Why Metaphysics Matters by Bonnitta Roy

https://integral-review.org/issues/vol_1...atters.pdf

Why Metaphysics Matters

Bonnitta Roy

Abstract: A lively discussion about why metaphysics matters in our current Metamodern
era. I derive a process model of metaphysics based on Whiteheadian process philosophy. I
interweave Gebser’s notion of the mental structure of consciousness into a deeper
understanding of the difference between the up-ward synthetic-dialectic of the western
mind, and the downward, deconstructive dialectic in the eastern approach. I show how
Hartshorne’s process metaphysics resolved both eastern and western dilemmas around the
ultimate categories. I end with a description of the problem situation we have of escalating
epistemic complexity, and how adopting a process metaphysical praxis can help us renew
our ways of meeting the complexity of the world.

https://integral-review.org/issues/vol_1...atters.pdf

Translation please, if this actually means something rather than being a bunch of indecipherable jargon. I find metaphysics obviously by definition important because it is: "....the branch of philosophy that deals with the first principles of things, including abstract concepts such as being, knowing, substance, cause, identity, time, and space. As in "they would regard the question of the initial conditions for the universe as belonging to the realm of metaphysics or religion""

Translation please, if this actually means something rather than being a bunch of indecipherable jargon. I find metaphysics obviously by definition important because it is: "....the branch of philosophy that deals with the first principles of things, including abstract concepts such as being, knowing, substance, cause, identity, time, and space. As in "they would regard the question of the initial conditions for the universe as belonging to the realm of metaphysics or religion""

It does mean something ~ the author finds the current entrenched metaphysics theories of thought to be stagnant, and looks towards Whitehead's methodologies of thinking outside the box by thinking creatively and freely, using the power of imagination to test radical new ideas, while also taking care to not treat them as absolutes, lest one fall into a mental trap of thinking the invented box as real, rather than what it is, a means to testing the boundaries of reality, of what it can apply to and what it doesn't.

The article states it better than I feel I can, as it is a necessary complex subject they're attempting to tackle:

Metaphysics is all about Describing Water to Fish

Metaphysics has acquired a bad reputation. I want to show you why metaphysics matters.
Metaphysics means different things to different people. In the history of philosophy it has become
somewhat a catch-all for all types of meta-philosophizing. Metaphysics can be reclaimed by
examining its roots in mathematics and geometry – which no one would argue don’t matter to
physics. Theoretical mathematicians, creating mathematical frameworks that are built up in
rigorously logical ways, through complex rules of logic and translation, are the purest
metaphysicians of all. Metaphysics in this regard is the study of, understanding of, and creation of
conceptual frameworks that can function in a variety of ways: for beauty, for usefulness, for
meaning-making, for deconstructing limiting frameworks, for experimenting, for trying something
new just for the hell of it, for creating new languages such as writing computer codes or “inventing”
non-Euclidian geometry, for creating fantasy worlds in literature or virtual reality.

Metaphysics gets into trouble when it tries to make truth claims about the world. No true
metaphysician would make such claims, because the pre-requisite of a valid metaphysics, is that it
understands what underlies all truth claims, namely a cognitive-conceptual architecture, i.e.,
a metaphysical framework. While it may not be possible for the philosopher to reveal the contours
of their framework, (in other words, think themselves out of their metaphysical box), a good
metaphysician reminds themselves that there is one, beyond the horizons of their capacity to think.

The goal of a metaphysics, contemporarily, is to sew together what Kant’s metaphysics tore
apart: the domains of epistemology and ontology. Here I use the simple working definitions that
“Epistemology concerns itself with how we know about reality,” and “Ontology concerns itself
with reality.” Kant pointed to the limitations of the human mind, language, thought and existential
conditions as barriers to knowing the world as it really is. He highlighted certain rules of logic,
science and judgment that could serve as accurate correspondences to what is real. Ontology was
thereafter whisked away from the discourses of theology and theosophy and made subservient to
the rules and methodologies of scientific reasoning. Once the post-modern mind began to “see”
that the scientific enterprise itself could also be contextualized by deconstructive critique, the very
idea of an ontologically real truth was abandoned. The philosopher Roy Bhaskar (2002, 2009)
created an entire new philosophy called Critical Realism to redress the postmodern overcorrection.
With the word “critical” Bhaskar preserved the deconstructive act of metaphysical examination.
With the word “realism” Bhaskar restored the belief in levels of reality that exist independent of
human reasoning, positing that there is an ontologically real domain of existence that is not
dependent upon epistemological claims. Bhaskar emphasized that this ontologically independent
domain is available to examination through methods of reasoning and knowing that generate
epistemologically valid truths. Yet, even the epistemologically untapped domain of the real,
persistently calls us, to listen at levels deeper than the reasoning mind. This untapped domain, calls
to us with what Bhaskar called the alethic truth. The alethic truth is not an epistemologically
known or empirically verifiable truth. Rather it discloses itself through our own existential
condition, which is an impulse to greater degrees of freedom. This impulse realizes greater
freedoms by throwing off the shackles of slavery and bondage, but also, and perhaps more
importantly, by acts of pure creation, by presencing what is absent, as, for example, in Charles
Eisenstein’s (2013) words, “creating the more beautiful world our hearts know is possible.”2

It does mean something ~ the author finds the current entrenched metaphysics theories of thought to be stagnant, and looks towards Whitehead's methodologies of thinking outside the box by thinking creatively and freely, using the power of imagination to test radical new ideas, while also taking care to not treat them as absolutes, lest one fall into a mental trap of thinking the invented box as real, rather than what it is, a means to testing the boundaries of reality, of what it can apply to and what it doesn't.

The article states it better than I feel I can, as it is a necessary complex subject they're attempting to tackle:

One of the reasons for my comment was the fact that all this is so generalized as not to pin down anything definite in terms of giving at least an opinion much less arguments for or against any particular metaphysic. As if the author is being timid and avoiding any controversy that might be engendered if there was even mention of the paranormal, or of the war between fundamentally different philosophies of mind.

One of the reasons for my comment was the fact that all this is so generalized as not to pin down anything definite in terms of giving at least an opinion much less arguments for or against any particular metaphysic. As if the author is being timid and avoiding any controversy that might be engendered if there was even mention of the paranormal, or of the war between fundamentally different philosophies of mind.

The paper does present a metaphysical position?

Unclear what your critique is referring to here.