Reality (Pantheism)

• Intelligible: Seeing the wars as tragic disruptions of the divine unity and interconnectedness of all beings. Recognizing that harming others is ultimately harming oneself, as all are modes of the same substance.
• Not Intelligible: Any belief that the wars are justified or acceptable. The idea that some parts of the divine substance (human beings) are more valuable than others would be incomprehensible, as it contradicts the unity and equality of all within the divine substance.

 

Here some overlap between different ontologies shows itself: for example, the wars appear morally wrong from both the Thomist and Confucianism world versions.

 My point is that every meaningful phenomenon implies a relation to an ontology, an interpretation of whatever (a child, a fly, a home, a tree, etc.) and its place in Being. To say “I don’t give two shits” about something, as the women’s basketball coach for Team USA said about all the Caitlin Clark fans, is to deny that the phenomenon has any meaning. The dumbest modern urbanite, by not caring about what things mean at all, expresses an attitude towards Being and an implicit interpretation of it.

  And the second point I want to make is this: any possible world version or ontology must be a projection on the whole of Being from a position in it, from what makes sense of our thoughts, feelings, actions, and lives within it. We can’t get out of Being to compare our interpretations with the thing itself, with Being as known by God – or as would be known by God if God existed. We are in the position of characters in a novel making projections about the whole story – known only to the author – from our place within the story.

  All this makes our lives different from the lives of bears and wolves (I think).

 . . .

I would add that the propositions that express these ontologies or world versions are not like simple factual propositions (e.g. It is 29.2 degrees Celsius in this room at this moment.) or scientific laws (e.g. "The concentration of greenhouse gases in Earth's atmosphere is directly proportional to the amount of heat energy trapped by the atmosphere, leading to an increase in global average temperatures and significant changes in climate patterns"). You can directly check them because they are not statements about a particular state of affairs or phenomena. They are about everything and they are about meaning. The best analogy for them might be statements that purport to interpret a whole, very complex book like Dante's Divine Comedy. The analogy though is logically like talking about God using human categories. Humans love. God loves. There must be some overlap of meaning to justify applying the same concept - love - to God and humans. But God is infinite whereas humans are finite. We really don't know what divine love is, except "through a glass, darkly." The same with the analogy of statements about a poem: the poem is finite. Statements about Being are necessarily "through a glass, darkly."

 We would have to see the world as if from no place in it, as a limited whole, sub specie aeternitatis. Which actually makes no sense. 

 That we inhabit a realm of meanings - made possible by birth, by the stories we tell, by our knowledge of our own mortality, by sex and love, by good and evil - relates us to a fundamental mystery that we have no choice but to project our hopes and fears on. 

. . .

"It all means nothing! Human beings in their weakness project meaning onto the cold, indifferent, cruel screen of the universe." "That is just as metaphysical as any of the other statements. It explains part of experience - I guess most of yours. It does not prove anything. It cannot be verified or falsified. It is an interpretation of Being based on your perspective. If it seems powerfully true to you, the cause is in your life - in your inability to love perhaps. It is not in Being."