I'm going out on a limb because I haven't read him, but I get the sense that Deleuze was doing something like this. I don't know about poetry, but his metaphysical concepts are products of the imagination, knowingly fictional, and designed to be useful for thinking rather than corrresponding to "how things really are". Whether that's really metaphysics or just meta-metaphysics I have no idea.

but I get the sense that Deleuze was doing something like this. — Jamal

I believe he was engaged in such a project in his Capitalism and Schizophrenia era. I don't know if he was before that.

knowingly fictional, — Jamal

...but a little more seriously than that. It lives in a liminal space between "self expression" and serious organization of thought. — Pneumenon

If you're approaching metaphysics like that, I think the hope is to find moorings in how things are - or how things are accepted to be -, so that your ramblings can de-fictionalize themselves in that context. You can find people trying to model plant rhizomes as Deleuze rhizomes in graduate seminars, or addicted bodies as living examples of bodies-without-organs, seemingly because those things exemplify {or otherwise "express"} the philosophical ideas.

I believe it's a trick philosophers pull when they make analogies and draw examples. The analogy and the example are secretly generative of their landscape of thought, a bit like dirt in an oyster, rather than exemplifying it. Like Simondon and his crystals, or Deleuze and his roots.

Geeze, you started a metaphysics party without me. Can’t respond now, but I’ll get back to it later.

you do not assert that any of it is true, or even sensible. You just write it as if you were writing the ramblings of some magical wizard as part of the lore for a tabletop game or something. — Pneumenon

This is pretty close to my understanding of metaphysics except in most cases people who take a particular metaphysical position are not aware that they are. Metaphysics is generally the unconscious, unexpressed, unintentional foundation of what we believe and how we act.

But what if metaphysics were a kind of poetry? — Pneumenon

I'm not sure what you mean by "poetry" in this context. As I see it, metaphysical perspectives are stories, narratives. Just about everything humans think or say is a story. The general theory of relativity is a story. Do you mean that it uses metaphors? Everything we think and say uses metaphors. Our entire world is metaphorical. This is from "Surfaces and Essences" by Douglas Hofstadter and Some Other Guy.

...without concepts there can be no thought, and without analogies there can be no concepts...What we mean by this thesis is that each concept in our mind owes its existence to a long succession of analogies made unconsciously over many years, initially giving birth to the concept and continuing to enrich it over the course of our lifetime. Furthermore, at every moment of our lives, our concepts are selectively triggered by analogies that our brain makes without letup, in an effort to make sense of the new and unknown in terms of the old and known. The main goal of this book, then, is simply to give analogy its due — which is to say, to show how the human ability to make analogies lies at the root of all our concepts, and how concepts are selectively evoked by analogies. In a word, we wish to show that analogy is the fuel and fire of thinking.

metaphysical concepts are products of the imagination, knowingly fictional, and designed to be useful for thinking rather than corrresponding to "how things really are". — Jamal

This is how I see it, although watching people here on the forum scratch and struggle to defend their metaphysical positions as universal truth, I don't think it is correct to say knowingly fictional.

Yeah, I was talking about Deleuze's metaphysics, not metaphysics generally — and I imagine there might be other philosophers around who do it in the same knowing way (though fdrake's talk of moorings should be noted).

Yeah, I was talking about Deleuze's metaphysics, not metaphysics generally — and I imagine there might be other philosophers around who do it in the same knowing way (though fdrake's talk of moorings should be noted). — Jamal

Your and @fdrake's brief discussion of Deleuze makes me think I should take a look at what he has to say.

I imagine you'd hate him.

I'm actually going to read one of his books soon, the one about Nietzsche. As for his metaphysics, it hasn't ever grabbed my interest, but that may change. Very difficult stuff, I've heard, but I guess that's par for the course, or dare I say de rigeur.

There was a thread on 'The Metaphysics of Poetry', started by @Gus Lamarch a few years ago, which you may find worth reading. I see the topic as important because it comes down to the nature of linguistics as evolutionaryhuman expression vs the idea of the qualia of ideas 'out there'.

One other area which I am slightly but not entirely familiar with is the way in which Wittgenstein's ideas have been developed as a basis for poetry. Generally, I see the dialogue between poets and philosophy as a fantastic area for exploring the nature of imagination. Also, it is likely that the philosophers can learn so much from poets and vice versa.

What is metaphysical poetry? I've come to understand from the rhymatic thumping beat of my heart metaphysical poetry is abstract writing of rhythm for life's dances. Much akin as a musician, a painter of abstract musical tones and noted symbols, serving ideas for a mental idealist abstractionist of silent projections individualized for interpreted thinking.

The metaphysical poet brings forth the rhythm of words stepping in tune with ideas speaking to one's mind with hope their words become a dance seen within consciousness' invisibly movement in the abstractness of musical notes upon the painted screen behind the uvea as ideas yet to be noticed tangibly by the mass.

The metaphysical poet is driven by hope and belief and gratitude in the Spirit of the Creator's gift to him or her, made available if only for a moment recognized to be brought forth in the Spirit of synchronized alignment.

The dreamer, the painter, the philosopher, the ditch digger, the prostitute, the alcoholic, the executive, the statesman, presidents, kings, rulers, and all individuals who make up the rhythm of breathing that is descriptive of the rhythm of poetry, dancing, and the musician's vibrating tone of atonement to value one, to value all, for all are an extension of the waves of life and living.

We ask so much and give so little to the collective whole of our being. We only realize a fraction of the beat of the infinite movement of the law of the Spirit of life, which is the true empowerment of the vibrating waves defining poetic living in all degrees, realms, spheres, dimensions, circumstances, situations, and conditions of our awareness.

We do good when we find we are empowered by the rhythm of poetry, dancing, and music more than the poet, dancer, and musician.

We are all poets and dancers. dancing to the rhythm of the musician's musical notes, and painted visions captured on canvas within our idealistic minds. Living is all poetry, all rhythmic music.

Come, won't you please? Come dance on the words of the poet to the breath of life, and -The Dance of Grace.

Never give power to anything a person believes is their source of strength - jufa

I agree with fdrake.

He's more of a Spinoza than a Nietzsche. Meaning he is creative, but wanting new concepts which somehow encapsulate The World, ala Descartes.

I think Nietzsche is appropriate here -- at least as a starting point. Given his perspectivalism I'm often uncertain how to interpret what looks like metaphysics in his writings. But I think he leans into the poetry of philosophy and uses that to his advantage in expressing his metaphysics, too -- so there's something there in terms of the relation between poetry and metaphysics in Nietzsche interpretation, at least.

I imagine you'd hate him — fdrake

I agree with fdrake. — Moliere

I don’t intend to drop everything and start reading Deleuze. I have a long list of other things to read first. Actually, I have a short list of things to read, but I read philosophy very slowly.

Metaphysics is my thing, and the way Jamal describes it sounds interesting. If I don’t like it, I won’t get very far.

Heh, I didn't want to dissuade -- if anything I want to hear your feelings on it.

I imagine you'd hate it, but from my perspective of what I've read and understood of Deleuze.

I'd be happy if I were right, and if I were wrong. I'd be interested in your thoughts either way.

I feel like it's a cool way to develop magic systems in fantasy settings. I've long thought a fantasy series that based it's magic on Renaissance-era cosmology could be pretty cool.

More seriously, your post recalled to me Etienne Gilson's claim that metaphysics should not be a system. His point was that it should be an active engagement with being, never something complete. I couldn't find the quote I like, but this one from The Unity of Philosophical Experience captures the same idea:

The three greatest metaphysicians who ever existed - Plato, Aristotle and St.Thomas Aquinas - had no system in the idealistic sense of the word. Their ambition was not to achieve philosophy once and for all, but to maintain it and to serve it in their own times, as we have to maintain it and to serve it in ours. For us, as for them, the great thing is not to achieve a system of the world as if being could be deduced from thought, but to relate reality, as we know it, to the permanent principles in whose light all the changing problems of science, of ethics and of art have to be solved. A metaphysics of existence cannot be a system wherewith to get rid of philosophy, it is an always open inquiry, whose conclusions are both always the same and always new, because it is conducted under the guidance of immutable principles, which will never exhaust experience, or be themselves exhausted by it. For even though, as is impossible, all that which exists were known to us, existence itself would still remain a mystery. Why, asked Leibniz, is there something rather than nothing ?

As for poetry as metaphysics, look no further than an actual Keats!

"Beauty is Truth, Truth is Beauty" — the entire Doctrine of Transcendentals laid out in a single ode to a piece of pottery.

And the superiority of the intelligible order to the sensible? He's got that too:

"Heard melodies are sweet, but those unheard
Are sweeter; therefore, ye soft pipes, play on;
Not to the sensual ear, but, more endear'd,
Pipe to the spirit ditties of no tone:"

I didn't want to dissuade — Moliere

I didn’t think you did.

If I don’t like it, I won’t get very far. — T Clark

There are great diagrams.



"The Dogon Egg, and its distribution of intensities"

"The Dogon Egg, and its distribution of intensities" — fdrake

Of course!!! Suddenly, everything is so clear. Why didn’t I think of that?

Then I highly suggest you begin to understand the secrets of Nietzsche's invention of the Dionysian Dithyrambs... as Metaphysical Poetry is what Nietzsche details as his magnum opus, his greatest gift to mankind...

In my lifework, my Zarathustra holds a place apart. With it, I gave my fellow-men the greatest gift that has ever been bestowed upon them. This book, the voice of which speaks out across the ages, is not only the loftiest book on earth, literally the book of mountain air — Ecce Homo

Added the above to showcase Nietzsche details TSZ as his greatest gift to mankind and magnum opus. The below details some about his artists metaphysics.

Already in the foreword to Richard Wagner, art—-and not morality—is set down as the properly metaphysical activity of man; in the book itself the piquant proposition recurs time and again, that the existence of the world is justified only as an æsthetic phenomenon. Indeed, the entire book recognises only an artist-thought and artist-after-thought behind all occurrences,—a "God," if you will, but certainly only an altogether thoughtless and unmoral artist-God, who, in construction as in destruction, in good as in evil, desires to become conscious of his own equable joy and sovereign glory; who, in creating worlds, frees himself from the anguish of fullness and overfullness, from the suffering of the contradictions concentrated within him...

I am convinced that art is the highest task and the properly metaphysical activity of this life, as it is understood by the man, to whom, as my sublime protagonist on this path, I would now dedicate this essay....

But, my dear Sir, if your book is not Romanticism, what in the world is? Can the deep hatred of the present, of "reality" and "modern ideas" be pushed farther than has been done in your artist-metaphysics? — Birth of Tragedy

Nietzsche's Dithyrambs are poems with metaphysical side-effects, their whole purpose is to take a self abnegated reader through a journey that overcomes their bad conscience and loathing of mankind. The dithyrambs are detailed by Nietzsche quite extensively, but nobody even takes this discussion seriously because "Nietzsche."

The Dionyso-musical enchantment of the sleeper now emits, as it were, picture sparks, lyrical poems, which in their highest development are called tragedies and dramatic dithyrambs... — Birth of Tragedy

What language will such a spirit speak, when he speaks unto his soul? The language of the dithyramb. I am the inventor of the dithyramb...

The whole of my Zarathustra is a dithyramb in honour of solitude...

Before Zarathustra there was no wisdom, no probing of the soul, no art of speech: in his book, the most familiar and most vulgar thing utters unheard-of words. The sentence quivers with passion. Eloquence has become music. Forks of lightning are hurled towards futures of which no one has ever dreamed before. The most powerful use of parables that has yet existed is poor beside it, and mere child's-play compared with this return of language to the nature of imagery...

The loathing of mankind, of the rabble, was always my greatest danger.... Would you hearken to the words spoken by Zarathustra concerning deliverance from loathing? — Ecce Homo

Didn't Lucretius basically do that?

It can be an interesting exercise so long as you are aware that it is what you are doing - a kind of poetry with some distinctive philosophical value which, if pressed, is hard to clearly defend - at least for me.

Perhaps the best example that comes to mind for me is Plotinus' and his thinking of the One as beyond being and beyond thought. But then using "as if" or "like" language (like thinking, like seeing, as if it were overflowing or as if guiding, etc.) to help us grasp some vague like conception of what it could be.

It can be very enlightening on occasion. But at the same time, one should not then mistake the poetry for the fact of the matter.

@Fire Ologist what do you make of the following:

Prose, poetry, theater all have music as their model and origin. That is the point upon which The Birth of Tragedy insists notably in the 5th and 6th aphorisms....

Among all experiences musical jubilation is obviously privileged, not because this jubilation privileges and distinguishes musical reality among all other realities, but because it has as its effect, in Nietzsche’s opinion, to arouse the approbation of all things indifferently. — Clément Rosset, Joyful Cruelty, pg 36&37

You're a musician to the core, what say you about the above on how music affirms all life indifferently and thus an exception for use as a method for philosophical discourse?

to arouse the approbation of all things indifferently — Clément Rosset, Joyful Cruelty, pg 36&37

I agree that music and poetry are under-appreciated and misunderstood forms of truth expression. Plato downplayed the significance of art and just didn’t get it. Aristotle got it much better, but when you really get it, you fire off some poetry.

The philosophical and deep impact of music is why people feared rock and roll as devil’s music - because good music immediately transports/supplants the self for something both wholly other, and completely intimate. One is both lost completely and found completely when taken over by the inspiring (spire meaning spirit, so in-spiriting or devil-possessing) rhythm, tone and melody; rhythm (beat/tempo) representing the logical/mind/structure, tone (particular sound of particular instrument) representing the body/form/appearance, and melody (song played on any instrument at any tempo) representing the spirit itself, uniting the rhythm with the tone as one.

When the takeover is complete, “approbation of all things indifferently” could be one way to put it.

Music provides the shortest distance to be transported. It can be the quickest way to the intoxicated self/ loss of self. But it is not the only vehicle. Mytics get there through meditation. And any true artist can describe their own version of this, like Keats does above. Even sports, like dance, when muscle memory supplants intention and something beautiful is born (a dance form or an impossible football grab) through no intentional/human effort, despite it simultaneously being born through a total commitment of the body. Dancers and athletes play their bodies like an instrument to channel the same muse.

One can even do this with any physical labor, as in Karma Yoga devotions.

The loathing of mankind, of the rabble, was always my greatest danger — Ecce Homo

Yeah, Fred, we know your struggles. I just don’t see the gap between the rabble and the overman as so wide as you. Many have found God and uttered poetry, against all odds. The rabble is full of artists.

This is pretty close to my understanding of metaphysics except in most cases people who take a particular metaphysical position are not aware that they are. Metaphysics is generally the unconscious, unexpressed, unintentional foundation of what we believe and how we act. — T Clark

In another thread, we clashed about my unconventional (Aristotelian) definition of Meta-Physics*1 (abstract ideas vs concrete things) ; i.e. non-physical ; mental ; conceptual. But, at the time, I didn't know how you understood the term, or why you found my version so repugnant. So I assumed you considered Metaphysics to be a reference to Theology-in-general, or Catholic Scholasticism in particular. Which does not apply to my Information-Science-based hypothesis. But the quote above seems to narrowly define Metaphysics as something like "faith in fictional concepts", or perhaps "unsupported personal opinions"*2. Is that close to your understanding?

The OP gives an example of Metaphysics as Poetry : "You just write it as-if". Yet the term "as-if" can be used positively to describe a scientific Hypothesis *3, or negatively to indicate dis-belief in something Impossible. The first usage is close to my own philosophical notion, but the latter is teen-lingo and often accompanied by an eye-roll and an exclamation point.

However, I understand the OP as saying that Metaphysics is an imaginative way to describe the world, and not to be taken literally. That's not exactly how I use the term, but I can live with that. For example, the Standard Model of fundamental sub-atomic particles ascribes fanciful properties to Quarks, such as "charm" and "strange". I would accept them as placeholder names, not as physical properties.

Likewise, when scientists explore the world beyond the physical limit of the Big Bang --- e.g. String Theory --- they are doing Philosophy, not Physics, and not Poetry. Yet their fanciful descriptions of an invisible realm of 11 dimensions, could even be categorized, with tongue-in-cheek, as Poetry. However, when I make postulations about the Cause of the Big Bang, I think of it as Philosophy, and I suppose it could also be Poetry. But not in the sense of religious Faith or unsupported Opinions. :smile:


*1. Meta-physics :
The branch of philosophy that examines the nature of reality, including the relationship between mind and matter, substance and attribute, fact and value.
1. Often dismissed by materialists as idle speculation on topics not amenable to empirical proof.
2. Aristotle divided his treatise on science into two parts. The world as-known-via-the-senses was labeled “physics” - what we call "Science" today. And the world as-known-by-the-mind, by reason, was labeled “metaphysics” - what we now call "Philosophy" .
3. Plato called the unseen world that hides behind the physical façade: “Ideal” as opposed to Real. For him, Ideal “forms” (concepts)
were prior-to the Real “substance” (matter).
4. Physics refers to the things we perceive with the eye of the body. Meta-physics refers to the things we conceive with the eye of the mind. Meta-physics includes the properties, and qualities, and functions that make a thing what it is. Matter is just the clay from which a thing is made. Meta-physics is the design (form, purpose); physics is the product (shape, action). The act of creation brings an ideal design into actual existence. The design concept is the “formal” cause of the thing designed.
5. I use a hyphen in the spelling to indicate that I am not talking about Ghosts and Angels, but about Ontology (science of being).
https://blog-glossary.enformationism.info/page14.html

*1. No, metaphysics is not simply a matter of personal opinion. While it delves into topics beyond empirical observation, its core principles and methods rely on logic, analysis, and reasoned argument, rather than subjective preferences. Metaphysics explores fundamental questions about reality, existence, and knowledge, using philosophical tools to examine these concepts.
https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&q=metaphysics+mere+opinion

*3. As-If :
An "as-if hypothesis" is a concept where an unproven hypothesis is treated as true for the purpose of explanation, experimentation, or research, even though it hasn't been confirmed. This approach allows scientists to explore ideas and conduct research without needing to first establish the absolute truth of a hypothesis.
https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&q=as+if+hypothesis

metaphysical concepts are products of the imagination, knowingly fictional, and designed to be useful for thinking rather than corrresponding to "how things really are". — Jamal
This is how I see it, although watching people here on the forum scratch and struggle to defend their metaphysical positions as universal truth, I don't think it is correct to say knowingly fictional. — T Clark

The Big Bang Theory was a product of scientific observation and mathematical extrapolation. But many scientists & philosophers have not been satisfied with the typical interpretation of the Singularity-that-went-Bang myth as a creation or birth event. So, they have gone beyond the evidence, using logic and imagination to explore the Great Beyond.

A few of those "products of imagination" are Inflation, String Theory, Multiverse, & Many Worlds. My own contribution is Enformationism, which assumes that causal Energy necessarily existed prior to the Bang. That's because the BB theory has no empirical answer to where the power-to-go-bang and the laws-of-evolution came from. They are just taken for granted as Axioms.

Those speculative conjectures are seriously intended to reveal "how things really are", not just as aesthetic poetry. Yet they lack the imprimatur of empirical Science. So, such imaginings could be construed as Hypothetical Metaphysics (useful for thinking), not as "knowingly fictional" (apart from multiverse movies) , and not as "universal truth".

I would add my own personal philosophical worldview to that list of pre-Bang speculations. And you are not expected to accept it on faith as a description of the post-Bang world. It is instead, a guide for thinking about philosophical Meta-physics (Ontology -- the Why of being), not empirical Physics (the How of evolving). :smile:

In another thread, we clashed about my unconventional (Aristotelian) definition of Meta-Physics*1 (abstract ideas vs concrete things) ; i.e. non-physical ; mental ; conceptual. But, at the time, I didn't know how you understood the term, or why you found my version so repugnant. So I assumed you considered Metaphysics to be a reference to Theology-in-general, or Catholic Scholasticism in particular. — Gnomon

I would add my own personal philosophical worldview to that list of pre-Bang speculations. And you are not expected to accept it on faith as a description of the post-Bang world. It is instead, a guide for thinking about philosophical Meta-physics (Ontology -- the Why of being), not empirical Physics (the How of evolving). :smile: — Gnomon

You and I have discussed this numerous times and each time I explain how I understand metaphysics. After all this time we have no excuse. Either I explain badly or you are not listening carefully. Either way, we never seem able have a fruitful discussion.

You and I have discussed this numerous times and each time This is pretty close to my understanding of metaphysics except in most cases people who take a particular metaphysical position are not aware that they are. Metaphysics is generally the unconscious, unexpressed, unintentional foundation of what we believe and how we act. — T Clark

I explain how I understand metaphysics. After all this time we have no excuse. Either I explain badly or you are not listening carefully. Either way, we never seem able have a fruitful discussion. — T Clark

Voltaire : “If you want to converse with me, first define your terms”. I agree that we need to make sure we are talking about the same topic.

How did you arrive at that unconventional definition of "Metaphysics" as subconscious Faith?*1 Is it a common Catholic usage? My Protestant background did not introduce me to that notion ; so I missed it the first time around. It might make for an interesting conversation on a different thread. But it's not anywhere near my own usage. I have explained repeatedly that I use the term literally, to refer to the topics that philosophers are concerned with. And which are beyond or outside (meta) the purview of scientists. Why do you equate Poetry (poiesis = creativity) with Faith?*2

What alternative label would you use to include all of the following topics of philosophical interest*3 : First Principles ; Substance ; Causation ; Form & Matter ; Potentiality. In this and other threads I have referred to meta-physics simply as "Philosophy". But some mis-read it as a reference to Religious philosophy. However, I explicitly exclude the Catholic Theology that centuries later came to be identified by the "meta-" term. If these traditional metaphysical (non-physical) topics are of interest to you --- now that I know Metaphysics means something bad to you --- I will try to avoid that trigger word in the future. For the record, I'm not a fan of blind Faith. :smile:


*1. Metaphysics, while not inherently synonymous with faith, can be understood as a study that often overlaps with religious beliefs and practices. Metaphysics, broadly defined, is the branch of philosophy that explores the fundamental nature of reality, existence, and the world beyond what can be observed through empirical science. Faith, on the other hand, is a belief that is not based on proof, but rather on trust or conviction.
https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&q=metaphysics+defined+as+faith*2.

*2. While the connection between poetry and metaphysics is not a strict equivalence, there's a significant overlap and influence between the two. Metaphysics, the study of reality beyond the physical world, often finds expression and exploration through poetic language and themes.
https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&q=poetry+is+metaphysics
Note --- Poetry : literary work in which special intensity is given to the expression of feelings and ideas by the use of distinctive style and rhythm; poems collectively or as a genre of literature.
From Gnomon post above : "However, I understand the OP as saying that Metaphysics is an imaginative way to describe the world, and not to be taken literally. That's not exactly how I use the term, but I can live with that."

*3.Aristotle's metaphysics explores fundamental questions about reality, existence, and the principles underlying all things. Key topics include substance, causation, form and matter, and the nature of being. He also investigates the existence of mathematical objects, the cosmos, and the relationship between the physical and supra-physical realms.
Here's a more detailed look at some key topics:
Substance :
Aristotle distinguishes between primary and secondary substances. Primary substances are individual beings, while secondary substances are the categories or classes to which they belong.
Causation :
Aristotle identifies four types of causes: material (what something is made of), formal (the structure or form), efficient (the agent that brings about change), and final (the purpose or end).
Form and Matter :
Aristotle's metaphysics is deeply influenced by the concept of hylomorphism, which holds that all things are composed of both form (the essence or defining characteristic) and matter (the material substance).
The Nature of Being :
Aristotle investigates the different ways in which the word "be" is used, exploring the nature of being qua being (being as such) and the different types of being.
The Unmoved Mover :
Aristotle posits a first cause, the Unmoved Mover, a divine entity that is the ultimate source of motion and change in the universe.
Potentiality and Actuality :
Aristotle explores the concepts of potentiality (the capacity to become something) and actuality (the state of being), arguing that all things are in a constant state of becoming and changing.
https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&q=aristotle+metaphysics+topics
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/aristotle-categories/
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/aristotle-natphil/

How did you arrive at that unconventional definition of "Metaphysics" as subconscious Faith?*1 — Gnomon

No more. I won't discuss this with you again. As I noted, it doesn't work.