Curt Doolittle updated his status.

(FB 1547339450 Timestamp)


—“Why study metaphysics? Metaphysics consist of the study of the (constitution) of reality. It is the (method or process) by which we come to a (paradigm) of (the laws of the universe, laws of cooperation, laws of perception-experience, and laws of reason), and from that (paradigm) make choices about what we want to think, feel, and do to make the most of our own experience of life and the world.”—

The study of Metaphysics then serves our will to power (successful action). Or does it?

I deflate the big question into a hierarchy :

1 – ‘What can we perceive, experience, cognate, and act upon?’
2 – ‘How is our experience produced?’
3 – ‘What are the limits of our perception, experience, cognition and action?”
4 – ‘What may be beyond our perceptions and experience and cognition?
5 – ‘What are the first premises (assumptions, presumptions, rules, laws) by which we test our perceptions, experience, and ideas?’
6 – And how does our experience differ from those laws?
7 – And how can we act to take advantage of this knowledge?

The problem is, that since we must act to survive and prosper, can only act within the limits of our perception, experience, cognition, and action, and can only extend perceptions by action in the universe, and all increases in our understanding of what is beyond our perception, experience, cognition, have followed consistent rules of parsimony all of which relegate our experience to a natural consequence of competitive complexity given a long enough and stable enough period of evolutionary computation.

Action (operations) is the only system of measurement that is not a lie – because it is what the entirety of the set of questions depends upon: the grammar and semantics of action, cognition, experience, and perception.

So the question is not what is metaphysics. The question is, Why is it men seek using metaphysics to lie?

So the issue is whether we are confirming the former to the latter (lying) or the latter to the former (adapting), or whether we inventing the former to serve the latter for the purpose of fraud, rent seeking, free riding, and other forms of parasitism – because so far that seems the primary distinction between philosophers/theologians and scientists.

You see, a fraud, a sophist, philosopher, or theologian uses justification to ask ‘what can I get away with?’, while a scientist and a jurist ask ‘what can we insure you’re not getting away with?’

Hence why law (man) and science (nature) account for costs, and philosophy(man) and theology(nature) do not.

Because costs allow us to measure frauds, thefts, et al.

How many philosophers and theologians would survive prosecution for fraud?

  • Curt

Leave a Reply