APPENDIX A: Metaphysics Analysis
Published on 24 Jun 2016 at 10:13 am.
No Comments.
Filed under Uncategorized.
APPENDIX A:
Metaphysics Analysis
One can never PROVE a metaphysics.
By denition.
Because one would have to stand outside the entire
cosmos to view it all –
and simulate Creation
itself – to test it all.
itself – to test it all.
*
However one can certainly ASSESS different
metaphysics.
Metaphysics is always
hypothesis. But, hopefully
very,
hypothesis. But, hopefully
very,
very intelligent hypothesis.
One can, indeed, analyze different metaphysical
constructs with a consistent set of questions.
*
Now, some of the questions involved in assessing
various metaphysics might
be the following: (These
be the following: (These
THE TRANSCENDENT DYNAMIC
questions tend to overlap, but have different
thrusts
thrusts
and nuance.)
Is the metaphysics overarching? All-embracing?
Does the metaphysics
handle the key questions
handle the key questions
in philosophy? (re-capped
in the INTROS and
in the INTROS and
FOREWORDS of the three books of this series)
Does the metaphysics
have a fatal aw(s);
have a fatal aw(s);
a major gap(s),
– or does it essentially legitimately
‘stitch-together’
‘stitch-together’
all the key issues
*
To what extent is the metaphysics
TETHERED to
TETHERED to
classic works or spiritual texts?
*
Does the core of the metaphysics RESONATE within
us?
*
Is the case made exclusively “in an
Ivory Tower” –
Ivory Tower” –
– or is the case somewhat
brought-down-to-earth,
brought-down-to-earth,
as well?
Is the presentation some
sort of miasma (murky,
sort of miasma (murky,
obscuring vapor)
– or is it actually fairly
articulate and systematic?
articulate and systematic?
Are the themes, however
allegedly profound,
allegedly profound,
articulated in a totally obscure manner –
– or in a generally intelligible
manner?
manner?
*
Do we grasp the CREATIVE ESSENCE of the
presentation?
*
Does the proposed
metaphysics gently ‘tip-toe around
metaphysics gently ‘tip-toe around
the garden’ –
or does it attempt to get to the very core of the cosmic
code?
*
Does the proposed
metaphysics primarily concern itself
metaphysics primarily concern itself
with playing with SEMANTICS and DEFINITIONS –
or does it actually provide an overarching
INTEGRATED
INTEGRATED
FORMULATION for the cosmic order?
*
A proposed metaphysics
must be assessed, as well,
must be assessed, as well,
by these not inconsiderable – and,
frankly, non-
frankly, non-
negotiable, demands, as
well:
well:
35 APPENDIX
THE TRANSCENDENT DYNAMIC
Does the proposed
metaphysics truly embrace all
metaphysics truly embrace all
known dynamics – in all elds?
Does the proposed
metaphysics embrace our
metaphysics embrace our
experiences and accumulated
wisdom over the
wisdom over the
centuries?
Does the metaphysics
embrace all that we scientically
embrace all that we scientically
believe to have occurred – and the
overwhelming great
overwhelming great
bulk of what we hypothesize to have occurred – since
the dawn of time?
*
Does the particular
proposed metaphysics – about
our
proposed metaphysics – about
our
most extraordinary universe
and profound existence –
and profound existence –
run at and dry
– or does it, on some level,
actually, touch our soul?
* * *
