beyond reality — Ali Hosein

You think Plotinus' conception of the One to be comparable to Jungian collective unconscious? — Manuel

Can a statement not be truth-apt without having a truth-maker? — Bob Ross

Here's how I understand your communication:

The property of transcendence and the cognitive entity "fact" are mutually exclusive. Given this, there is and cannot be any set of transcendent facts. — ucarr

Did you ignore my questions to you because you think them evidence of my misapprehension of your communication?

Since, in my view, transcendence_supervenience are similar, ...

Regarding the first sentence of your quote, you posit the conditional that a transcendent T is coupled with a transcendent F such that they instantiate membership within TF-set. — ucarr

Accordingly, 'objectively existent' is not the sole criterion for what is real. — Wayfarer

Is it not conceivable that the first stirrings of life, the very simplest organisms, are also the manifestation of mind?

Well, as said above, I agree that mind is not anything objectively real.  — Wayfarer

As usual, ↪180 Proof interprets "outside, beyond, and transcendent" in a physical sense. — Gnomon

Your "physical interpretations" ... — Gnomon

I will cut adrift—I will sit on pavements and drink coffee—I will dream; I will take my mind out of its iron cage and let it swim—this fine October. — Virginia Woolf, from one of her diaries

As usual, ↪180 Proof interprets "outside, beyond, and transcendent" in a physical sense — Gnomon

The American Heritage Dictionary defines Metaphysics ...

Ultimate Reality is a view from the outside, not in a literal sense, as 180 alleges, but from an imaginary perspective, as philosophers do routinely.

RICO Defendant-1 for Speaker of the US House of Representatives?

That's the main draw of religion: absolute certainty; simple answers to hard questions like "How should we live?" "What are right and wrong?" "What do owe one another and our society?" "What is the purpose of life?" Contrary to what many atheists like to repeat, religion was not the answer to "How did the world begin?" or "What causes thunder?" - those questions either do [not] arise of their own accord, or are dealt-with in myth, legend and folklore - no gods required. Gods were invented to hand down commandments and to favour us with supernatural power if we please them. That is: they command us and we manipulate them. Thence comes also the divine right of kings and infallibility of popes and evangelists, and of political dogma and the rise of dictators. They give us rules, solidarity, certainty and purpose - "something greater than myself" to belong to. — Vera Mont

I don't see how, because energy operates according to physical laws,
— Wayfarer

And consciousness doesn't? — Benj96

Could consciousness be a form of energy like the rest?

I'm inclined to believe that consciousness is the ability of the system to self organise. — Benj96

But [Bob Ross] who studies metaphysics as that which is beyond all possible experience? Not Descartes, not Locke nor much that come to mind prior to Kant. — Manuel

How is the claim, for example, “all truths are relative” not a grammatical statement that is truth-apt? Or “Consciousness is fundamental to reality”, or “mathematical structures are real”, … ? — Bob Ross

Metaphysics is the attempt at determining ‘what things are’. No?
—Bob Ross

No. It's more like an "attempt at" deducing concepts and interpretions of"what things are". —180 Proof

That’s the same thing.

My point is that it is a study that thinks it can get at what reality actually is, and what things in that reality are.

Metaphysics is the study of what it rationally makes sense to say about the most general prerequisites and implications of counterintuitive physics (i.e. natural sciences – which provisionally "determine how things are" in / constituting the world.) — 180 Proof

Give an example of a ‘philosophical statement’ which is not a proposition which references the world in any manner. — Bob Ross

Metaphysics is the attempt at determining ‘what things are’. No?

I had never heard that term [immanentist] before. — Gnomon

Anyway, you're familiar with negative theology, aren't you? Well, my negative ontology (aka "immanentism") is more or less the same but applied to reality (in general) rather than just to g/G (in particular). — 180 Proof

Epicureans & Stoics, Kynics & Spinozists, Nietzscheans & Peircean-Deweyans — 180 Proof

Sometimes it's claimed that perfect versions of what we experience within the Universe are beyond it, or God ... — Ciceronianus

Thanks for your feedback! — Wayfarer

First point - when you say 'the world' here you refer to 'the totality of experience', right?

... this is an argument that the mind is both unitary and transcendental.

... the reality of first-person consciousness is apodictic, cannot plausibly be denied.

How [to] justify a search for "the real" outside of Nature, beyond the Universe? — Ciceronianus

[re @Gnomon & Herr Heidi] Creating new words is not an issue so much as misusing or redefining words commonly used, thereby promoting confusion and uncertainty. — Ciceronianus

I would equate Nature with the Universe. We are parts of Nature. Our interactions with the rest of the world (including other humans and animals and objects) are parts of Nature--they take place in the Universe. What we create become parts of the Universe when they're created (just as anthills are parts of Nature/the Universe). It happens our interactions with the rest of the Universe encompass language and culture; they're not separate from the Universe; they take place in it.

For example, I define it as "the study of that which is beyond the possibility of experience". — Bob Ross

IME, metaphysics has always been the reflective study of the most general prerequisites (i.e. ontology) for rationally making sense – interpreting the paradigm changes, research programs & provisional results – of physics (i.e. the counter-intuitive, defeasible study of nature (i.e. ontics)).

What you [@Gnomon] were doing was making false claims. I don't know why you would consider that to be a valuable contribution to a philosophical discussion.

Harry Frankfurt has a different name for what you refer to as "addressing a philosophical question": — wonderer1