How do you discern metaphysical truth?

[Alan1986]

Originally Posted by Valkyrie

Because I have to. I have to eat, even though eating is boring.

Some people really like food- they really enjoy the tastes. Focusing on the moment gives them pleasure. I'm not one of them. To me food just doesn't taste that good. Some foods taste bad and some foods taste neutral or kind of ok. I eat foods that are healthy and taste neutral or kind of ok.

90% of things are uninteresting. eating, sleeping, driving to work, working, cooking dinner, doing the laundry, etc. These things just don't provide much sensory pleasure in my opinion, in sensation or thought. They have to be done for maintenance, though. Why would I want to focus on them? Why would I want to be present, other than for practical reasons (ie driving safely or working intelligently)?

All situations are fundamentally neutral. The meaning you put into them is the meaning you receive from them.

[Alan1986]

Originally Posted by Valkyrie

I just kind of view it like, some people find something that works for them and seem to believe that it will also work for others. This might not always be the case.

The answer to your question depends on whether you know of the truth that is beyond the perception of the ego.

[Ecce Homo]

Originally Posted by ethereal

I don't know why everybody seemed to ignore this post, as I think it is probably the most profound and concise answer here (at least it seems so to me ).

LOL!

I would like to know more about what you've discovered at the end of this search.

Nothing and everything. I’m not being cutesy either. Unity doesn’t even begin to cover it. Neither does the word non-duality. It's all good though. Only all of it.

Are there any pointers to this truth?

In one sense, everything is a pointer. Literally. In another sense though, Valkyrie’s questions are great pointers, especially the first one in the OP. How do we sort through metaphysical beliefs to find out the truth? What is the truth? It’s a very similar question to who am I, right? Both questions, when asked sincerely can be explosive when you keep at it until you find that which is… to use your word inexpressible.

Something else I've found especially profound is what Adyashanti states, that "every belief is false." That sort of clears out all the beliefs and concepts that our minds might be tempted to attach to. Don't have to figure out which one is true and which one is false -- they're all false!

Right? Even the belief “all beliefs are false” is false, as in less than absolutely true. Btw, Adyashanti rocks!

Good luck Valkyrie in asking and answering your questions. I have complete confidence that you will find exactly what you are looking for!

[rei]

Originally Posted by Melchior

Test it. If it's true, it'll eventually show to be true (that is, if you agree to empiricism; otherwise, I think you may be out of luck). If false, same deal.

This is true as well. I used the Law of Attraction for a relationship, and said I wanted at least one of the opportunities to involve great physical/mental/emotional/spiritual compatibility. I stayed open and when I met my guy days later, we were getting acquainted, and I have never had so much in common with a partner - even down to little quirky things like how we both feel very strongly that onions smell like body odor. Similar interests for education, similar entertainment preferences, social energy, views on marriage, etc. Though I was not exactly testing my approach in this, the evidence supports the idea that I got what I asked for. And the level of compatibility seems highly unlikely to be the product of chance, we fit almost to an eerie level.

Valkyrie, oh, btw, interesting choice for a user name. Do you consider yourself to be a demi-goddess?

Whether there is any utility to these things is probably subjective. To me, what seems on the surface to be not necessarily readily applicable can still have utility. And because of the work I do, many notions have utility for me when they wouldn't for others. For example, my understanding about what we experience after death is helpful since I escort souls. But if someone spends no time working with spirits, there is less obvious utility in reflecting on these things. Aside from processing death anxiety I suppose, or humoring curiosity.

Source has shared through me on that topic before but still likes the opportunity. It has never had the intention to offer punishment but belief through misrepresentations of the message became dogma and that began to spread fear instead of love. This is primarily about Christianity. It is meant to be about love and about options, not about fear or intimidation as motivators. There is no requirement about belief. The aspect of self explores things here based on its own choices and volition. But the extensive suffering and fear was not really part of the intention here, though those are common side effects of a third dimensional reality because there is a sense of disconnection built in that individuals often take to mean a sense of separation is fundamentally real and lasting. There is no requirement to believe anything and contradiction may be a side effect of how the individual processes the energy through mind. But if any particular belief or idea seems useless, that is a valid opinion to have. What is not valid to one may be valid to another, though, and as diversity of experience is part and parcel of your time here, there is not really an intention to have a unifying framework that encompasses all permutations of belief, though there is more similarity than difference - or there can be if you shift to considering the similarities, as then you're likely to notice them. Or, the exception does not prove the rule. The mind can create what it expects, and find evidence for that. If the mind is looking for evidence of disconnection, that is what it finds. If it is looking for evidence of connection, that is what it finds. As the individual aspect becomes more consciously connected, the notions of disconnection can become painful as they feel like distortion once you are embracing connection.

And if this message were filtered through someone else, it might sound different. The channel itself is clear but I am still limited to expressing through the language it has accumulated. I could express from language it does not know but not while it is channeling consciously - it would need to be in a trance for that, and there is no real need for the channel to open itself up to unnecessary influences by doing this in a trance.

You're free to believe or not believe whatever you wish. Back to just me, you're free to label me crazy too if you like. The pre/trans fallacy can be quite common according to Wilber.

[Valkyrie]

I guess when it comes to testing my problem is that I have nothing to test. I haven't had any supernatural experiences to test.

And one issue I've noticed is that regardless of the religion or belief, there are safeguards against a test showing that it is "wrong". For instance, if a test fails, the tester is the one that is blamed. They don't have enough practice or they don't believe enough and that type of thing.

Originally Posted by Alan1986

All situations are fundamentally neutral. The meaning you put into them is the meaning you receive from them.

Originally Posted by Alan1986

The answer to your question depends on whether you know of the truth that is beyond the perception of the ego.

Maybe we can rewind and go back to the original question. How exactly can focusing on the moment of now help one to discern metaphysical truth? What metaphysical truths would you say that you have learned by focusing on the moment of now?

Originally Posted by rei

This is true as well. I used the Law of Attraction for a relationship, and said I wanted at least one of the opportunities to involve great physical/mental/emotional/spiritual compatibility. I stayed open and when I met my guy days later, we were getting acquainted, and I have never had so much in common with a partner - even down to little quirky things like how we both feel very strongly that onions smell like body odor. Similar interests for education, similar entertainment preferences, social energy, views on marriage, etc. Though I was not exactly testing my approach in this, the evidence supports the idea that I got what I asked for. And the level of compatibility seems highly unlikely to be the product of chance, we fit almost to an eerie level.

Whether there is any utility to these things is probably subjective. To me, what seems on the surface to be not necessarily readily applicable can still have utility. And because of the work I do, many notions have utility for me when they wouldn't for others. For example, my understanding about what we experience after death is helpful since I escort souls. But if someone spends no time working with spirits, there is less obvious utility in reflecting on these things. Aside from processing death anxiety I suppose, or humoring curiosity.

Source has shared through me on that topic before but still likes the opportunity. It has never had the intention to offer punishment but belief through misrepresentations of the message became dogma and that began to spread fear instead of love. This is primarily about Christianity. It is meant to be about love and about options, not about fear or intimidation as motivators. There is no requirement about belief. The aspect of self explores things here based on its own choices and volition. But the extensive suffering and fear was not really part of the intention here, though those are common side effects of a third dimensional reality because there is a sense of disconnection built in that individuals often take to mean a sense of separation is fundamentally real and lasting. There is no requirement to believe anything and contradiction may be a side effect of how the individual processes the energy through mind. But if any particular belief or idea seems useless, that is a valid opinion to have. What is not valid to one may be valid to another, though, and as diversity of experience is part and parcel of your time here, there is not really an intention to have a unifying framework that encompasses all permutations of belief, though there is more similarity than difference - or there can be if you shift to considering the similarities, as then you're likely to notice them. Or, the exception does not prove the rule. The mind can create what it expects, and find evidence for that. If the mind is looking for evidence of disconnection, that is what it finds. If it is looking for evidence of connection, that is what it finds. As the individual aspect becomes more consciously connected, the notions of disconnection can become painful as they feel like distortion once you are embracing connection.

And if this message were filtered through someone else, it might sound different. The channel itself is clear but I am still limited to expressing through the language it has accumulated. I could express from language it does not know but not while it is channeling consciously - it would need to be in a trance for that, and there is no real need for the channel to open itself up to unnecessary influences by doing this in a trance.

You're free to believe or not believe whatever you wish. Back to just me, you're free to label me crazy too if you like. The pre/trans fallacy can be quite common according to Wilber.

I'm not here to call anyone crazy, just here to ask how people discern metaphysical truth.

Valkyrie, oh, btw, interesting choice for a user name. Do you consider yourself to be a demi-goddess?

It was a nickname given to me several years ago as a martial artist. A male friend of mine began calling me "Valerie the Valkyrie" in fight class after a particular match I had and it caught on.

It's cute and for whatever reason it has stuck around. I like the mythology of the Valkyries- powerful female entities that choose who is slain in battle.

[Alan1986]

Originally Posted by Valkyrie

Maybe we can rewind and go back to the original question. How exactly can focusing on the moment of now help one to discern metaphysical truth? What metaphysical truths would you say that you have learned by focusing on the moment of now?

I don't think the heart needs justifications. I heart that it doesn't.

[Solipsist]

Originally Posted by Valkyrie

How exactly can focusing on the moment of now help one to discern metaphysical truth? What metaphysical truths would you say that you have learned by focusing on the moment of now?

All that is, is now. What was, is not. What will be, is not. Who You are, is now. Who You were, is not. Who You will be, is not.

And Who You are is not a set of beliefs, but your SPIRIT, which is beyond time and dimension.

Is that metaphysical enough for you?

[Valkyrie]

Originally Posted by Solipsist

All that is, is now. What was, is not. What will be, is not. Who You are, is now. Who You were, is not. Who You will be, is not.

And Who You are is not a set of beliefs, but your SPIRIT, which is beyond time and dimension.

Is that metaphysical enough for you?

So what metaphysical truth is one supposed to learn by focusing on the now? I suppose it's metaphysical enough, as you put it, but doesn't answer what I asked. What sort of enlightening realization is one supposed to have by this exercise?

[Melchior]

Originally Posted by Valkyrie

I guess when it comes to testing my problem is that I have nothing to test. I haven't had any supernatural experiences to test.

And one issue I've noticed is that regardless of the religion or belief, there are safeguards against a test showing that it is "wrong". For instance, if a test fails, the tester is the one that is blamed. They don't have enough practice or they don't believe enough and that type of thing.

Well, if you don't have anything to test the belief on, then you don't really have to worry about it right? And if the "test" really can't show conclusively that a belief is true or false due to those safeguards, then it really isn't a test. If the belief has those safeguards present in itself, then I suppose one of the ways of going about using it is to see if it first conflicts with any beliefs that you currently hold that are true (or at least 'truer') and see if they can fit in anywhere. If not, then see if you can replace some of those current beliefs, if only temporarily, and operate under the 'new' beliefs. If there is no overall change in output, then the two are, although perhaps mutually exclusive, more or less equivalent so then it's up to your preference which one to hold. You could also hold both of them at the same time and swap them in and out depending on the situation where the belief may be more useful.

Essentially it boils down to: what does this metaphysical 'truth' do for me? More importantly: how well does this 'truth' depict reality? Also, among essentially equivalent truths, the one I use anyway, gets chosen by way of applying Occam's razor (who needs superfluous baggage anyway? travel light ).

[Solipsist]

Originally Posted by Valkyrie

So what metaphysical truth is one supposed to learn by focusing on the now? I suppose it's metaphysical enough, as you put it, but doesn't answer what I asked. What sort of enlightening realization is one supposed to have by this exercise?

The only way to know, is to do it. Or, rather, just BE Who You are, and let the realization come.

That's really the whole point. You can't really "have" experiences, because they're not something to be had. You can only experience them. This is what separates religion from spirituality. Religion has beliefs in what will be. Spirituality is about who you ARE.

Your error, it seems, is that you think you can imagine an experience before it happens. I can't tell you what is "supposed to happen" to you, because I'm not you. (I also can't predict the future). Whatever you experience in the now, is what you experience, not I.

[Alan1986]

Originally Posted by Valkyrie

So what metaphysical truth is one supposed to learn by focusing on the now? I suppose it's metaphysical enough, as you put it, but doesn't answer what I asked. What sort of enlightening realization is one supposed to have by this exercise?

Could it be that you have tried very very hard to be in the Now, but actually you never?

I know for certain that if one considers being in the Now is useless or boring, one is unlikely to do it in the first place or in the way it is to be. The mind convinces you that it isn't worth the effort to do it: "Don't do it. We have a problem. We are supposed to find the correct way to discern metaphysical truth. Not some silly being-in-the-Now idea. Now, we need to solve our problem first."

[Valkyrie]

Originally Posted by Melchior

Well, if you don't have anything to test the belief on, then you don't really have to worry about it right?

I seek knowledge for knowledge's sake.

And if the "test" really can't show conclusively that a belief is true or false due to those safeguards, then it really isn't a test. If the belief has those safeguards present in itself, then I suppose one of the ways of going about using it is to see if it first conflicts with any beliefs that you currently hold that are true (or at least 'truer') and see if they can fit in anywhere. If not, then see if you can replace some of those current beliefs, if only temporarily, and operate under the 'new' beliefs. If there is no overall change in output, then the two are, although perhaps mutually exclusive, more or less equivalent so then it's up to your preference which one to hold. You could also hold both of them at the same time and swap them in and out depending on the situation where the belief may be more useful.

Essentially it boils down to: what does this metaphysical 'truth' do for me? More importantly: how well does this 'truth' depict reality? Also, among essentially equivalent truths, the one I use anyway, gets chosen by way of applying Occam's razor (who needs superfluous baggage anyway? travel light ).

I can't really think of things I can test in this way. Do you have any suggestions?

Originally Posted by Solipsist

The only way to know, is to do it. Or, rather, just BE Who You are, and let the realization come.

That's really the whole point. You can't really "have" experiences, because they're not something to be had. You can only experience them. This is what separates religion from spirituality. Religion has beliefs in what will be. Spirituality is about who you ARE.

Your error, it seems, is that you think you can imagine an experience before it happens. I can't tell you what is "supposed to happen" to you, because I'm not you. (I also can't predict the future). Whatever you experience in the now, is what you experience, not I.

I'm not imagining an experience. I've tried it.

I have gone through exercises of paying attention to the present moment only. I experienced boredom, because my experience of the present moment was that it was mediocre.

If I do it while I'm doing something fun, then my experience is fun.

But I don't see any sort of metaphysical truth being learned there.

Originally Posted by Alan1986

Could it be that you have tried very very hard to be in the Now, but actually you never?

I know for certain that if one considers being in the Now is useless or boring, one is unlikely to do it in the first place or in the way it is to be. The mind convinces you that it isn't worth the effort to do it: "Don't do it. We have a problem. We are supposed to find the correct way to discern metaphysical truth. Not some silly being-in-the-Now idea. Now, we need to solve our problem first."

I don't see why people keep putting words in my mouth like calling ideas silly, or calling people crazy, or things like that. I'm just asking questions.

Anyway, like I've said earlier, I do see value in trying to be in the present moment for some people. Many people have cluttered minds, cluttered lives, and focusing on a single moment can give them a big change.

I also agree that that the future is not and the past is not. The only existence at the current time is right now. I'm with you guys on that idea.

But what I'm trying to ask as clearly and concisely as possible is what metaphysical truth is focusing on the now supposed to bring me? My overall question for this thread is to ask how to discern metaphysical truth. Focusing on the now was brought up as a method, and I'm simply asking how that method discerns metaphysical truth.

I've taken time to experience individual moments. I'll sit there on the grass, stare at a spring tree, and just let thoughts come and go, enjoying the beauty. But nothing in terms of metaphysical truth comes, it's just a nice spring day. Nothing spectacular but pretty decent.

Or I've tried it while eating an apple, which was boring.

I've tried it during other activities as well.

What determines, for me, whether the moment is worthwhile or not is what is going on. If I'm doing something boring, or the environment is dull, then that moment of now is boring and dull. If I'm doing something exciting, or the environment is pleasurable, then that moment is pretty exciting and pleasurable, but I would say it's still far short of discerning any metaphysical truth. For that reason I'm asking how focusing on the present moment is supposed to discern metaphysical truth.

[rei]

Originally Posted by Valkyrie

What determines, for me, whether the moment is worthwhile or not is what is going on. If I'm doing something boring, or the environment is dull, then that moment of now is boring and dull. If I'm doing something exciting, or the environment is pleasurable, then that moment is pretty exciting and pleasurable, but I would say it's still far short of discerning any metaphysical truth. For that reason I'm asking how focusing on the present moment is supposed to discern metaphysical truth.

First off, metaphysical truth may not knock you on your rear... especially not if you aren't used to finding it or having that goal/intention.

Secondly, it sounds like you are talking about experiencing the moment externally. What about experiencing the Now from within yourself instead of giving so much attention to the external environment? Unless you meant to include how it is to be feeling yourself from within in the word "environment" but I did not get that impression, it sounded like an external focus.

Do you have certain criteria regarding what it will be like to experience metaphysical truth (something like how it must stand equally with your pot-induced oneness experience)? Are those criteria helping you achieve your goals or limiting the abundant ways you could experience it without creating expectations?

Often there is plenty of meat underneath the immediate assessment of the present moment - have you ever tried to stick with it to see how it would be once you get past those mental-level evaluations of it?

[Alan1986]

Pretty concisely, Tao Te Ching writes in its first verse:

"A Dào that you can explain is not the timeless Dào. Concepts that you can conceive are not timeless concepts. The origin of the world is inconceivable, conceivable only as the mother of myriad things."

If you still have questions, then read the second verse:

"Therefore: free of permanent desire, you behold the internal secret; with permanent desire, you behold the outer charm."

[Melchior]

Originally Posted by Valkyrie

I seek knowledge for knowledge's sake.

Well then, you don't have to worry about these truths then as the only knowledge you'll really get is that they are indeterminable, which is knowledge enough.

I can't really think of things I can test in this way. Do you have any suggestions?

Not quite sure what you're looking for, but try objective reality vs. subjective reality for starters.

[wolfgang]

yeah - why believe in reincarnation versus a one shot lifetime on the earth?

it's almost like hand me downs of beliefs, only now it's easy to look outside of your culture of upbringing.

there are many ways IT has been described and put into a framework and boiled down to words. they are all approximations - models of reality not reality itself. that's why there are differences - they are all approximations.

peak experiences are nothing special in terms of knowing reality. if one values one activity as more worth one's attention that means there is a belief in place around this idea. that peak experiences is the way to see reality for real and that the angles will sing, kind of thing. if it's a "more" experience that fades and becomes something that happened to you and showed you some insights but now is just a memory - that is just as mundane as what ever is now not a peak experience. a memory of a peak experience is mundane too. but if an experience shifts you out of habitual behavior or basically changes you in a fundamental way, then it's not an experience really - it's a passage or growth or being. like being born. peak experience that changed your life of a womb forever.

beliefs are frame works to approximate reality. does it matter which belief set you choose? do you need to believe something so specific that is really just a approximation modeling reality? if you can find a way to not have questions about finding the best possible description of a model of reality the angels will sing! hahaha.... but really, the questions do go away when one is at peace and love. I think there is something common to all the belief sets out there. they all want to say or point to the same peace or love or resonance.

as far as something being metaphysical - it's only meta when it hasn't occurred and feels completely new. like being born probably was. it was completely new and beyond the current physical. there was absolutely no doubt a big shift occurred. if you want to know god or oneness, find a way to drop the questions about it and find and be peace and love, then god or oneness can come to you. god or oneness is not able to come to someone with conflict and inability to be peaceful. all questioning models of reality are also another way to stay fragmented which god or oneness can't interface with. the truth will not be one of the approximation frame works (belief sets) trying to model reality. neither would being hypnotized into a belief set.

those most able to be peace and love resonate as god or oneness. maybe they ratchet up there connection each time they go into the whole brain state. which is that their brain is not in conflict or fragmented or chasing ideas of what reality is. their brains actually resonate in such a way that the brain scans can show it.

[Valkyrie]

Originally Posted by rei

First off, metaphysical truth may not knock you on your rear... especially not if you aren't used to finding it or having that goal/intention.

I've been interested in knowing about metaphysical truth since I was like 8. It's not a new fad.

Secondly, it sounds like you are talking about experiencing the moment externally. What about experiencing the Now from within yourself instead of giving so much attention to the external environment? Unless you meant to include how it is to be feeling yourself from within in the word "environment" but I did not get that impression, it sounded like an external focus.

I try to focus on both internal and external things. The whole moment.

Within myself during that time is boredom. Outside of myself is an environment and sensory inputs.

Do you have certain criteria regarding what it will be like to experience metaphysical truth (something like how it must stand equally with your pot-induced oneness experience)? Are those criteria helping you achieve your goals or limiting the abundant ways you could experience it without creating expectations?

Often there is plenty of meat underneath the immediate assessment of the present moment - have you ever tried to stick with it to see how it would be once you get past those mental-level evaluations of it?

No certain criteria.

People claim all sorts of wonderful experiences, ranging from out of body experiences to talking to what they call the source to talking to spirits to experiencing oneness to whatever else they do.

I'm not picky.

I try to stick with things for a while but if over and over I see no utility in the approach I discontinue.

[Solipsist]

Valkyrie, I've some observations--

Knowledge for sake of knowledge doesn't really go anywhere. You can memorize a whole set of encyclopedias, but what is that going to get you but a head full of information?

When you seek Truth, you will find Truth. But if you continue to look without yourself for it, you will be disappointed. "The Kingdom of God is within."

I leave you with a question you need to ask yourself--what is it that you're really looking for when you say that you've been "interested in knowing about metaphysical truth?" If you are interested in knowing about it, then simply study it. If you want to know Truth, just be patient, for it will reveal itself.

[Michael Chui]

Originally Posted by Valkyrie

I guess I just don't see how one can jump from "this belief gives me happiness and satisfaction" to "this belief is factually accurate in relation to what is true about the universe".

Succinctly, you don't. The purpose of a metaphysical claim shouldn't be to make an accurate statement about the universe; that's an overstep of its competence. People who use metaphysical claims to justify generalized material claims are simply doing it wrong.

Originally Posted by Valkyrie

How does one go about reconciling contradicting beliefs? Either one or both is mistaken or at least seriously seeing less of the picture than the other.

You don't. A metaphysical claim should be shared only as an invitation to share that perspective, not as a way to find truth. Thus, there isn't really a reason to reconcile differences except for yourself. Which means it's fine to throw out things that don't fit well, or to hang onto them and let it percolate for a while.

Originally Posted by Valkyrie

But the problem is even this viewpoint is in itself an objective claim- a claim that subjective experience is true and possible. Other metaphysical frameworks might argue that this is not the case.

The need that many people have to justify their metaphysical experience as objective and factual is usually a case of comparing epeen. Any subjective experience is true and possible: you can write it off as weird brain functions. Of course, the people who experience these things tend to have difficulty not feeling offended by that kind of dismissal. They have a need to be right. To be the purveyor of truth. It's just pride.

...

What's the knowledge to be had here?

Well. We don't have a useful way to figure out what's going on besides self-reporting. (I know there are people working on getting better tools.) We do have self-reports. So what's the knowledge? People make claims. There's a fact there: it's that people make claims. This is something you can know. This is knowledge.

If you're curious about someone's claim, then you can try their stuff out yourself and see if you can enter into their framework. Maybe you can, maybe you can't. If you can, then yay. What does that say about the universe? Nothing. To a third party, you're just making the same claim as the other guy. If you can't, then too bad. What does that say about the universe? Again, nothing. It simply means you don't mesh with that framework.

[Valkyrie]

Originally Posted by Solipsist

Valkyrie, I've some observations--

Knowledge for sake of knowledge doesn't really go anywhere. You can memorize a whole set of encyclopedias, but what is that going to get you but a head full of information?

When you seek Truth, you will find Truth. But if you continue to look without yourself for it, you will be disappointed. "The Kingdom of God is within."

I don't see how you are differentiating knowledge and truth here. I see them as synonyms.

I seek knowledge of the truth.

Why? Well what else is there to do here?

I leave you with a question you need to ask yourself--what is it that you're really looking for when you say that you've been "interested in knowing about metaphysical truth?" If you are interested in knowing about it, then simply study it. If you want to know Truth, just be patient, for it will reveal itself.

You can't know about it by studying it. You can only learn about what people think by studying it.

Reading the Bible doesn't give me knowledge of God. It gives me knowledge about what the writers thought about their god.

Reading the Qur'an doesn't give me knowledge of God. It gives me knowledge of what Mohammad thought about god.

Reading the Bhagavad Gita doesn't give me knowledge of God. It gives me knowledge of what the writers thought about God.

Same for Buddhist scriptures, Bahai scriptures, studying Native American beliefs, Pagan beliefs, New Age beliefs, New Thought beliefs, etc. Knowing their beliefs tells me what the believers think, it doesn't tell me truth.

I've read a lot of that stuff. I'm already fairly well-read on many of the religions around the world. I've had my fill, and am not so much interested in learning about what people believe anymore. Hence the thread- how to discern metaphysical truth.

I'm not sure what you mean when you ask why I search for metaphysical truth. I search to know what it is, to shed ignorance and perpetual agnosticism.

Originally Posted by Michael Chui

Succinctly, you don't. The purpose of a metaphysical claim shouldn't be to make an accurate statement about the universe; that's an overstep of its competence. People who use metaphysical claims to justify generalized material claims are simply doing it wrong.

You don't. A metaphysical claim should be shared only as an invitation to share that perspective, not as a way to find truth. Thus, there isn't really a reason to reconcile differences except for yourself. Which means it's fine to throw out things that don't fit well, or to hang onto them and let it percolate for a while.

The need that many people have to justify their metaphysical experience as objective and factual is usually a case of comparing epeen. Any subjective experience is true and possible: you can write it off as weird brain functions. Of course, the people who experience these things tend to have difficulty not feeling offended by that kind of dismissal. They have a need to be right. To be the purveyor of truth. It's just pride.

...

What's the knowledge to be had here?

Well. We don't have a useful way to figure out what's going on besides self-reporting. (I know there are people working on getting better tools.) We do have self-reports. So what's the knowledge? People make claims. There's a fact there: it's that people make claims. This is something you can know. This is knowledge.

I agree that many people have a need to be right, and get offended at dismissal of their views as subjective.

I'm interested in knowing metaphysical truth for my own sake. Not specifically to share, not that I have anything against sharing. I mean that's the point of the thread- how can one discern metaphysical truth? More than simply asking what the "truth" is, I'm asking how one can actually discern it. How can one person share it to another? How can one person discover it for their own self? That sort of thing.

If you're curious about someone's claim, then you can try their stuff out yourself and see if you can enter into their framework. Maybe you can, maybe you can't. If you can, then yay. What does that say about the universe? Nothing. To a third party, you're just making the same claim as the other guy. If you can't, then too bad. What does that say about the universe? Again, nothing. It simply means you don't mesh with that framework.

Well so far I don't mesh well with any framework other than materialism, as that's all I experience.

[Melchior]

Originally Posted by Valkyrie

Why? Well what else is there to do here?

Quite a bit, really.

[rei]

Valkyrie, I think I observe here some tension and conflict - it seems you have on the one hand a desire to have direct experience that matches your expectations or at least enters the ballpark. And on the other hand you have incredible resistance to almost every approach that has been suggested.

If you had to choose between keeping the current level of resistance or relaxing some of it so that you might be more open to this type of experience, what would you choose?

(Oh, and I would probably say there is a bit of a difference between knowing about metaphysical truth and knowing it experientially. I also am not entirely sure it's possible to dismiss and lay to rest every permutation of doubt prior to just exploring things a bit... at some point it seems helpful to focus on the experience of the moment from within the self, with the eyes closed... or to begin giving more attention to the feeling state than the thinking state... or try a variety of other approaches. But it is one thing to have theory - knowledge "about" - and another to have practice - the experience itself. All the theory in the world will not guarantee the experience itself. The experience comes through the action.)

[cobrien11]

I agree the only way to be sure is to experience it for yourself.

[Valkyrie]

Originally Posted by Melchior

Quite a bit, really.

Like what?

Originally Posted by rei

Valkyrie, I think I observe here some tension and conflict - it seems you have on the one hand a desire to have direct experience that matches your expectations or at least enters the ballpark. And on the other hand you have incredible resistance to almost every approach that has been suggested.

If you had to choose between keeping the current level of resistance or relaxing some of it so that you might be more open to this type of experience, what would you choose?

What you observe as tension and conflict is merely me trying to ask concise questions. I've noticed that some people take questions as attacks, but that doesn't have to be the case. I'm just trying to ask my question in the OP, and discuss peoples' answers to discern any utility in their approach.

I am resistant because this is not the first time I've explored this topic. I've had conversations like this for years. I'm told to try stuff, so I do, and it doesn't work. So I'm told to try other stuff, and it doesn't work. So I say it hasn't worked, and I'm given some vague response, so I ask concise questions like "how is this helpful?" or "what truth have you learned from doing this?" and rarely get concise answers back. One problem is that many people get defensive when asked.

Each conversation I have on this topic makes me become more of a materialist. That's not necessarily a bad thing if materialism is the truth. (Well, materialism is kind of boring, but if it's the truth then that's what I want.) Why? Because I'm a very left-brained individual when it comes to this kind of thing, and most of the people that believe in these things seem to be right brained individuals. That leads me to believe a) this might just be materialism and this stuff is in their heads or b) if they are right, we aren't good at communicating because right brained individuals and left brained individuals don't always communicate with each other well.

(Oh, and I would probably say there is a bit of a difference between knowing about metaphysical truth and knowing it experientially.

I kind of agree and disagree at the same time.

As I mentioned in my last post, there is a difference between knowing metaphysical truth and knowing what others believe is the metaphysical truth. As in, reading about Buddhism makes you knowledgeable about Buddhism, not knowledgeable about metaphysical truth, because although Buddhism has now been read about, it may not actually be metaphysical truth.

The only way I can think of discerning metaphysical truth is to experience it, but also have some sort of other validating mechanism to ensure one is not simply on a psychedelic trip. So I'd say that I agree that there is difference between knowing and experiencing, but also disagree because I highly doubt that one can know metaphysical truth without experiencing it.

I also am not entirely sure it's possible to dismiss and lay to rest every permutation of doubt prior to just exploring things a bit... at some point it seems helpful to focus on the experience of the moment from within the self, with the eyes closed... or to begin giving more attention to the feeling state than the thinking state... or try a variety of other approaches. But it is one thing to have theory - knowledge "about" - and another to have practice - the experience itself. All the theory in the world will not guarantee the experience itself. The experience comes through the action.)

I'm not saying I have to have every permutation of doubt erased before trying things.

I'm saying I've already explored things, and it doesn't work. I've repeated that a few times now in this thread. I've tried these things, and when asked how I've tried them, I explain and clarify as much as possible.

I kind of go through cycles. I explore metaphysical stuff, try out a bunch of things, spend time focusing a lot on one path, and find it unhelpful. This leads me to believe it's a fruitless endeavor. So I avoid it for a while, but materialism is boring, so eventually I'm drawn into trying it again. But then of course nothing comes of it, so I go back to not doing it anymore.

[Melchior]

Originally Posted by Valkyrie

Like what?

Go take a stroll outside, play a game of chess, read a novel, visit a pub, etc. Something fun in contrast to your metaphysical boredom.

[Valkyrie]

Originally Posted by Melchior

Go take a stroll outside, play a game of chess, read a novel, visit a pub, etc. Something fun in contrast to your metaphysical boredom.

I do that stuff sometimes.

Strolls outside are kind of boring. They are kind of enjoyable sometimes, but only to a degree. Chess is ok, not particularly thrilling. Novels are good in certain amounts, but that's all. I don't like pubs, I've been to them and do not enjoy myself.

Everyday life just isn't all that interesting. I mean, I would say I have an average amount of happiness- I'm not depressed or anything, but it's just not all that interesting, only semi-satisfying. I'm kind of an adrenaline junkie because only the most intense things excite me, and even then, the law of diminishing returns proves true because the more I do something, the more mundane it becomes.

People that have metaphysical experiences usually report that they are wonderful, beyond anything physical.

[rei]

So this sense of boredom applies to more than just your previous explorations into metaphysics?

What about approaching everything in your day - after committing to just a single day - with a sense of curiosity and playfulness? Pretend you don't know all that you know, explore the texture of the tree on the corner or the patterns in the cracks on the sidewalks?

I would think Eastern approaches like Buddhism lend themselves well to a left-brained nature. It is like you almost expect a peak experience and anything less doesn't count... or that's the impression I get... but you can get to metaphysical truth through less intense moments as well.

You might also try creative expression like producing art to help you get into the right hemisphere. I am unsure whether it makes sense to say the right-brained experience is solely chemicals in the head, but it does seem to match more of what you are interested in. So perhaps try getting in touch with your creativity, inspiration, etc. and that may shift you into a state of being that is more welcoming for this sort of thing.

Metaphysical truth, at least for me, is at times difficult to express concisely - if I feel like I can express it at all. I usually feel like it loses something when I convert it into words because words are a limited form of communication so they seem inadequate to express something more limitless. My own concise advice, which I mentioned already, is less thinking and more feeling - sticking with that over a period of months (to shift things enough after years of thinking more than feeling) is probably something that would yield results. Could even be the sense of boredom is a layer of feeling you create over another layer and yes, that other layer might say hello if you try this the way I suggest, but that other layer might also be creating some kind of interference to the type of experience you're wanting. If that is true, then it saying hello would be progress because you could work through it and release that source of interference. (all hypothetical, though)

After years of testing as an INTP (about 20 years, in fact), switching to Feeling as my primary way of interfacing with the world was probably one of the primary triggers for increased progress on a metaphysical path. I offer it because it worked for me, once I stopped telling myself feeling things was stupid. (a bit of an exaggeration there, but I did have resistance to being a feeling self)

[Valkyrie]

Originally Posted by rei

So this sense of boredom applies to more than just your previous explorations into metaphysics?

Yes.

What about approaching everything in your day - after committing to just a single day - with a sense of curiosity and playfulness? Pretend you don't know all that you know, explore the texture of the tree on the corner or the patterns in the cracks on the sidewalks?

Ok I'll try it.

I would think Eastern approaches like Buddhism lend themselves well to a left-brained nature.

That's how I've approached them but in my opinion that's not necessarily the case. I mean, I'd say eastern approaches are more logical than the western conceptions of religion, but I still wouldn't say I find that they work with my brain's left side.

The problem with Buddhism is it's so vague and un-empirical. The sayings are like, "the consciousness of no consciousness...". And the Zen Buddhist Koans are basically the exact opposite of left-brain thought, specifically designed to be answered without rationality. Moreover, the Buddha took a Middle Path even through metaphysical truths- when asked metaphysical truths he would take a middle ground or refuse to answer, claiming that such things were only distractions. But at the same time he would make claims of various metaphysical truths when he saw fit, which seems contradictory.

Some forms of Hinduism may seem a little bit more logical, but there's still no way that I've found to determine whether they are true or not.

It is like you almost expect a peak experience and anything less doesn't count... or that's the impression I get... but you can get to metaphysical truth through less intense moments as well.

I wouldn't say that. I expect something greater than zero. Or more specifically something more than physical.

You might also try creative expression like producing art to help you get into the right hemisphere. I am unsure whether it makes sense to say the right-brained experience is solely chemicals in the head, but it does seem to match more of what you are interested in. So perhaps try getting in touch with your creativity, inspiration, etc. and that may shift you into a state of being that is more welcoming for this sort of thing.

I make sketches and write stories.

Since I was a little kid my parents always tried to get me to be good at instruments but I never was, even with years of practice. I don't have a knack for music at all.

Metaphysical truth, at least for me, is at times difficult to express concisely - if I feel like I can express it at all. I usually feel like it loses something when I convert it into words because words are a limited form of communication so they seem inadequate to express something more limitless. My own concise advice, which I mentioned already, is less thinking and more feeling - sticking with that over a period of months (to shift things enough after years of thinking more than feeling) is probably something that would yield results. Could even be the sense of boredom is a layer of feeling you create over another layer and yes, that other layer might say hello if you try this the way I suggest, but that other layer might also be creating some kind of interference to the type of experience you're wanting. If that is true, then it saying hello would be progress because you could work through it and release that source of interference. (all hypothetical, though)

After years of testing as an INTP (about 20 years, in fact), switching to Feeling as my primary way of interfacing with the world was probably one of the primary triggers for increased progress on a metaphysical path. I offer it because it worked for me, once I stopped telling myself feeling things was stupid. (a bit of an exaggeration there, but I did have resistance to being a feeling self)

Believe it or not, I test as an INFJ. Feeling, not thinking, though it's usually close to the middle.

Why? Because it's not always a dichotomy. In terms of finding things out, I'm a thinker. When people make statements that they cannot back up, I see little reason to believe them. When people can't express their ideas logically, it gets under my skin. I work in finance, with numbers all day. Yet on the other side of the coin when it comes to ethics and relationships, I'm a feeler. I am good at understanding what people are feeling, am good at expressing feelings, and when it comes to ethical dilemmas I go with what feels right over what is logically utilitarian. A romantic ending to a movie makes me cry.

I don't know how to change personality types. Plus I like some aspects of the thinking personality. If there is any objective truth at all in metaphysics, shouldn't it be reasonably accessible to both thinkers and feelers? But I mean back to the changing of types, I don't know how I could become more of a feeler than I currently am. I'm not actively repressing my feeling half, in fact according to tests its slightly dominant. All thinking would be boring, and I enjoy the rush of feelings.

[Michael Chui]

Originally Posted by Valkyrie

I'm interested in knowing metaphysical truth for my own sake. Not specifically to share, not that I have anything against sharing. I mean that's the point of the thread- how can one discern metaphysical truth?

You don't discern it. You make it up. And then you decide whether or not to keep it. That's how truth works. As Solipsist has been pointing out, truth is not out there; it is inside you. Because you make it up.

How you make that decision to keep is up to you. Some people use personal experience. Other people compare it against apparent reality. Some people go for internal, logical consistency. Other people look for resonance. You can mix and match as you prefer.

But you start by making it up. Or by copying someone else's made up stuff.

[Acting Like Godot]

Originally Posted by Valkyrie

But what I'm trying to ask as clearly and concisely as possible is what metaphysical truth is focusing on the now supposed to bring me? My overall question for this thread is to ask how to discern metaphysical truth. Focusing on the now was brought up as a method, and I'm simply asking how that method discerns metaphysical truth.

Well .... The primary benefit of focusing on the now is not to discern metaphysical truth. The primary benefit is the alleviation of your own suffering.

Why? Because the most common forms of human suffering - eg fear, worry, anger, resentment etc - stems from thoughts of the past, or thoughts of the future.

Nevertheless, I believe that focusing on the now can ultimately help you to discern at least some metaphysical truth. Eg the metaphysical truth about how the reality we normally regard as "reality" is mostly illusion (because it's so heavily layered with our own thoughts about the past + present).