Yes I realise that and value the philosophies you propose here. However I return to my original observation, that there doesn't appear to be much metaphysics going on. I know that pragmatically this is irrelevant, but I will usually point out our degree of ignorance when either claims are made that we know anything fundamental. Or that conceptual knowledge which is not pragmatically relevant ( relevant to what I wonder), or have some utility (likewise) is meaningless, fanciful, or of no interest to the intellect. In favour of a science led hard pragmatism.

Quite I'm critical of scientism and pseudo philosophies along the same lines. Science does include the philosophy of science, which may on occasion result in statements restricting existence to "y". Indeed you yourself said that, "We know how and when the Universe began, how and when it will die". I would agree that science and the accompanying philosophy of science has enabled us to say this of y and only y. So in reality we have no idea how and when the universe began, or how and when it will die, if atall. Because we are not in the full possession of the facts, or the extent to which we are in ignorance of them.

For example in a world in which there is a fascination with the moustache, all might to viewed as intrinsic and contingent on moustaches. It might all make perfect sense even mathematically. But those people would be wrong if they said the universe began as a moustache and will become a moustache again at the end of time.

Likewise the bacteria living on the surface of your eye, might not be aware of what information passes by, indeed it might say, if told, how absurd it would be to suggest such a thing.

It doesn't make sense for you to classify x as the unknown unknowns and then start to tell me about all the known unknowns that constitute x. Besides which, even knowing there could be unknown unknowns constitutes the pragmatic beginnings of knowledge.

But I have not done that. What I have done is delineated nature into two areas. The area within the purview of people "y" and the area not within the purview of people "x".

I have done this because there is an implication that the whole of nature is within the purview of people, in scientism, or materials based philosophies.


Yes it could be said that the "unknown unknowns constitutes the pragmatic beginnings of knowledge". But that is not saying much, because those unknown unknowns appear to be an entirely undefined and unconsidered region, reality, of existence.

So in dividing knowledge this way - into y and not-y - you remain completely in the ambit of scientific reasoning as practiced by Peirce.

I have not divided knowledge into y and not y, this is my charge, that scientism etc, does just this and then ignores the not y.

I am dividing what exists (comes to pass), into what we are aware of and what we are not. I'm not commenting on knowledge in this division, that is concerned with the intellectualisation of y and x.

Anyway, presumably metaphysics as a philosophical inquiry is concerned with what exists, rather than knowledge. This being the case, presumably it makes the same distinction that I am making.
If it claims that epistemology is ontology as you do, then it is, as I say, susceptible to solipsism and appears to be making an assumption about the actual ontology we are sustained by, subject to our minds. Something which we cannot do due to our limitations

Are "natural principles" all there is? What about the natural principles which fall into category x?



(To recap, I have categorised what we are presented with upon birth as "y". And whatever exists, but we are not presented with at birth as "x").

You can't teach an old dog new tricks.( I'm not referring to you by the way;).

Good luck with your creative mysticism - which you seem to have faith in without even being able to justify it as a method.

Well, I don't have much use for faith, it is a rational inquiry. Also the method can be explained, but cannot be demonstrated as of any use, other, perhaps, than in creative insight. Something which goes presumably beyond the scope of the demonstrable, or the reliable.

Meanwhile scientific reasoning - as defined by Peirce - started producing extraordinarily powerful insights from the moment the ancient Greeks first got going with it.

Yes, I wouldn't be without it, but it is not actually conducting metaphysics as far as I can see. All it is doing is looking at what we are presented with upon birth( I will label this y) and concluding, or declaring, that that is all there is, if not physically, then in terms of existence as a whole.

There can't reasonably be considered anything else ( I will label this x ) other than y, because we can't perceive or detect it, or our rational analysis of y doesn't dictate it. And if one were to consider x as anything other than by definition that which is not y, then you are engaged in some kind of wishful thinking, or worse.

So no surprise that the "two dimensional polarity" of Metaphysical dialectics and hierarchical organisation are what folk stick with. It's success has been "unreasonably" spectacular. We know how and when the Universe began, how and when it will die.

Again, you are describing y, I'm happy with the explanation, it's very pragmatic, why would we conclude anything else? Well apart from the bit about us actually knowing how the universe began and how it will "die". How anything came to exist, how the existence of anything is sustained. Is this existence "y" some kind of projection of, or from myself, or some other self. How do we deal with the philosophical conundrum of regression in cause? How come it seems not to be a problem in things coming to an end equally as in them coming to be? You know, the questions provided by philosophy. I don't see them being addressed.


When I realised this I turned my attention to x and to any other philosophical viewpoint which took an interest in x. It was then that I began to see the limitations of just focussing on the y and the human conditioned interpretations of y. It was all a bit jaded.

As usual with pragmatism, the proof is in the pudding. The right ideas measurably work.

Yes, I've no issue with pragmatism, but metaphysics presumably is looking to what we can say about existence. In which case there is no workability, because we can't presume that "what works" in our eyes is anything more than an intellectualisation of a reflection of the predicament(existing as humans with all the consequential physical reality that goes along with that) that we are presented with upon birth and throughout our lives. A kind of navel gazing, or solipsism.

As I said before surely a mature metaphysics acknowledges the extent to which we are both in ignorance of the nature of our predicament(it's foundations) and potentially polarised (two dimensional) in our attempts to understand it intellectually.

Did you have some other criteria in mind?

Well the trouble is there is no established school in the development of metaphysical ideas apart from academic philosophy that I can think of. Other than what is handed us from religion and mystical/spiritual traditions. There is a lot of creative activity in our culture, but not much creativity aproaching the issue of metaphysics that I have come across. Personally I have found following a creative mysticism beneficial and enlightening, but in terms of rational argument or logic, it would appear to require a lot of work to encapsulate it.

Noble that effort may be, it is more intellectualisation and as I claim, is subject (susceptible) to solipsism, regression and intellectual dogma. How does it bridge to the real?

The triadic sign relation may only be an aspect of the kind of manifestation in which we as humans find ourselves, in terms of existence it might be insignificant. I realise you accept such limitations. But how do we progress beyond them?

Elementary Mr Bond.

It's not difficult, solipsim, regressions, the necessity of relations(indeed all the artefacts of thought) are products of intellectualisation.

So how do we account for our existence, with more intellectualisation? Or do we look elsewhere?

Again, just show how a relation can be reduced to less than three parts even under reductionism. So far you have failed to make your case.

A modest metaphysics would have in mind the limitations of thought and logic. That they are both merely a product of an intellect, a computation of conceptual representations of the experience of that mind.

Through the acknowledgement of this humility, a mature metaphysics would endeavour to address the real*, to embrace the logic of solipsisms, regressions and the necessity for relations and realise the need for some kind of creatively inspired bridge to span the void between the products of mind and the real. This would surely be a necessity, otherwise metaphysics would fall into solipsism, regression, or a dogma of the necessity of relations.

*by real I mean that which is independent of this mind, while hosting its existence.

Yes, I was finding it depressing too, I suppose I feel solace in the idea that we are, on the whole, accepting that there is a problem and starting to make some efforts in tackling it.

Regarding the issue of flooding, we can deal with it fairly easily, it just needs some joined up thinking and cooperation. Once the upper catchments have been restored to their natural state of scrub and forest, with perhaps a few beavers, along with natural overspill reservoirs and sinks. Rather than the rule of the grouse moors. The flash floods through the towns would be much less intense. In some cases like Lynmouth and Boscastle concrete flood channels might be required through the town. Quite simple really, well apart from the red tape and backward thinking landowners and politicians. Are you aware of the work of George Mombiot? He has some exciting ideas about re-wilding and reform of EU agricultural subsidies (which are aimed at preserving the current countryside ecosystems in aspic).

More concerning is the imminent collapse of ecosystems and the mass extinction event we are witness to. Far more difficult to address, and once lost, if not irretreavable, will take millennia (rather than a couple of generations to destroy) of hard work to restore. The Millennium Seed Bank and an increased network of Zoos will help. But will only be able to save a portion of species. We can theoretically cope with a small increase in temperature of up to say 3 degrees Celsius. Although this would be a gargantuan struggle with much suffering due to the size of our populations, provided we don't descend into civil wars. But we could theoretically ride out the storm with civilisation intact.

The bigger worry though is a runaway climate change scenario in which we become encased in a shroud of cloud, rather like Venus. Which would be disastrous for humanity, we would survive, but the majority would die and the few survivors would be right back in the Stone Age for millennia and would have lost all our hard won knowledge and technology. Something which I suspect has happened numerous times to humanity in the past( well not the same level of technology though). This last possibility is what we should be concerned with and I'm sure the scientific community is on board. We just have to keep our fingers crossed now that the politicians don't turn in the direction of denial, or mess it up. Industry and the corporate world are on board, but tend to be self-interest focussed.

That's the point, the amount of water in the atmosphere varies greatly, due to precipitation and evaporation. It varies by an amount many time greater than the total amount of CO2 in the atmosphere. If H2O and CO2 are similar in their capacity as greenhouse gases, how is a doubling, or even tripling of CO2 going to have a significant effect on the climate, when the amount of H2O already continually varies by an amount many times more than this?

The variation in the water cycle is well known, it's covered by the science of meteorology. The role played by both water and CO2 in historical climate, such as glaciation and hot periods is scientifically understood. It's true that some of the triggers of glaciation are not known, but once a change is underway, it is fairly well understood.

In other words, CO2 is the constant, and H2O is the variable. The effects of the variable are far more substantial to the subject at hand, than the effects of the constant. How does any credible science treat the variable as a constant, thereby allowing the constant to be treated as a variable?

Yes, the CO2 is constant in its increase. It can't vary due to a lack of precipitation etc.. There are for the water cycle longer frequency variations, such as long periods of sea level and glaciation change.like I say, currently sea levels are rising. I wonder why?

H2O precipitates out easily, the atmosphere can only hold so much under usual conditions. CO2 doesn't precipitate, it accumulates and is slow to become fixed in the environment. Water vapour would trigger a runaway scenario at a later point, but not on its own.

Anyway even if as you say climate change science is dubious, the effects on glaciers and the climate can be observed firsthand. So the sea level is going to rise a few metres, causing major problems for any coastal city.

But your economic imperative is blind to other considerations. I accept that we can't stop serious climate change in time(before some runaway consequence amplifies it), but burying our heads in the sand is only going to make the sociopolitical consequences more acute(code for more rapid spread of civil war).

By the way, I was more right than left before I became Green.

Yes there probably is increased growth in plants, but that's simply an effect of increased CO2 levels. They're still unproductive deserts and deserts are increasing. Presumably when the vast populations in our cities start moving to higher ground they are going to grow their food on these poor soils, although they will have to get clean water from somewhere to irrigate the crops. Let's hope it's an orderly retreat;)

Desertification will outstrip any greening. Any rocking of the ecological boat during the degree of species collapse which is already happening will just result in dramatic falls in food yields globally,(among other things), alongside increased war and civil unrest. How many crops are grown in war zones? What happens to food prices in war zones?

What direction is the world heading in?

What is the right direction, by the way?

Bitter Crank has beaten me to it by pointing out the main drivers of our predicament. But has not touched on the consequences, or the inability of humanity to change.

It's a big subject, but I will focus on a couple of the more obvious(in terms of likelihood) ramifications of increased greenhouse gas emissions. As pointed out, the seas will rise, the maximum is approx 66m increase in sea level if all the ice above sea even were to melt. Antarctica will melt more slowly than Greenland, so let's look at Greenland, the icecap is showing extensive signs of irreversible collapse(in the absence of a big freeze), large areas around the coast are experiencing rapid flow of unstable glacier action. Basically it is melting fast and accelerating in rate of melt. This is all scientifically proven to be happening. If this icecap melts the sea level will rise by approx 7m. So this is going to happen, there is a lot of debate about how long it will take to melt, between say 50 and 1000 years. However only modest rises will spook the folk living in coastal cities, real estate prices will collapse and it won't take long for a stampede to develop. But where will they go? Will it be an orderly retreat? Where will the energy and building resources to fuel the move come from? What about the real estate prices elsewhere? How will their food be provided? Etc etc.

Secondly, the inability to change.This is a big subject, so I can only scratch the surface here. Already there is protectionism of oil, coal and gas production. Not to mention mass reliance on these sources. In many countries the initial move towards greener solutions has faltered and now we are moving into a more protectionist global politics, all the fine words about a greener future may be just that, words. If we are very lucky we might actually achieve peak carbon within our lifetimes, but somehow I doubt our resolve. Even then, the reductions from that peak will be slow and hard won. But with the issues with the climate change we are already experiencing and with a modest rise in sea level. The sociopolitical and economic disruption will likely kaibosh any good intentions. All we need to scupper it is a world leader or two to say a rude word out of place. Not to mention the cancer of creeping civil wars.

Now you may say, like your friend, that it can be put right later. But this is wrong, it can't even in a perfect world. In terms of the ecosystem the repairs would take millennia, given perfect conditions. Any species loss is pretty much permanent and problems with rapid ecosystem change and disease are likely to ravage any attempts to correct it. We shouldn't forget that good soil is part of that ecosystem. All our food is grown in that soil(similarly the oceans). In terms of climate and geology, rapid changes in erosion, weather patterns and problems with the stability of the Earth's crust will hamper our efforts and cause civil unreast and the spread of civil war.

Which ever way you look at it, the only way is down. Tell this to your investors and how long will it take for the money to dry up. I know, let's just not tell them, then everything will be alright,... not!

Sorry, I can't help myself.

So why do we create art, and why do we enjoy art.

Because we are living minds, as beings.

Appreciation of art, like that of reason and of service, even humour, is the daily bread of such beings and is foundational in the development of creative agents. So in a real sense art is the joy in the work of creative agency.

Yes, you never know, I was only at Crosby beach though. I like the work of Blake and have used the expression on the face of the ass in that print in a cartoon many moons ago. I don't like Tracy Emin's work unfortunately, I like her as a person and most of the other Brit Art artists, but am critical of the movement and the way they were exploited by Saachi etc..

A couple more.

Yes I know, but if there is some kind of transcendent existence of which we are a part, or an expression, then art may be equally transcendent.

I spent three hours with an art installation called Another Place, by Anthony Gormley, in Liverpool yesterday afternoon. It was one of the most exhilarating and constructive and remarkable experiences of my life and will have repercussions for years I expect.
These are a couple of the photos produced as a result, I took hundreds.

The Bower bird and the bird of paradise are both good artists and have a highly developed artistic appreciation. However they have no idea what art is, or that they are artists. Termites are brilliant sculptors, with no awareness that they are doing any such thing. Picasso was aware of the absurdity of trying to define(confine) Art, while realising that we as intelligent beings are in a sense artists all the time in everything we do. Perhaps the more one has appreciation of art, the more one is an artist.

It seems to me that one can approach art from different directions, such as the spiritual. One ought at least to recognise the distinction between the intellectual appreciation of art, the art object itself(or artefact) and the act of creating the art(or the artist).

The living(entity) is the artist,
The perceived is the artefact, the art object,
The realisation of the artefact as art by the living entity is artistic appreciation, or Art.

Just shape shift your way out of it.

He combined self esteem with humility.

But if you think you don't deserve punishment, then you can't be saved

This is encompassed in my phrase "turn to God". For a person to turn to God during the soul searching in the crisis of the athiest* on the death bed, it is the subject stripped of their self conception who in humility offers themselves up. If the subject is in a state of denial as you suggest, they are not at the point of crisis, but rather of denial. As such they have not turned to God.

* in reality this crisis is not only faced by the atheist, but by all who are not devout, or at peace with themselves.

Maybe, but that's mercy. They certainly don't deserve it, which is what I'm claiming.

I think that the wager is not so much concerned with such notions, it's more to do with soul searching in the subject making the choice.

Whether they don't deserve it? well I heard that whomsoever turns to God is allowed in. That all that is required for salvation is to turn to God. That in our ignorance we can't judge which way the weighing scales will fall.

God and belief in him is not a business deal. You'll never get to Heaven if you treat belief in God as a business deal, the way Pascal's Wager treats it. Pascal's wager was a mere "in your face" showed to those who claimed to not believe in God because it wasn't profitable to believe in God in this world (you'd have to give up on the "fun"). The wager points that the "fun" is really in truth nothing. If you give it up in this world, you haven't given much up - even if there is no God. But if there is a God, and you give up God, then you have lost infinitely. Regardless of the truth, the safest option is God. The irony is that belief in God is ultimately superior - even in this world, and even if there is no God.

I'm not sure you are getting to the crisis which the wager addresses. It is a universal crisis which people have faced throughout our history, well at least after the point in which a God was seriously considered within society(a very long time ago). People who have a conception of a God or creator find themselves on the point of death in the predicament of facing that being face to face, you know, the pearly gates. So some may turn to God at that moment, to offer themselves up. This is quite rational, but what about the atheist, who turns and offers themselves up? What has gone on in their mind to cause this turning to God? And surely if they offer in all sincerity, with all their heart, would they not be accepted and delivered by god?

I have come to this thread late, so haven't read through it all.
I would point out that this issue is not really philosophical in the rational or logical sense. But rather a theological question, a question which presents itself to atheists and irreligious people upon death. I share Cavacava's observation that it becomes of pressing importance, even a crisis, to some people upon their death bed and is well documented. It can do away with a lifetimes conviction in a moment, in favour of what can be described as mystical experiences.

In reality "logic" is dispensed with early in the crisis and "reason" is harnessed to go beyond reason in a theological journey which is akin to the psychological "fight", or struggle with oneself the moment before a parachute jump, or bungee jump. This would suggest that it is a question of experience, not thought and conviction.

The balance in the wager is a no brainier, because on the one hand there is the bliss, comfort and divine embrace of faith in deliverance. While on the other hand is oblivion and an irrelevance of any abandoning of atheist conviction. It can only be a win win situation if the choice is in the affirmative any it can only be a loose loose situation of despair, or vacuous acceptance of oblivion, in the negative.

Why would an atheist cling to their conviction when rationally it is an irrelevance, because their sense of self esteem and integrity is teetering on a precipice of indifference, irrelevance, an infinite timeless void of nothingness. Why not follow the conceit of a belief in the afterlife for the last few minutes and hours of life, simply for comfort and a moments peace? Who knows you might wake up in heaven a few moments later, in the blink of an eye? And if you don't it doesn't matter because you don't exist anyway, by that point?

There is a move to give the rights of a person to primates.

We need to invest in and develop zoos as we will have to rely on them to keep many species in existence certainly during the next generation. The scientific and technical knowledge surrounding this endeavour needs to be developed now while the species in question can still be found in the wild.

The millennium seed bank is in my country, which is taking seriously the preservation of as many species of plants as is possible. Unfortunately animals can't be preserved so easily.

Philosophy can help us to understand what we don't know and what we can say about what we do know. Thus achieving some balance and perspective on our predicament.

Where else would this occur?

I am happy and I have a happy cat. We live a happy life together. I am on ocassion aware and a little sad that there are unhappy people and unhappy cats in the world and how difficult it would be to make them happy. So I accept a little responsibility not to give to many treats, to keep a tidy house (etc..), to stroke and talk to the cat a few times a day etc.. and carry on with my happy life.

Modern speculative physics is the very same thing, sophistry. It is highly educated individuals simply seeking money to support their stream of false information. If they are to be rousted, as the sophists which they are, where else to start this movement other than a philosophy forum?

A point is reached where the person who (or the public opinion which) decides whether the money flows into the coffers, has to take the "truth" on faith, rather than understanding it in person. From this point on, the more inaccessible the sophistry, the better. The money continues to flow regardless, on faith alone. The problem then becomes looking as though you are doing something worthwhile, to justify the diversion of resources. It was in the mediaeval monasteries where this was perfected. They devised a scheme whereby the worth was to be realised in the afterlife (buying your way into heaven), so there was no way to test it.

So in this case perhaps we should be looking for the worth of the funding, are the money dispensers taking it all on faith? What is the worth they are expecting to arrive?

That would seem an ideal these days. We are a colony though, so there's no escaping it.

A logical analysis of your being cannot answer whether you are a philosophical zombie, or not. It has to be taken on faith.

And what then?

I don't know.
Presumably some greater (cosmic) purpose would emerge at some point. Unless there is no purpose, but only happenstance(because cosmic purpose is speculation)

Do you/we require a purpose?

I'm not sure you are making a valid point based on what I said. A God that has a purpose and design we can never know is a relatively moot one. As I said above, "God is such an alien being to us, that his goals may be inimical to human happiness, and that effectively means nothing for the living/breathing human. Just because a cosmic/spiritual aspect of things supersedes the physical human, does not make my lot as a physical human any better. If my suffering matters because of a cosmic game that is beyond my control, it effectively means I am shit out of luck in terms of life being anything for me, the human. Purpose in a grand sense becomes meaningless for the human."

You assume here that God is an alien being to us. This has not been established, because God might be inside us, moving in us, the very quick of us. Also you assume that we can never know the cosmic purpose of God. But this does not mean that God, or someone who does know it can't tell us, but rather we are currently blind to it. Yes purpose in a grand sense may be distant, or meaningless for the human, but it might also be something more immananet and have a mysterious, or subtle correlation. Essentially I am saying that you are presenting a point of view on a situation which could be any number of ways. There is as I can see nothing definitive showing that the life of a person is meaningless, or hard luck. Yes, it might be, but not necessarily.

And I already told you that it is convenient how we know just enough from these ancient prophets that had this magical ability to tell us some partial truth of it. It is convenient that it is in ancient times, it is convenient that when we ask for justification, we can never know the whole truth, but just enough to keep the carrot and stick of following this or that.

Again this is your point of view, however I am not going to defend religion, only to say that there is a grain of sense running through it.

If it is as you say, beyond human comprehension, it loses any matter for the living breathing human who must endure life as the mortal human. We become but pawns in a greater scheme that is beyond our control for something is never for us.

As above, I am saying the cosmic purpose might be beyond our comprehension, the truth is we don't know. It might simply be like the plot of a Sherlock Holmes story, impenetrable at first sight, but when revealed the dastardly plan of Profesor Moriarty might be quite simple and obvious, even in plain sight. Anyway the point looses traction if one consideres that for example the cosmic purpose is the same purpose being played out in an individual human life, but on a larger scale, so equally relevant. Indeed there are numerous ways in which it could be imminently present and critical.

By logic, if we humans can think of a concept ("moksha"..union with a godhead..worlds beyond our mere mortal world) it is not in fact beyond our comprehension... If it is beyond our comprehension.. then we can never know it anyways..

Just because a person is not aware of the relevant purpose in their action does not prevent them living a constructive and caring life etc. Personally, even though I am not aware of my cosmic, or divine purpose and have to craft my own personal purpose in life. I feel a deep reverence for this life and what experiences and opportunities I have been afforded. Not to mention my exploration of the subtle ways that those purposes might run through my being and body in this world.

but the Garden of Eden story, if taken literally is about two people who wanted more than what paradise had to offer.. Which seems like we were pretty bored, even in paradise. This does not provide much hope as nothing offers true satisfaction according to this story. If everything was redeemed, would we just get bored again in paradise? Anyways, even these ideas of paradise, or a more pristine time.. or a better time.. this is all so human, going back to the anthropomorphizing point.. It can even be an analogy for early hunting-gathering societies. The longing of early civilizations for an even earlier time when things were less complicated.

There is a deep meaning in the story and I certainly don't see it having anything to do with getting bored in paradise. It is more about an inadvertant loss of innocence, or more precisely a step change in our development as autonomous animals(agents). Resulting in us having the capacity to step outside, beyond, our instinctively conditioned behavioural responses in our environment. Resulting in a crisis of agency and our having to take responsibility for our own actions within the ecosystem. So in a way Eden is our ecosystem before we got to clever and messed it up.

Looking beyond the religious discussion here, my theory is that we are essentially striving at nothing.. we survive and then get bored and these two sides of the pendulum motivate us to make goals. We are put into the stress of living life and then must contend with the energy to deal with surviving and then keeping ourselves entertained. The Garden of Eden story as an analogy for this fits nicely in that framework.

Yes, I am happy to leave religion behind here and focus on agency and our limitations in terms of insight and analytical thought. I agree with your summary here, although in the light of my ideas about Eden, it might add a twist in its use as an analogy. However I do think that some people do seek a vision of a grander purpose, even sense it, or realise it on ocassion. Also there is the farsighted pragmatic vision which I pointed out in the other thread. One in which humanity secures peace, its long term survival and acts as custodian to the ecosystem.