ArtsAutosBooksBusinessEducationEntertainmentFamilyFashionFoodGamesGenderHealthHolidaysHomeHubPagesPersonal FinancePetsPoliticsReligionSportsTechnologyTravel
  • »
  • Education and Science»
  • Philosophy


Updated on April 14, 2016


The prefix “meta” has been subject to so-called “semantic drift” in the 20th century. Certainly up until the first half of the 20th century used to mean "that what falls outside of it"; “that what is beyond”. Metaphysics used to be that what does not fall within the framework of physics. In philosophy a meta-system is not a system itself, but its accessory or environmental context (“the openscape”).

However, in the last decades of the 20th century “meta” started to be used as meaning self-recursiveness, like a a meta-block made out of smaller blocks. Metaphilosophy: philosophy about philosophy. About itself. meta-X= X about/of an X.

The funny thing is, that when considering metaphysics, it has turned out that the dichotomy between physics and metaphysics is a false one. As quantum mechanics has shown that the observer is part of the equation, the presumed physical ontic “objective reality” of matter and the presumed metaphysical epistemic and “subjective reality” of mind share the same invariable medium.

As they influence and shape each other, they must ultimately have a common denominator. The only candidate for this invariable medium is “Consciousness” (Consciousness=primordial consciousness, of which human consciousness is but a tentacle). Consciousness can take any shape but is empty in its essence. Like the castles made of sand that easily return to their shapeless state, forms arise and disappear in consciousness, which itself remains unchanged. So if Consciousness is the true nature of both the physical and the metaphysical, then metaphysics is not beyond or outside of physics, but is the physics of physics: the nature of nature, the svarupa or “own shape” of nature, which is formless empty all-inclusive primordial consciousness. There are two phenomena we know of that share these inherent features of ultimate invariability, which can yet take on many different forms: They are “love” and “light”, which are nothing but inherent inseparable aspects of consciousness.

You might say, but light can be captured in matter. But it can also be released. In fact matter is nothing but light (energy) spinning in circles.

You might say, but love can turn into hatred. But that is merely an expression and reaction to love. If you hate someone you used to love, you probably still love him/her, because otherwise you would be indifferent. If you hate someone because he/she took away someone/something from you, this hate is but the reactive energy of the love feelings of attachment you had for the one/the thing you lost.

Ultimately, as Buckminster Fuller has shown, since we are here, it shows that syntropy wins over entropy. The joining forces win over the disruptive forces. The attraction wins over the repulsion.

Even if our forms disappear one day, new forms will be born again in the ocean of consciousness. My little I is perhaps a perishable form, but my essence, my true I is imperishable eternal Consciousness. Always unaffected by the forms that arise in itself. Therefore, I AM METAPHYSICS, the nature of nature, which is Consciousness, which is an ineffable self-reflexive self-reflection, a meta-meta: a meta about meta, and not something beyond or outside of itself.

The true Self is the isotropic verctor equilibrium matrix stable, the same and interconnected in all directions. It is only when asymmetries arise by contraction of 20 vertexes into an icosahedron, that anisotropic self-involvement of a little "I", Atman is obtained. It is still connected to the isotropic vector matrix, but it does not see or feel its sameness, because it is no longer isotropically aligned. Meditation aligns the little perishable Atman again with the isotropic eternal Brahman.

schola metaphysicae



    0 of 8192 characters used
    Post Comment

    No comments yet.