Understanding the metaphysics of presence can assist in this effort.
— Mikie
So, metaphysics of presence as opposed to what?
— L'éléphant — 180 Proof

As opposed to what is absent, hidden, concealed. Which is far greater than what’s merely present before us.

I like to think of it as studying unconscious (absence) behavior as opposed to conscious behavior. — Mikie

I'm "reading" Energy" in a "Metaphysical way" instead of a Physical way. — Gnomon

Understanding the metaphysics of presence can assist in this effort. — Mikie

So, metaphysics of presence as opposed to what? — L'éléphant

Philosophy has all too often been an assault upon everydayness. Originally in the ancient West, though, it was vitally concerned with the best way to live our lives. I think that's a worthy inquiry. I don't look to an unrepentant Nazi like Heidegger for guidance in that regard. — Ciceronianus

We live in and are part of an environment. Our minds are part of it because we're part of it. All we know, all we feel, all we do results from and are part of our interaction with it. That is what's "natural" to me.

To the extent our interaction with the rest of nature indicates certain conduct and information is useful and beneficial, we may come to rely on it and it may become customary. But we should always be willing to accept that our judgments and conduct are subject to change when what is learned through further interaction establishes change is appropriate. What's customary may become inadequate or undesirable. I consider that to be common sense. — Ciceronianus

So why not reify that which is invisible & intangible? — Gnomon

Why? Because there are two kinds of people ... — Constance

by ignoring what everydayness and its sciences has to say, in order to discover the essential structure of this everydayness

Those who know that they are profound strive for clarity. Those who would like to seem profound to the crowd strive for obscurity. For the crowd believes that if it cannot see to the bottom of something it must be profound. It is so timid and dislikes going into the water. — Freddy Zarathustra, TGS

I wouldn't 'reify' energy as I wouldn't reify any other physical quantities. — boundless

... the Whole of which we human persons are a minuscule particle. It's as-if the metaphorical One is an ocean and I am a sentient molecule [drop] of water, ignorant of its own all-encompassing habitat. — Gnomon

“Only contingency is necessary,” when asserted universally, already relies on the unconditioned intelligibility it claims to exclude. — Esse Quam Videri

Think of an intelligible order as a scheme or system of rationality. Within that order or map, things work a certain way, according to certain criteria. — Joshs

This only establishes conceptual possibility, not metaphysical possibility. — Relativist

I take the OP as asking if there are any necessary individuals - things. Not "are there necessary propositions?" or "Are there necessary truths?".

So set aside "Meillassoux's "Absolute" and look at

every existing thing... can be conceived of as not existing... without contradiction (i.e. negating a "necessary thing").
— 180 Proof

...which can be seen as an informal version of my more formal argument. — Banno

... metaphysical necessity. The very act of conceiving ~X presupposes a stable intelligible order — Esse Quam Videri

There's a small notion of necessity as that which must be the case in order for something else to be the case - If you would read this post, it is necessary that you read English. There is a broader notion of necessity as what is true in all possible worlds - that two and two is four. They are not the same. — Banno

I don't agree that those terms do most coherently refer to representations or perceptual experiences. They don't refer to appearances but rather to what appears. — Janus

On this view, the persistence of objects or the world does not depend on individual observers, but on mind-at-large itself. — Tom Storm

have subjective and objective aspects — Joshs

Is there anything that exists necessarily? — QuixoticAgnostic

materiality is agential or ‘subjective’ in itself — Joshs

↪Wayfarer Since you seem to be incapable of cogent discussion in good faith, I'll leave you to wallow in your confusion. — Janus

All our thinking is dualistic anyway. As soon as you start talking about all experiences of things being the experiences of a subject, you have already entered Cartesian territory ... Even saying that we do not see reality as it is in itself is a product of dualistic thinking and cements the dualism even further. — Janus

Consciousness does emerge from structural relations of non conscious entities, and consciousness is the precondition for identifying those relationships in the first place. This circularity results in the hard problem, but the hard problem, like all problems, is epistemic. We, as conscious beings, may face an insurmountable barrier in explaining consciousness itself. But from this apparent epistemic barrier it cannot be concluded that consciousness has no naturalistic explanation. Just that we might never get to it. — hypericin

My point was simply that Energy is not a tangible material substance, but a postulated immaterial causal force (similar to electric potential) that can have detectable (actual) effects in the real world : similar to the spiritual belief in ghosts. — Gnomon

However, the subject is not. — Wayfarer

My understanding of what Wilber means by contemplation is both of speculative reflection and experience of a mystical nature [ ... ] suggesting that meditation is 'a sustained instrumental path of transcendence'. — Jack Cummins

His understanding of the absolute is ...

subjectivity is not a possible object of perception — Wayfarer

There is a desire for immersion at play here — Paine

doubt this the work of this despicable, loathsome excuse for a human being had anything signi[fi]cant to do with the creation of Nazism. Rather, he supported it as best he could because it was consistent with his twisted romanticism and mysticism, and in the hope he would be considered its philosopher.

Is this too over the top? — Ciceronianus

Are right and wrong understood as indirect indicators of taking Being seriously ["authenticity"]? — Tom Storm

The problem for the misanthrope is to figure out how to survive the realization that Heidegger is your brother. — frank

It always struck me that populists don’t really do ideas, they do slogans. — Tom Storm

The question is: did this longing to ditch rationality turn into in-humanism that set the stage for the Holocaust? — frank

the nature of the contemplative experience — Jack Cummins

Wilber argued[asserted],
'Kant did not say God doesn't exist_ he said that that sense and scientific reason cannot grasp the Absolute.

... three eyes, or modes of knowledge: the sensory or empirical mode, rational thinking and contemplation.

In what sense is our experience not part of the natural world? Why is there any problem with us learning about consciousness in others through inference? Much of scientific knowledge is gathered indirectly and without direct observation. Why is this situation any different? Speaking personally, I don't see that conscious experience is all that special. It's just one more thing for us to learn about. One more thing we encounter as we live our lives. — T Clark

I do see language itself, as opposed to the world, as inherently dualistic. — Janus

My main point was that there is no incoherence or inconsistency in thinking that the physical world existed prior to the advent of consciousness. Science informs us that it did. The fact that such judgement is only possible where there is consciousness (and language for that matter) I see as a mere truism.

Chemical treatments for mental illness seem to show that consciousness is not primary. — frank

Be honest now and say whether you believe disembodied consciousness is possible. I'm betting you [@Wayfarer] won't answer that question. — Janus

The question isn’t “Did the world exist before consciousness?” but “What does it mean to assert existence independently of the conditions under which existence is ascribed at all?” — Wayfarer

In the same way, energy is not a substance that composes matter. To make an analogy is like saying that coins (physical objects) are made of money (energy). — boundless

union with spirit
— Ken Wilbur — Jack Cummins

EnFormAction : the power to transform potential Form (design, essence, information) into actual Shapes (structure, matter, hylomorph) and vice versa. Which is what Einstein's equation spells out : (E = MC^2).

What we experience locally as Mass (matter) is proportional to the speed of light, which slows-down to form particles of rest-mass-matter. — Gnomon

Being social primates, it is instinctive in us to care about the way others see us, so it isn't a matter of "should care". — wonderer1

It boils down to feelings. I maintain this. — AmadeusD

If morality is just about how you feel [@AmadeusD], why should anyone else care about your feelings at all, and why should you care about theirs? — Tom Storm

[H]arming others makes me feel shit. It seems to do the same for the majority of people. That's good enough, and the best we can wish for imo. — AmadeusD