'Xian' - what's all that about then?

[JFKvsNixon]

Jimmy knows the truth.

 

I sure he does, as do the rest of us. Everyone can see what you accused Jimmy of saying, you've yet to provide any evidence that he said it. Is it a genuine mistake or a malicious lie?

[Phanerothyme]

...in an entirely physical way, and the experience you get when you view/read/listen to them is caused entirely by physical processes inside your body.

 

There is no need to invoke metaphysics to explain any of it.

 

You don't "invoke" metaphysics. It's simply a qualitative way of looking at the world, which is especially useful in the analysis and understanding of, not the universe, but our own minds (which can contain the universe, although I've yet to see an adequate empirical explanation of how this can occur), and how they grasp the universe.

 

It was thinking in metaphysics that brought about the modern age, so don't knock it as if it's some kind of religious cult.

 

Unless, of course, you subscribe to the view that humans, and indeed all living organisms, are merely automata - which would make "science" and "metaphysics" irrelevant epiphenomena.

[flamingjimmy]

You don't "invoke" metaphysics. It's simply a qualitative way of looking at the world, which is especially useful in the analysis and understanding of, not the universe, but our own minds (which can contain the universe, although I've yet to see an adequate empirical explanation of how this can occur), and how they grasp the universe.

I have never found that to be the case. I don't think it is useful in the study of anything.

 

Also, the word 'invoke' was clearly appropriate in the context I was using it. Wildcat presented a piece of music, a piece of art, and a writing by Kierkegaard as examples of things that somehow validate (by magic, or something) the concept of metaphysics. I contend that there is no need to invoke the concept of metaphysics to explain those things, or for that matter, anything.

 

It was thinking in metaphysics that brought about the modern age, so don't knock it as if it's some kind of religious cult.

I'm not, I'm just saying it's meaningless pretentious nonsense. And what are you referring to in your first clause here?

 

Unless, of course, you subscribe to the view that humans, and indeed all living organisms, are merely automata - which would make "science" and "metaphysics" irrelevant epiphenomena.

I do not see how that follows at all, I'm going to need you to explain more fully if I am to understand.

[flamingjimmy]

Jimmy knows the truth.

 

Indeed I do, the truth being that I have never "said that music gives [me] a spiritual experience and so does smoking weed", which is what you claimed I did.

 

You were either mistaken or lying. The post you have linked to as 'proof' does not contain the word 'spirit' or 'spiritual' or any reference at all to those concepts.

[Joe_K]

Let me tell you now joe that I feel the same about you as you do about the Bible.

What if I don't let you?

 

I'm putting you on ignore.

O Rly?

[Waldo]

For the sake of arguing however, I'll go along with your premise that the phrase 'rational world' is a descriptor of human mental processes just to see where this conversation is going.

 

No worries, I guess it's something of a misnomer, rational being the adjective and world the noun.

 

I'm not arguing, or positing that any particular paradigm is the correct one. I'm not sure there is a correct one. I'm also not sure where it's going; just exploring really, and trying to understand different perspectives.

 

So yeah, I'm curious, and there are a number of facets to the debate here that I find very interesting.

 

Certainly including how people see themselves, in relation to the world, and their mental construct of the world. It's almost as if there are 3 seperate entities, namely; 1. you, 2. your mental construct (paradigm) of the world, 3. the world.

 

Would you see things like that?

[six45ive]

That they are methods of conveying non-literal, unmeasurable information.

 

Basically what fj said. Science understands not only the human need for conveying non literal information but can measure the value of it in a practical, physical way and science understands the physical responses to experiencing these phenomena and the effect they have on an individual or society in general and why the effect is the way it is.

This further reinforces my point of metaphysics being meaningless.

 

Here's just one link that explains music scientifically.

http://whatismusic.info/articles/ScientificallyOrthodox.html

 

There are plenty more links out there that disprove your assumption that music, art and literature can only be explained metaphysically if you're prepared to look but my guess is you won't.

[spindrift]

Indeed I do, the truth being that I have never "said that music gives [me] a spiritual experience and so does smoking weed", which is what you claimed I did.

 

You were either mistaken or lying. The post you have linked to as 'proof' does not contain the word 'spirit' or 'spiritual' or any reference at all to those concepts.

 

But you do claim posters are sex offenders when they point out your argument is identical to that of the BNP?

 

Would you like to explain that please?

[Phanerothyme]

I have never found that to be the case. I don't think it is useful in the study of anything

Also, the word 'invoke' was clearly appropriate in the context I was using it. Wildcat presented a piece of music, a piece of art, and a writing by Kierkegaard as examples of things that somehow validate (by magic, or something) the concept of metaphysics. I contend that there is no need to invoke the concept of metaphysics to explain those things, or for that matter, anything.

 

I'm not, I'm just saying it's meaningless pretentious nonsense. And what are you referring to in your first clause here?

 

I do not see how that follows at all, I'm going to need you to explain more fully if I am to understand.

 

I think you and I have radically different understandings of the word "metaphysics", and with that kind of gulf it's scarcely worth us continuing.

 

If you have an "idea" or a "concept" of what constitutes "truth" or "understanding", then it is because of metaphysics, not in spite of it.

[six45ive]

No worries, I guess it's something of a misnomer, rational being the adjective and world the noun.

 

I prefer to call it a 'figure of speech'.

 

Certainly including how people see themselves, in relation to the world, and their mental construct of the world. It's almost as if there are 3 seperate entities, namely; 1. you, 2. your mental construct (paradigm) of the world, 3. the world.

 

Would you see things like that?

 

When you say world I'm assuming you mean the planet we live on.

If so I might describe it as;

1/Me

2/Knowledge of the world

3/The world