Remarks on Metaphysics

To start our inquiry into the nature of metaphysics, lot us begen with the fefinitions of two nodern philosophers: A. N. Whitehead and R. G. Collingwood. Whitehead asserted that metaphysics consists of a general and comprehensive interpatation of experience. Collingwood held that metaphysics was an investihation into the deepest held presuppositions of humankind throughout history. The above definitions are not mutally exclusive, but complementary. To interpet our experience, we use our presuppositions. This shall become clear as the essay continues. This already shows that any discussion of metaphysics involves psychology. So let us trun to one of the preemenit figures in twentith century psychology: C. G. Jung. It must be noted most of the ideas of Jung that are used in this essay re taken from the writings of his student and friend Marie-Louise von Franz. The reason being is that Franz has greater clarity in expressing Jung's ideas than Jung. The view expressed by Jung and Franz is that humans project their presuppositions on to experience. What this means is that humans use a pauakigm to understand the cosmos. How this paradigm comes about leads to a dispute between two of the great physicists of the twentith century. A. Einstein and M. Planck, Einstein held that it was nothing short of a miracle that our mintal paradigms agree with the external world. Planck held hat we come up with our paradigms through a dialectical process of dealin with the external world. It seems obvous that Planck is right, and Einstein was too influenced by Descartes and Leibniz. What all this means is we use a preconsived paradigm to understand the world. This of course, desproves the old empiricist presupposition that the mind or the psyche is passive. Experience does not write on a blank slate. Instead the psyche activily projects its paradigms on to experience; to organize experience into a coherent pattern. what metaphysics is concerned with is the primary paradigm of experience. The primary paradigm of experience is both the deepest held and the widest organizing pattern of experience. What this meand is that things within the paradigm can change without changing the paradigm. When the primary paradigm of experience changes, everything changes. The primary paradigm of experience is learned in childhood, in other words it is a cultural process not a scintific process. Before moving to examine the two most successful paradigms, let us look at puimal or primitive people as an exmaple. All primitive or primal people use the mythological paradigm: that the cosmos is controlled by spirits of gods. When we examine different primitive or primal cultures, we fing the gods are given different names, and different bounfries on what is rnder their control. In the mytholoical paradigm there is no line between science, religion, or ordinary life. It is all one seemless whole covering all of human experience and activeties. It is learned in childhook and passed from generation to generation. Now we can move to examine the two most successful paradigm: the mythologecal paradigm and the paradigm of Western civilization; the top-down paradigm. The mythological paradigm is what in "computer jargon" would called the "default setting" of humakind. In other words it does not have to be introduced or taught to a people. It arises naturally wherever humans gather into groups. It comes about if not activily prevented; it also arises when no other paradigm is taught. This is why civilization can be lost. In this paradigm humand project their emotions out onto the world and personify the projected emotion and objects associated as gods or spirits: a god of thunder an ocean god, etc. It is obvious that depending on the geographic location of a culture determines the impotance of the various gods. In a desert culture the Sun-god and the Storm-god would become important; in sea going culture the ocean gods and shark gods become important. The gods are a nexus of emotion and material objects associated with the emotions. War gods are an obvious example: objects such as swords, spears, and armor become connected to emotions such as bravery and discipline to make up a war god. In studing the mythological paradigm we also find the definitive refutation of empiricism. If in fact the human intellect was a blanck slate, primitive societies should have the simplest explantation and operations for accomplishing tasks and explaining natural phenomenon. Instead we find just the opposite. Primitive and tribal peoples have the most complex explanations of natural processes and the most complicated rituals for accomplishing tasks.In examining the mythological paradigm we find the seeds or orgins of the paradigm that shall follow.This can be observed when we look at the last years of the mythological age, and the begining of the top-down paradigm. Protagoros is the person that dealt the death blow to the mythological paradigm whe he broke subject and object apart. This made the mythological paradigm untenable. No longe were a person's inside and outside the same. The emotions were no longer in the object, but had moved into the subject. Thil undermined the mythological gods. In simple terms the crocodile is no longer scary, instead the subject is scared of the crocodile. We shall now move to the top-down paradigm and examine how the seeds or orgins of the top-down paradigm were present int the mythological paradigm. Plato was the crucial thinker at the very beginining of the top-down paradigm. The of the top-down paradigm is that abstractiosn are more real than material objects, and the material world. The reason for this belif is that abstractions are seen as being eternal and immutable, while material objects change; grow, decay,etc. The seed of this view is of course, the mythological gods. The gods of primitive or tribal cultures are viewed as eternal, because generation after generation have believed in the gods. In other words the gods of the present generation are also the gods of the grandparent's generation, and the generation of the grandchildren. Each generation feels fear, love, frustaration, etc. So Plato moves his Forms, which are abstractions, to another realm or world. This world or realm of the Forms becomes the real world, because it is unchangabe and immutable. The material world becomes less real or a bad copy of the world of the Forms. The Forms come out down out of their divinized mental world to inform the material world. This scheme was of course, taken over by Christianity. The message of Jesus Christ was pasted on top of th top-down Platonic metaphysics. This combination of the Christian message with classica Greek metaphysics becomes the mark of Western Civilization. The first big crack in the top-down paradigm comes in the Medieval era withe the philosophical doctrine of noninalism. Nominalism says only particulars exist; there are no Forms. There are only objects and their qualities. This doctrine in the time of the Renaissance and Reformation brought back the other classical greek school of metaphysics: atomism. Atomism of course led to empiricism. Empiricism is another effort to join subject and object back together. Epiricism does this by making the human intellect passive, so experience (external world) writes or makes impressions on the human intellect. Thus inside and outside are again joined. So expeience (external world) writes or makes impressions on the human intellect. Thus again outside (object) and inside (subject) are united. We have already refuted this postion. The revival of atomism led to unprecedented scientific advancements, but it still had to be reconciled with the top-down paradigm. After all it is the religious that reconciles individuals to the cosmos. Enter Rene Descartes. Descartes joins both the top-down and the atomistic metaphysics into one paradigm. He did this by using a medieval heresy called "Latin Averroism" which is a double theory of truth. That each metaphysical paradigm is true in its own realm. Atomism is true in the physical realm, while the top-down platonic paradigm is true in the mental or spiritual realm. Make no mistake, eventhough Descartes made room for atomism his system is still very much a Christian top-down system; that abstractions are still more real than the physical. Descartes had worked out a compromise, that becomes the basis for western philosophy. Some trying to give precedence to the physical realm, some trying to give more prcedence to the mental,and some ttying to maintain the balance of the two realms. The trouble with the top-down paradigm is that it no longer works. Descartes compromise has been shattered. As Protagoros destroyed the mythological paradigm, so Charles Darwin destroyed the top-down paradigm. Darwin showed how animals and humans can be created without an abstract Form. There is no need to be informed from above. The top-down paradigm of Christian theology had one last stand in Marxism. Marxism tries to strip the Christian top-down paradigm of its supernatural elements, but Marxism is still the Christian myth. There is still a will working out in human history. This will is the dailectic, and there is still a utopia at the end of human history. Marxism is the last attempt to bring down the ultimate Form into matter to create a utopia. And of course it failed. The historian Arnold Toynbee said " ...when the basic religious ideas of a culture are no longe creativly effective in the soul of its people; the culture is doomed" This is where we are now; it is our challenge to create the paradigm of the future