"revealed" "knowledge" (a-deconstruction-in-a-quad/spooky action at a distance, feedback and strange loops, language as a lorenz attractor (deep structure, indeterminacy of translation), finite state machines (consciousness as a language, language as social art), paradigmatic efficiency of a functional view of the universe, twice born vs born again aka recursion, epistemological idealism* and science, nature of time and knowledge in myth, socrates’ trial and plato’s cave, the phenomenology of vision or why the brahmin appears as brahmin, the nuclear premise of brahminical might and supremacy, reduced stature of brahmin in modernity, trinities and their hierarchies, i and thou: the two ends of a mantra, the dogmas of instrumental reason, sense data and its filters, jacob’s ladder)if you are caught in the other’s dreams you are done for!
-Gilles Deleuze - Beware of the other’s dream
why a metaphysics is impossible, even as a “map” of the real. firstly, if the real is unconstructed, any map is a projection. all projections are by definition reductive. an analogy is that RGB can map the range of visual frequencies but even this trinity is at best an approximation. another analogy is chatgpt being a (statistical) map of language. there are excellent maps out there, but the map is not the territory. qualia is synonymous with the ideal. all metaphysics is essentially at best a claim to the ideal, but is never the noumenon. secondly if the real is constructed, metaphysics is a claim on the maker’s mind - which is an irrational claim and thereore not real (see Hegel). that said, academic metaphysics itself should not suffer due to these reasons, map-making can be a lucrative, satisfying business.
given an epistimological condition, then, sense data itself is a a-deconstruction-in-a-quad. loopy, spooky action at a distance, almost exclusively. it would not be a stretch of logic to say that, in a strict Wittgensteninian sense, sense data is a kind of private language, which forms the core or “back-end” for language proper. whether or not this self-perpetuating nature of language is embedded in us genetically is indeterminate. though, the emergent properties of language seem to suggest so.
even in the realm of non-private language, sense data is already structured in loops (diurnal etc) and rhytms (seasons, historcal cyclicity etc) so there is already enough context for patterns to spontaneously emerge. Metaphysics once again fails here because because of circular refernce, reductio ad absurdum, self-refrential reductive patterns. In other words, trying to describe a system from within didn’t work for the proverbial blind men feeling up an uncharateristically pliant elephant and it won’t work for us. (see: Adwaita [definitions]).
however, what necessitates a metaphysics is precisely a need or “drive” (if only in a psychoanalytic sense) to translate (or split) the real into the imaginary and the symbolic, in order to operate in the real. for example, a superstition is precisely a metaphysics of fear. each superstition comes packaged as it’s own closed, complete loop which is nothing but a solipsist dialectical structre of before-during-after. it serves a utilitarian purpose and works much like a placebo for the neurotic mind, until it dissolves and life reverts back to its “stitious” structure. ad infinitum. what dreams are to waking life, superstition is to religion. this definition of superstition as a microcosm of religion will come in handy later. that eliminating superstition eliminates the underlying fear is common knowledge. this is similar but not identical to how fantasy works. fantasy appears as a metaphysics of desire. think of fantasy as desire decked up to make it palatable. exactly how makeup is a metaphysics of the female biology.
the trick that turns a philosophical (academic or otherwise) activity into a spiritual one is a jump (a leap of faith) from epistemology directly to ontology, eliminating the middleman of metaphysics entirely, crowning religion (everywhere: religion != organized religion, defn?) with the ultimate private language tag. but the circumstances occasioning such a jump come about once in a blue moon. which is where the author’s personal story comes in, but more on that later. the main point for now is that to construct an operable model of the real, without the scaffolding of metaphysics, is our challenge.
To undo any metaphysical notion we start with Quine’s indeterminacy of translation, because here is metaphysics’ weakest link. However much analytical purists might decry the move, the connection between saying that ANY translation is indeterminate is not unlike the central tenet of Taoist belief, indeed the very first line of their main scripture affirms this. Thus there is a leap of faith is easier to make here. Once language is stripped of its grammatical, syntactical, and cultural contexts and connotations, the remaining sense data is cleaner and, with due apology for appropriating yet another computing phrase, “closer to the hardware”.
Those who make this leap, immediately find themselves in the bottomless chasm of ontology sadly. This is simply because the noumenal is greater than the phenomenal, think of how much empty space there is inside an atom as a reference of scale. To have all your metaphysics strpped away like this fraught with dangers not just societal and physical, but also spiritual. To operate without a metaphysics could mean operating without a compass in the wilderness, and this is not to invoke morality yet, but immoral actions / insanity / violence is more often than not a direct result of a spontaneous loss of all metaphysics.
So, sense data is a private language aka insanity without an overarching narrative without metaphysics with one caveat. If metaphysics was the only way to address sense data, there wouldn’t be a second line in the Tao Te Ching. Clearly, history is replete with events of transcendence and samadhi that elude language and by extension metaphysical claims, so there is another way to address reality.
To understand this scheme, we must first dive a little deeper into the various popular metaphysics that sturcture everyday life.
hell as a thelogical construct: imagine you are stuck playing a game. the game is set in an infinite procedurally generated universe with the song “Solisbury Hill”, by Peter Gabriel repeating infinitely in the background. The object of the game is to piece together clues hidden in the environment by correctly deducing the correct meaning of the lyrics of that song being played at any moment, within the context of your present location. Now imagine actually living through this experience not as a game but in reality and immediately you have an interface with a raw ontology stripped bare of all metaphysics except that of the game designer. it would, by any standard, be a most nightmarish and disorienting experience shattering your subjectivity until it melds with that of the designer - which is how you win, if you make it that far. Forget whether such a phyrric victory would mean anything, just think of how long you could survive the scenario. and that in short is our whole life. survival until phyrric victories.
Indeed, life is akin to d&g’s “a thousand plateaus”, causing alienation and hatred of man against man