I do not recall when or where I first heard of the term, “postmetaphysics,” but it has become a fascinating field of discovery, one that will allow for the expansion of perspectives and offer a key for understanding the limits of human knowledge and reason, and I would like to share what my understanding of the term and what such a perspective can offer us.
So, “postmetaphysics” means, obviously, that which comes “after” metaphysics. It is a perspective that can be confused as “atheist,” but it is not. It is simply a view that calls out for a non-metaphysical view of our reality, rejecting metaphysical speculation as useless and unproductive in terms of the common good. Religion, as the carrier of metaphysical principles, has failed to deliver on its promises. The universal suffering of humanity has not been validated by anything but desires and fears, and these things do not need religion to exist. They do need Religion, however, to explain it all.
Which leads us to another dimension of the postmetaphysical which would be “post-psychological,” Consciousness has been uplifted as the crown, the essence of humanity, of human nature. Human beings have identified with the mind much more than they ever have with the human body. From human consciousness arises all forms and systems that we pass through and engage with every day, as outward manifestations created by thought and human action. But without the substance of physical reality, the structures of the mind would lay in state, formless, pointless and barren. As it is, the mind in effect has become the projected definition of humanity, and the essence of that projection is “God.” The inner workings of each being’s consciousness is submerged in the bottomless pit of ego – motivations, an organic computer forever calculating the score, creating, directing and participating in daily events.
As we all know from looking in a mirror or watching a movie, a projection is not real. It is the image and likeness of something, taken to be real yet understood that it is an illusion. It is exactly like the consciousness of a human being; mental, immaterial, yet taken to be more “real” than what physically exists. It’s like watching the movie The Matrix and believing what you are seeing on the monitor is more real than yourself. This is exactly what people have done with God, Religion and Spirituality (and Science!), which were created out of fear and the need for verification that we exist for a reason which doesn’t exist. Of course, reason is the playing field for the mind. Reason can only exist in the mind, yet tools are made as extensions of ourselves, they have a reason for existing, which is to make this physical world easier to deal with. But that doesn’t mean there is a reason for anything else to exist. If God truly existed, we could have only been tools for Him, there would have been some utility that we gave God in order for Him to have created us. There would have been a need to make things easier for God that existed in human beings. In other words, God would have had to have a mind, for only the mind creates “reason,” and that mind, by its nature, would be a projection, which would be an illusion.
It is interesting how Metaphysics was able to convince people things that are not seen and not met… was more real than the reality of their own physical bodies. It was a great trick. Magical. They did it by magnifying the projections of their fellows. They understood human psychology before the psychologists. It’s ironic that the colossal achievement of turning the Mind into God, human beings are really not that swift.
So, the postmetaphysic says, “Enough. We call into question every single foundational – approved consensus of reality, the premises, the assumptions – in short, all criterion of knowledge must be question within the scope of recognizing and being truthful about how we deal with the limits of consciousness and knowledge. We understand that “God” exists wholly as a mental construct that has been used as a form of social control. When it comes to knowledge and consciousness, the Uncertainty Principle* must apply, because if we claim to believe in God and we know we have no evidence for His existence other than what is read and said by others, we are only insisting to be pathological liars. The fact is we don’t need a “God” because it’s like the dude is never here anyway. Postmetaphysics may not be the Religion of the 21st Century, but it ought to be. It will allow us to put away old superstitions and justifications for the evils that the human mind has wrought by dealing with things, here. and in a way that is best for all,
============================================================================
* The Uncertainty Principle is one of Quantum Mechanics most fascinating theories, first conceived by , in 1927 by Werner Heisenberg, more or less states that it is not possible to know both the placement and momentum of a particle.
When I first encountered the term “meta” placed in front of words I was always confused. Why is it there? What is the point of it? It really seemed like a game of adding a shade of grey that was simply more fog.
Why get caught up in post-meta-physics? Or even meta-physics? Why not simplify it and call it by it’s real name THE PHYSICAL. so that everyone can understand and not enter the feeling of being confused, or uneducated because they don’t understand the words, the words that I sometimes think are constructed with the aim of confusing!
I think the points you make are really cool and I agree. But the means seem to be to make associations between accepted subtle word play, where the word play is a form of ego.
; )
Apparently, the word “meta-physics” is a misnomer, the result of an editor of Aristotle’s mistake. “Meta” in Greek means, “after.” Apparently, this editor had a bunch of Aristotle’s work on Physics that he intended his students to read before they got to Aristotle’s treatises on forms, substance, essence and existence, which the editor grouped together into a volume he called, “meta-physics,” or “after-the-physics.”
So, it was really a note that meant, “read this, afterwards read this” ?
I guess it is all a bunch of misinterpreted sequences! : )
Wow, thank you Darryl. Much to consider.
Thank you for this perspective, Darryl. Excellent points throughout.