That metaphysical questions are undecidable is also my view. As soon as we say anything like "reality is mind-dependent' or 'being is nothing but consciousness' we have gone off-track.

Distinctions begin with consciousness. — Janus

That metaphysical questions are undecidable is not a view any more than that F=MA is a view. .

I think you should justify your dismissal of Wittgenstein. In my view, you are underrating him. I'm not his agent, and I don't take him for an authority. It's just think he deserves the fame. Same with Heidegger -- though I'd drag into Husserl more and stress some undernoticed early Heidegger (lectures 1919 on.) — plaque flag

I'd put Heidegger in a different class to Wittgenstein. I can't make head or tail of the Tractatus but the later Philosophical Investigations are naive and ill-informed. Heidegger was a great and perceptive thinker and I'm a fan, but he muddles the issues to the point of incomprehensibility and did not crack the case. (Sherlock Holmes is my model for a good philosopher, albeit he was concerned with other matters). . .

Idealism singles men out from the world as unique, solipsism singles me alone out, and at last I see that I too belong with the rest of the world, and so on the one side nothing is left over, and on the other side, as unique, the world. In this way idealism leads to realism if it is strictly thought out.

The view I endorse may be called Transcendental or Absolute Idealism. It would not be possible to confuse this with realism. I dislike calling this Idealism, however, since there are too many ways of interpreting this word.

This is early Wittgenstein. A lean, direct presentation of nondualism.

A bit too lean for me to read it as nondualism. In any case he'd given up any hint of nondualism by the time of the Investigations.

But (I think we agree) the 'deep' subject is no longer subject but the very being of the world itself -- its only kind of being (that we can know of, speak of sensibly.)

Yes, although I'd prefer to say there is no 'deep' subject and that in the final analysis being is also non-being.
.

I've look into that book, but I didn't find it gripping enough to keep going. I may give it another chance. I'm trained as a mathematician, so I recall it being technically daunting. — plaque flag

I have no comprehension of the mathematics and for philosophy it's not necessary to know more than that it works. The point is his reduction of form to formlessness, and his explanation of how the world is created by the multiplication of categorical opposites. Also, his dismissal of the idea that there is a 'set of all sets'. . .

My mere suspicion is that it'll be similar to Wittgenstein somehow, who also worked at the intersection of mysticism and logic. If you care to paraphrase the gist of the work, I'm all ears. What does it mean to you ?[/qquote]

Wittgenstein had no idea what mysticism is. From his writings it is not clear he ever read a book about it. Brown is in another league.

Roughly speaking Brown is saying that the original phenomenon is free of all distinctions, this a mathematical point, true continuum, unity or void, ((all of which are partless) and the first distinction or 'mark' in this tabula rasa is the beginning of the creation. In set theory this is the idea that for a Venn diagram the blank sheet of paper is fundamental and mathematics begins with the first mark we make or circle we draw.

Was 'Bertie' a fool ?

Only in certain respects. He failed to understand Bradley or Brown, and this was because he rejected mysticism without bothering to find out what it is. I'd say this is just plain stupid, although call him merely foolish because this was prior to the internet. He also believed that containers can contain themselves, and then wondered why he encountered a paradox in set theory, which to me looks like a careless beginner's mistake. . . , ,

Still, this is all just gossip basically

Its all relevant and interesting, but it's a bit like chatting about complex mathematics before sorting out arithmetic,

I think 'illusion' has to be a kind of metaphor here. As I see it, all 'experience' is 'real.' — plaque flag

Hmm. I see no reason to make this assumption.It;s something to work out or explore, not to preempt with assumptions.

In this context, the so-called illusion becomes so with the detachment.

Your realisation of its unreality will grows with practice, but the practice of detachment will not be enough to reveal it. It would be necessary to 'see' its unreality, and this would require realising what is not unreal. Only from the perspective of the real does the world of change seem unreal. But one can calculate its unreality for the sake of a metaphysical theory.

I transform the world into an 'empty' spectacle by a change in attitude or investment.

Maybe, but this would have nothing to do with whether or not it is unreal and some sort of illusion..

How would you define 'enlightenment'? I've tended to be wary of binary understandings of t

It is said that full enlightenment is union with reality, the death of the individual and the ego.and the transcendence of life and death. To be a little enlightened would be to have glimpsed beyond the veil and realised the possibility of being fully enlightened. Not many people can be authoritative on this topic but there is plenty of literature.

. .

The great thinker is only realized (for me) within my own cognition. I have to 'become' that great thinker in order to understand them. So the false humility thing is indeed a confusion, though a true humility with respect to fallible and endless interpretation is fitting. — plaque flag

Yes. Nobody can understand philosophy for us. But what I;m suggesting is that you don't need to be a great thinker to do this. One just has to take account of the facts.

Look how many great thinkers failed to understand philosophy. Clearly being a great thinker is not enough. Indeed, I sometimes wonder if being very clever is a drawback. .

You yourself say that metaphysical questions are undecidable. That's a fairly positivist claim, it seems to me. — plaque flag

I suppose you could say it;s a positive claim, but it;s not a positive metaphysical statement. Whatever it is it's a verifiable and demonstrable fact. It's the precise reason why logical positivism exists.

t's only a narrow, prejudiced version of positivism that's problematic, — plaque flag

I can agree with this. A positivism that dismisses metaphysics as meaningless is not so much extreme as simply wrong.

I'd say that those ideas and details are philosophy. Tho I will grant you that the point is to grasp some 'theorems' of value. In math, for instance, a theorem might be 'obviously' true after a certain amount of experience. But proofs are a kind of hygiene: we make sure we aren't deluded, and we find a ladder to aid the intuition that really matters. — plaque flag

They are philosophy, yes, but look where it gets the people who take this approach.

Good point about mathematics. It is this 'hygene' that I'm advocating. .

The basic affirmations of positivism are (1) that all knowledge regarding matters of fact is based on the “positive” data of experience and (2) that beyond the realm of fact is that of pure logic and pure mathematics. Those two disciplines were already recognized by the 18th-century Scottish empiricist and skeptic David Hume as concerned merely with the “relations of ideas,” and, in a later phase of positivism, they were classified as purely formal sciences. On the negative and critical side, the positivists became noted for their repudiation of metaphysics—i.e., of speculation regarding the nature of reality that radically goes beyond any possible evidence that could either support or refute such “transcendent” knowledge claims. In its basic ideological posture, positivism is thus worldly, secular, antitheological, and antimetaphysical. Strict adherence to the testimony of observation and experience is the all-important imperative of positivism.

This is exactly the sort of approach that I would warn everybody to avoid. If we do philosophy like this we will become lost forever in a muddle of ideas and details. Clearly the positivists have no understanding of metaphysics and what it does and does not prove. this passage is typical of the hopelessness of western academic philosophy. It depends on the idea that metaphysics is incomprehensible,and we might as well just speculate wildly and in all sorts of complex ways and make life hell for students of the subject. .

These are not empty words. But I can't back them up without presenting an argument and this means going back to the undecidability of metaphysical questions. . .

To me it seems you are underestimating Western philosophy. The greats have not feared to charge the edges of the map. — plaque flag

There are a few exceptions, of course, but for most philosophers it has only become practically possible to study this area of knowledge in recent times. I believe Schopenhauer was the first to dive into this rabbit hole. After hon there are others but they;re few and far between. The average professor know next to nothing on this topic. .

As you say. even those who do tend to speak vaguely and not helpfully. But please don't think the sceptical rational approach is at fault in any way. It;s t he approach I take. I;m suggesting that this approach demands a study of mysticism, and that it this is avoided it is not a sceptical rational approach. .In other words, I would accuse most philosophers in the tradition of Kant and Russell of doing t heir job badly, not of using the wrong methods. My complaint against the academic community is poor scholarship, not poor methods.

It's not my approach that is backwards, it's the approach you think I'm taking. I'm just doing philosophy the usual way. A plausible theory must be proved in logic, not just wafted around as an idea.

I;m certainly not suggesting we must settle for the 'ineffable sage'. For a not-practitioner the only way to make sense to hat such people say is a cold-hearted sceptical study of metaphysics. This is what I was suggesting earlier. It would be pointless expecting anyone to conduct a study of metaphysics and mysticism it it has to depend on ineffable ideas and unprovable conjectures.and only a great sage could understand it. I;m suggesting that most people could understand it.once they know the trick.

Of course,this approach doesn't lead to a sages understanding of the world, but understanding how to make sense of metaphysics is a much easier task.

You speak of 'verifiable facts,' but it's hard to make sense of such a phrase in the light of the assumption that only thought exists. We can roughly identity thought here with signitive intention (empty or unfulfilled or unchecked hypothesis or picture of the world). Then a fulfilled intention is us going and looking at the situation. I see that there are two eggs in the fridge. Color, shape, the cool feeling of them in my hand, the crack sound as I smack them against a cast iron edge. — plaque flag

Unless one is a meditative practitioner It would impossible to sort these issues out without a close study of metaphysics, and this would mean starting with the undecidability of metaphysical questions. This is verifiable regardless of what is and is not a thought. It is a solid foundation on which to start building an extended theory. If we cannot explain this philosophical fact then metaphysics will be incomprehensible.to us. It cannot be explained by Western thinkers, so they believe metaphysics is incomprehensible. It is explained in the perennial philosophy and in a very simple way, but most philosophers don't think this solution is worth studying .It;s an area of philosophy left blank and marked 'Here be dragons', and this is considered a rational approach to philosophy. . . ..
. . .

But I'd say it's metaphorically nothing, unless that 'nothing' is supposed to point at the framework character of space and time. — plaque flag

Eckhart is very clear. He states they are 'literally nothing'. They are something as appearances, of course, but for an ultimate analysis they are nothing, This is the Buddha;s teaching and more generally that of the perennial philosophy. It is logically proved by the Buddhist master Nagarjuna in his 'Fundamental Verses on the Middle Way. . . . .

The Buddha's words you quote are consistent with Eckhart's statement. .

Note that I'm not claiming to be a Buddhist. Instead I'm getting a more universal (perennial?) idea of transcendence in terms of detachment. The world becomes a spectacle. We get 'distance' on it. We find ourselves less 'immersed in the object.'

We get distance by detachment, although oddly we also get closeness. But this detachment indicates an underlying truth, which is that there is nothing from which to become detached. It is all illusion, and when we see this we are finally and fully detached. The practice of detachment helps us to achieve it, but to fully achieve it requires enlightenment and an understanding of phenomena. . .

. As far as I can tell, there's not much more to be sought or had than the continual re-attainment of an always fragile state of grace or play. We always fall off the horse again, find ourselves petty and resentful, or just tormented by a health issue, or forced to deal with a dangerous situation where stress (tho never panic) is appropriate.

Do we agree on this ? Or do you find something that radically 'cures' life in what you call mysticism?

I would strongly disagree, both on logical and experiential grounds. The teachings of the Buddha are said to be a medicine and this would be the cure. It has to be self-administered since nobody can become enlightened on our behalf, but the teachings are the label on the bottle. The last of the Four Noble Truths is the cessation of suffering. At a certain point in the progress of our knowledge It is revealed as an illusion, as is the person who suffers. Nothing extended in time and space would really exist, and this would include the suffering and the sufferer. .

Those who are not fully enlightened may to some extent know this and be able to transcend suffering to some degree, but as you say they will sometimes fall off the wagon. It seems Jesus fell off for a moment,while on the cross and feared his non-suffering state had forsaken him. If you check out the story of the brutal execution of the Sufi master Al-Hallaj by the Islamic church you'll see an example of how utterly detached from life, death and suffering one can become and how stable this state is once fully attained. .

This achievement is within the power of all of us, since it is no more than a recognition of who we are. Thus the cure for suffering is to 'Know Thyself'. This is the entire method of mysticism in two words. All the rest is about helping us to succeed. .

As the mystics often say for the sake of humility,, 'Thus I have heard'.

The world is not just thought. Thought is merely something like its intelligible structure. — plaque flag

I see this as an opinion since you cannot prove it. I would suggest it's an unnecessary assumption,and that it's best not to make it. Cartesian doubt and all that. I feel it's best to start with verifiable facts and build on this foundation.

our tone has sometimes been, from my POV, too much on preachy / condescending side. I view us as doing something like science here. When you bash Wittgenstein (a primary influence on this thread), you sound a bit crankish (a bit envious-bitter maybe of the fame of the charismatic man .) And you speak of Russell thinking Wittgenstein was a fool, but that's contrary to the well known details of their story. I've read biographies of both. And this is not a matter of my sentimental attachment. If you recklessly speak contrary to the facts or tear down the 'mighty dead,' then that's a stumblingblock to your credibility. You ought to explain how all the other shrewd readers could be so silly as to get things so wrong. — plaque flag

All this is very fair. I should have been more careful.

Russell did express uncertainty as to whether Wittgenstein was a genius or a fool, and it's true that I think he is not worth reading. As you say, however, I can't just waive my arms around but must make the case.

I should have made it clear that I think most of western philosophy is also a waste of time. Nobody claims to understand philosophy and it just just goes round and round in circles. In the perennial tradition people who don't understand the topic don't write about it. . . .

I once spoke on the phone with George Spencer Brown, a colleague of Russell's, and asked him why Russell had been unable to see the meaning of Brown's book Laws of Form,, which is of vast importance in metaphysics.,despite praising it as presenting a valuable new calculus. He replied in a friendly and wistful tone, 'Ah, Bertie was a fool'. This does appear to be the explanation and it is my view also.

I'm afraid that from the perspective on anyone who has understood the perennial philosophy people like Russell and Wittgenstein look foolish for not studying it and for not understanding philosophy as a consequence.

This attitude looks arrogant and deluded to others, since most people think they know that philosophy cannot be understood and is like quantum mechanics,such that anyone who claims to understand it must be unable to understand it. Meanwhile, in the perennial tradition many people claim to understand it and it is an expectation of students that one day they will. .

Of course, both were very clever people. Russell was brilliant as a communicator and deserves respect for his his activism on social issues, nuclear arms for instance. But like his protege he failed to solve any problems, refused to study mysticism and made surprisingly basic mistakes. . .

I completely understand the point you make here. and normally you'd be completely right to make it. The point for me though is that we cannot understand philosophy unless we can see the mistakes made by Russell and Wittgenstein that prevented then from doing so, and once we have done so they do appear rather foolish. If I make any bold remarks that look naive or deluded then you can always ask me to put my money where my mouth is and justify them.

But okay, I see your point and should have been more circumspect. My impatience with the western academic approach to philosophy got the better of me. The 'mighty dead' you speak of were in some ways mighty, but if they did not understand philosophy then their mightiness was of limited scope. .

I appreciate that you were very polite about it, but it seems a bit brutal to just stop talking without an explanation.

Could you just quote the words that caused your reaction? I was stunned by it and would genuinely like to know what I said that caused the problem.

This is not a philosophical way of doing business. I think for now we should take a break in the conversation. But no hard feelings. I just think it'll be counterproductive to proceed, given our apparently very different conceptions of what kind of conversation this forum is for. — plaque flag

I'd say it's the only way to do business.

I stated that metaphysical questions are undecidable. What else can this forum be for than exploring the facts? Are you suggesting this isn't a fact? It's been known for thousands of years.

I thought you were trying to untangle philosophy, in which case the facts are the place to start. . .

I'm not the one who denies time. Indeed, I'm insisted that being is time in some sense. I write of 'interpenetrating worldstreamings.' In this context, structure is something constant in the flux. For instance, physicists once talked of the conservation of energy. Or there's the tripartite 'care structure' of the stretch moment mentioned above, inspired by Husserl and Heidegger. So one can, in my view, have nothing at all without time. — plaque flag

Exactly! And no-thing is precisely what we need as the ultimate for a systematic fundamental theory. Again, Kant proves this. At any rate, mysticism will make no sense to anyone who reifies time or space.

"Verily, if the reader can break down the power which the notion of extension has over his own mind, he will have gone a long way in preparing himself for the Awakening.

Franklin Merrell-Wolff – Pathways Through to Space

In the same vein, Meister Eckhart dismisses space-time phenomena as 'literally nothing'.
.

Not disagreeing, but Why ? — plaque flag

Because it's a matter of logic and experience. Kant famously makes the case. Even in modern astrophysics this is recognised, hence Victor Stenger's idea of creation from nothing.

.

Not trying to be difficult, but the expectation in a context like ours is that one justify grand claims of that nature. I readily grant that adopting the role of the critical-discursive philosopher in the first place is optional. Most of us here live in free societies where the problem is people being too bored with spiritual babble of strangers to be offended by anything more than the buttonholing itself, with the incommodious proselytizing form rather than the content. Too many fathers, not enough sons, that sort of thing. — plaque flag

Sorry to be dense, but I don't know what this means.

I don't nee to work hard to justify what I said. I was agreeing with just about every philosopher who ever lived. It is simply a fact that metaphysical questions are undecidable. This is the reason such questions are called antinomies. There's nothing mysterious about it and it's common knowledge. . . . . .

I’m aware that the classical understanding of the ultimately real is the eternally unchanging. My argument is that the idea of seeing beyond time to some sort of awareness or reality is incoherent. To be aware is to change. Pure anything , including pure timelessness, is not Being but the definition of death itself. — Joshs

You'll find that your view does not allow you to make sense of metaphysics or consciousness. You call this unchanging reality the 'classical understanding', but in fact it's the understanding of anyone who dives deeply into consciousness even today. You're speaking of ordinary awareness, which as you say requires change and time.

But in a way you're right, it is a definition of death. Thus the prophet Mohammed advises, ;Die before your death', which all the realised masters advise. For a deeper view of consciousness and time one would have to explore beyond life and death. Those who succeed in this,endeavour, the Dalai Lama tells us, do not experience death.

. . .

A question that might be asked is whether this is true by definition --- whether we tend to understand 'Being' [the truly real ] precisely in terms of constant presence. If so, is this a bias ? — plaque flag

Good point. But it;s not a definition. It;s a result of analysis. A fundamental theory must reduce space-time, motion and change.

Heraclitus points out that in the world of time there is constant change but does not suggest this is the fundamental nature of reality. Heraclitus and Parmenides are easy to reconcile. .

Much of the radicality of Being and Time is perhaps in its claim or suggestion (according to some) that being is time. This is maybe like Heraclitus making the Flux itself most real.

I have a boo here with the subtitle 'Buddhist Explorations in Consciousness and Time. Here the word 'and' is highly significant. I wouldn't agree that Heraclitus reified the flux.

My own view is that discursive philosophers really can't help looking for atemporal structure.

I feel the phrase 'atemporal structure is an oxymoron. How can one have a structure without time?

Wittgenstein tried to express the logical form of [the conceptual aspect of] the world....

I can never grasp why anyone reads Wittgenstein. ThePhilosophical Investigations reveal no grasp of the issues. Even his mentor Russell suspected he was a fool.

For the logical form of the conceptual aspect of the world you can't do better than George Spencer Brown in his Laws of Form. To investigate this issue means examining naive set theory and solving Russell's Paradox. This allows us to dive deeper than the conceptual aspect. .

. .

I like Emerson also. Nietzsche is a great thinker but Emerson is nearer the mark for me.

Not to be difficult, but claiming that all metaphysical questions are undecidable seems to decide an important metaphysical question. — plaque flag

It is simply a fact. All selective conclusions about the world as a whole are undecidable. This is demonstrable and old news. Figuring out what it implies for the world is the entire secret of metaphysics. . . .

Yep. I'd go along with that.

I guess I find the discursive and 'the rest' to be pretty entangled. — plaque flag

Aha. I can show you how to untangle it. It requires knowing only two or three vital facts. If you know that all metaphysical questions are undecidable then you're half way there.

I am not a fan of Nietzsche. He's brilliant but seems to be floundering around in the dark.

That was an Interesting Eliot quote.

I don't share your view of philosophy and have a much higher regard, but I'm not talking about mainstream western philosophy. . . . . ,

Nicely put. Indra's Net is a wonderful metaphor.

I found your post interesting but couldn't quite understand it. For the mystic time and change would not really exist and this is because they have seen beyond it. The clock still ticks but what is truly and ultimately real is unchanging. This would be Being, not the personal experience.of a being.

The word 'reflexivity' implies some sort of dualism so I'm not sure it's relevant here. I may be misunderstanding what you mean but it. .

I like to think that there's also a discursive path to some discursive analogue of that. I do think that analysis gets us far. But of course I value ineffable experiences that I also won't try to talk much about. — plaque flag

I also believe in the value of analysis, since although it cannot take us all the way to an understanding it clearly signposts what it is we need to understand and disposes of philosophical problems. For a sceptic analysis is the only way forward, since they will not be inclined to do the practice.

. ..

Nice ! That's what I'm basically try to say in this thread. Of course we need account for the fact that there are many of us, each of us the being of the 'same' world from a different 'point of view.' — plaque flag

In this case we're on the same page.

Waves on the ocean or sparks of the divine are common metaphors for our situation as individuals.

“Dost thou reckon thyself only a puny form
When within thee the universe is folded?”

Baha’u’llah quoting Imam Ali,
the first Shia Imam
.

I expect the book you mention is good in its way, but with the possible exception Augustine your post mentions no philosophers who understood mysticism. It seems to be a review of mystical-leaning ideas in western philosophy, not an introduction to mysticism. A book on the implications of mysticism for formal philosophy would look very different. This is no to say it isn't a good book but the title appears to be misleading. .

. . ,

Many thanks for the book recommendation. It looks like a rare book and a much needed one.

t could be. And I could end up revising my beliefs. All I can do is sincerely think and be open and be critical, and so on. — plaque flag

It's wonderful to talk to someone so thoughtful and open minded.

How so ? This voidness ? — plaque flag

Under analysis the phenomena of this world are found to be empty of substance or essence. This is not a metaphysical speculation bur a verifiable fact.

In metaphysics the results of analysis are surprisingly easy to summarise. All extreme or positive metaphysical positions are found to be logically indefensible. This is the reason why metaphysical questions are undecidable, If you reject all these failed positions you are left with a neutral theory, as required for the perennial philosophy. Hence those who reject mysticism are unable to make sense of metaphysics. ,

In my view, 'pure' subjectivity is so radically transparent that it's really just the being of the world. I claim that the world has no other being. Or, at least, that we can't know of make sense of some other kind of being than our own (the world's ) perspectival kind.

For the mystics reality and consciousness are the same phenomenon, and perhaps this is the idea you need to overcome the idea of pure subjectivity. They say the subject-object distinction is functional or conventional, and not ontological.

But I'd be glad to hear more about this 'end before our beginning' as spoken of by Jesus.

This is not an idea endorsed by the church, so be warned. . .

"Blessed is he whose beginning is before he came into being!"

Jesus - Gospel of Thomas - V 20

"The disciples said to Jesus, "Tell us how our end will be." Jesus said, "Have you discovered, then, the beginning, that you look for the end? For where the beginning is, there will the end be. Blessed is he who will take his place in the beginning; he will know the end and will not experience death."

Gospel of Thomas - V18

This refers to what in Taoism is 'our face before we were born'. If we can dive this deep we can overcome life and death, and this would be the Grail experience of total 'holiness'. In its proper meaning yoga is the 'art of union with reality',and this definition reveals what meditation is all about. It's about going back to the beginning, before we began to identify as a subject with a perspective.

. . . .

But, for me, that seer would only be in a beautiful semi-discursive frame of mind. — plaque flag

Okay. But in this case how do you explain the odd fact that the mystics have the only metaphysical theory that works? All others are rejected by analysis. Also, meditation is said to be shallow if it does not go beyond mind.

I think perhaps you underestimate just how deep it is possible to go.

But it should maybe be mentioned that identifying true being with the unchanging is not obviously the way to go, however traditional. — plaque flag

Hmm. I'd say it is the only way to go. No other idea allows us to create a fundamental theory.

The crucial idea here is the principle of nonduality and the unity of all. .

We may have to disagree here. I don't accept Kant's idea (or what is often taken to be his idea) that we are cut off from reality. — plaque flag

Nor me. I feel this is his biggest mistake. It leads him to the view we can know nothing about ultimate reality, which is NOt a logical result. But the voidness of phenomena is a matter of analysis.

I think we are always already 'in' reality, seeing reality. Indeed the vanishing subject, in my view, is reality-from-a-point-of-view. '

This makes sense. But what are you when the subject disappears? This is the question that the perennial philosophy answers. This would be our 'end before our beginning' as spoken of by Jesus. . .

But I do very much think that some perspectives (some conceptual articulations of reality) are richer and more adequate than others. I think we do agree on the value of some kind of scientific rational approach.

Absolutely we agree on this. This is why I endorse the perennial philosophy, for which reality is not a perspective but a phenomenon, Reality would be our identity, not a perspective on something else. Kant shows that the ultimate is inconceivable and unsayable, as the OT story of the golden calf suggests. It would be knowable, however, as it is who we are. ,

The one constructed in the proof. When you read the proof, you see the G that is constructed. — TonesInDeepFreeze

But I can't follow the proof. Does this mean I can never know an example of G?

Of course you're free to investigate whatever you like. On the other hand, for example, the undecidability of the halting problem, which is another way of couching incompleteness, has implications for actual computing.

I'd say computing is mathematics, so I'm not sure this is a valid example. .

Metaphysics is not usually formulated as a formal system. On the other hand, if you state a formal system, we can see whether it has the attributes to which the incompleteness theorem applies.

I can see no point in a metaphysical theory that is not a formal system. It wouldn't be a theory in the usual sense. Thus for me incompleteness ought to be important. I'd like to say that there is only one such theory that escapes incompleteness. but just can't understand the issue well enough to do so.

Of course. Anyone, including advanced mathematicians, may ignore it and still work productively.

Not in metaphysics, or so I believe.

Read 'Godel's Theorem' by Torkel Franzen. He discusses your question in layman's terms.

Thanks. I'll check the reviews but am not hopeful. . ,

I'd wager that most of 'em would say not so much. — plaque flag

Yrs, but should I believe them? They simply don't seem to know.

Understood. But, for me anyway, there's no authority beyond something like our own earnestly critical investigation of the matters themselves.

Agreed in respect of discursive philosophers. For practitioners their authority is direct experience and not speculation. .

I'm not against that. Indeed, I agree with Hegel that the finite is 'unreal,' 'fictional,' [merely] conventional. Reality is one and continuous. I also like Ecclesiastes: all is hebel. Everything is 'empty.' See there how the great void shines.

This is interesting. Do you know where it says this in Ecclesiastes? It shows how easy it would be to interpret the Bible as endorsing the perennial philosophy.

I'd say metaphysics is a kind of grand science, and that it projects illuminating metaphors on the whole of reality. For instance: 'all is vanity [empty].' Or: 'all is one [connected, interdependent].' Of course people like to say that 'all is mind' or 'all is matter' too. Or that all is God creating and recognizing itself. Or that all is 'a tale of sound and fury signifying nothing.'

It ought to be a science of logic, but the views you mention show that few people approach it as such. The voidness of phenomena is a logical result, as Kant shows, but most of these other views fail under analysis and so are profoundly unscientific. . . .

You mention 'truly real,' which is like 'really real.' I'm not against it, but the question for me is almost always one of meaning. What does is mean to call something 'real' ?

To be truly real a phenomenon would have to be independent, irreducible, non-contingent and unchanging. What we usually call 'existence' is dependent or relative existence. It requires that the phenomenon 'stands out' from a background. But, as Schrodinger points out, as well as the myriad dependent phenomena there is the 'background on which they are painted'. This is what would be truly real. You could think of it as the information space necessary for an information theory, or the blank sheet of paper required for a Venn diagram and set theory,

The idea is not that the conventional world does not exist, but that it exist only in a weak and non-metaphysical sense. Thus Heraclitus states 'We are and are-not', and in this way takes account of both aspects of the world, or both levels of analysis, the conventional and the ultimate. This is an example of the 'two truths'. Hence the seemingly contradictory language of mysticism. . . . . , . . ,

. . . . .

But is it important beyond mathematics ? — plaque flag

I don't know. I wish a mathematician would tell me but they don't seem to know either/ .