throopw@dg_rtp.UUCP (Wayne Throop) (03/09/86)
[ I've broadened the newsgroups to include net.nlang, and pose the
question as a word-derivation question to the nlinguists at large.
(You know... as opposed to the captive ones you normally see... :-)
When did "metaphysics" aquire the meaning "occultism" (rather
than the more proper meaning of "the study of the nature of
being and reality").
History of the query and my speculation below. ]
> In the Short Story *Elsewhen* [...] there is this passage:
>
> I've been gathering data on all sorts of phenomena that run
> contrary to orthadox psychological theory -- all the junk that
> goes under the general name of metaphysics -- telepathy, [etc etc]
>
> Later on the same page there is a switch. Metaphysics is called
> metapsychics. [...]
> I wonder if it is a typo. My copy is a first edition -- i will have
> to check later ones.
Hmmm. I don't have my copy to hand, it seems to be out on my
"lent/lost" program. But it sounds a lot like a typeo.
> If it is a typo, then the confusion may have
> started with Heinlein. On the other hand, if metapsychics'' was
> commonly used at that time, it is probably a common mistake which
> has occurred more than once.
I suspect that Heinlein coined the term "metapsychics" himself, and I'd
be surprised if it made its way into common use.
But... I looked up metaphysics in the some dictionaries. I find that
"metaphysical" can mean "supernatural" in all of them. And in one, an
archaic meaning of "metaphysics" meaning "occultism" was listed.
I wonder if what happened was that the wave of occultism in England in
the late 1800s and early 1900s appropriated the word. The dictionary
that lists the archaic meaning is the oldest one (published in the 40s,
I think). The newer ones don't mention it, so this meaning may have
been going out about then.
> Laura Creighton hoptoad!laura toad@lll-crg.arpa
--
Wayne Throop at Data General, RTP, NC
<the-known-world>!mcnc!rti-sel!dg_rtp!throopwjohn@cisden.UUCP (John Woolley) (03/12/86)
I can find no use of the word "metapsychics" outside the Heinlein story Laura Creighton mentions, and my dictionary. (G&C Merriam's 2nd Unabridged Dictionary of the American Language, with postwar supplement -- a really wonderful dictionary.) "Metaphysical" began to be misused to mean "non-physical" about the 17th century or so. You occasionally run into the contrast "physical and metaphysical" in 17th- and 18th-century things. The earliest use I can find of "metaphysical" to mean something like "occult", "weird", "magical" is in 1590 or so, in Christopher Marlowe's _Tamburlaine_the_Great_, Part 2, Act 4, scene 3, beginning at line 59. Olympia is speaking, and refers to "An ointment which a cunning alchemist Distilled from the purest balsamum And simplest extracts of all minerals, In which the essential form of marble stone, Tempered by science metaphysical And spells of magic from the mouths of spirits, With which if thou but 'noint thy tender skin Nor pistol, sword, nor lance can pierce your flesh." Shakespeare also uses "metaphysical" to mean "preternatural" (as Dr. Johnson, the greatest man who ever lived, notes in his unsurpassable _Dictionary_), as in the passage from _Macbeth_, Act 1, scene 5 (date probably 1606), where Lady Macbeth refers to the witches' help as "metaphysical": "Hie thee hither That I may pour my spirits in thine ear, And chastise with the valour of my tongue All that impedes thee from the golden round Which fate and metaphysical aid doth seem To have thee crown'd withal." But this use is rare until the 20th century. Notice that "occult" has lost its meaning, too, in much the same way. It properly means "hidden" or "secret", and has come to mean "weird" or "strange". The eternal Gnosis has been replaced by the Bermuda Triangle! -- Peace and Good!, Fr. John Woolley "Compared to what I have seen, all that I have written is straw." -- St. Thomas
ellis@spar.UUCP (Michael Ellis) (03/14/86)
>I've broadened the newsgroups to include net.nlang, and pose the >question as a word-derivation question to the nlinguists at large. Metaphysics originally meant `the book following Aristotle's Physics'. In Greek, the prefix "meta-" meant {after, along with, through}, often conveying the notion of change or transformation. >When did "metaphysics" aquire the meaning "occultism" (rather >than the more proper meaning of "the study of the nature of >being and reality").. >But... I looked up metaphysics in the some dictionaries. I find that >"metaphysical" can mean "supernatural" in all of them. And in one, an >archaic meaning of "metaphysics" meaning "occultism" was listed. > >I wonder if what happened was that the wave of occultism in England in >the late 1800s and early 1900s appropriated the word. The dictionary >that lists the archaic meaning is the oldest one (published in the 40s, >I think). The newer ones don't mention it, so this meaning may have >been going out about then. -- Wayne Throope I don't think the meaning of `metaphysics' has changed much since the time when it meant `the study of the nature of being and reality'. What has changed is the fossilization of our so-called `scientific' society, which largely brands anything not fitting into its 19th century cause and effect worldview as incomprehensible, even heretical. To such folk, `What Is' has been fixed for all time by the scientific method; consequently, if metaphysics is not ordinary science, then it must be antiscience, and therefore no better from occultism. Science, having defeated Religion, is now the ultimate arbiter of such matters. Like those in times past brainwashed by Religion, the modern day Scientismists CANNOT EVEN THINK incorrect thoughts, except in terms of extreme charicatures: "If you shirk logical analysis and verifiable evidence, you will become like Jerry Falwell! People like you persecuted Galileo!" Does spirit `exist'? Does virtue `exist'? How about universals? Or mind? Whatever can `ethics' mean? From the conventional scientific view, these are nonsense questions. They are neither verifiable nor falsifiable in any traditional scientific sense. Obviously, such questions are the result of delusion! Metaphysics became taboo during the era of Logical Positivism. The logical positivists, you see, thought they had settled metaphysical questions for all time. If something could not be demonstrated to exist using deductive reason and a empirical method, it was nonsense. There were many reasons logical positivism faded away. First, its advocates had to admit that ethics was as much idle metaphysics as theology. Good science, maybe, but not very enlightening philosophy. Secondly, the beloved verifiability principle itself was not verifiable, and thus, metaphysical. And just how do we decide which entities and axioms are to be accepted as the foundations for reasoning and observation? Deciding what such critical matters might be IS metaphysics. Ultimately, the sciences themselves broke into many factions differing in the extreme concerning metaphysical issues, even (especially?) within specialized fields (eg: QM). Physicists themselves, ironically enough, resurrected metaphysics!! Nonetheless, the vast majority of scientific educators still seem to be caught in a logical positivist stranglehold; `metaphysics' remains a term of derision to the enginerd mentality ignorant of all mathematics, physics, or philosophy beyond that required to bring home a good salary. -michael
cjr@unirot.UUCP (Charles Riordan) (03/15/86)
In article <143@spar.UUCP>, ellis@spar.UUCP (Michael Ellis) writes: > What has changed is the fossilization of our so-called `scientific' society, > which largely brands anything not fitting into its 19th century cause > and effect worldview as incomprehensible, even heretical. To such > folk, `What Is' has been fixed for all time by the scientific method; > consequently, if metaphysics is not ordinary science, then it must be > antiscience, and therefore no better from occultism. > > Science, having defeated Religion, is now the ultimate arbiter of such > matters. Like those in times past brainwashed by Religion, the modern > day Scientismists CANNOT EVEN THINK incorrect thoughts, except in > terms of extreme charicatures: "If you shirk logical analysis and > verifiable evidence, you will become like Jerry Falwell! People like > you persecuted Galileo!" Right on, man! I can see that you and I are of like, mind. These deluded scientismatists THINK they have defeated religion, but obviously they cannot reach into the depths of our minds to know what really happens. They figure that just because we can't "prove" what we say by their overly strict sceintific rules, they've defeated us. I'm glad there are people like you out there who refuse to admit defeat, who won't let the damned scientists let their obsurd notions of "evidence" and "logic" stand in the way of believing the inner truth of your minds. Those guys are probably just nurdy Mr. Spock types anyway. > Does spirit `exist'? Does virtue `exist'? How about universals? Or > mind? Whatever can `ethics' mean? From the conventional scientific view, > these are nonsense questions. They are neither verifiable nor > falsifiable in any traditional scientific sense. Obviously, such > questions are the result of delusion! I see what you mean, man. I guess what you're infering is that calling these questions a result of delusion is a delusion itself! I wish I could write like you do, you make your points so well using sarcasm and other lingual tools. Obviously we make use of these things every day. How could they possibly be delusions? > Metaphysics became taboo during the era of Logical Positivism. The > logical positivists, you see, thought they had settled metaphysical > questions for all time. If something could not be demonstrated to exist > using deductive reason and a empirical method, it was nonsense. > > There were many reasons logical positivism faded away. First, its > advocates had to admit that ethics was as much idle metaphysics as > theology. Good science, maybe, but not very enlightening philosophy. > Secondly, the beloved verifiability principle itself was not > verifiable, and thus, metaphysical. Far out! You really are an insightful dude. I'd prefer being an illogical negativist to being a logical positivist anyday! Who did those guys think they were anyway, denying all those things we hold dear like that? Mind you, I'm only getting this cosmic stuff third hand from my friend Pete, who's studying mystical sciences independently through the California Research Institute of Mystical Philosophy, learning about the great Eastern mystics. He's a disciple of one of them (I guess that makes me a trisciple?) It takes a few good hits before I can get anything out of a conversation with him. > And just how do we decide which entities and axioms are to be accepted > as the foundations for reasoning and observation? Deciding what such > critical matters might be IS metaphysics. > > Ultimately, the sciences themselves broke into many factions differing > in the extreme concerning metaphysical issues, even (especially?) > within specialized fields (eg: QM). Physicists themselves, ironically > enough, resurrected metaphysics!! > > Nonetheless, the vast majority of scientific educators still seem to be > caught in a logical positivist stranglehold; `metaphysics' remains a > term of derision to the enginerd mentality ignorant of all mathematics, > physics, or philosophy beyond that required to bring home a good > salary. Hey, man, now I'm beginning to get bad vibes from you. Maybe you're just some stooge pretending to be hip to the truth for sarcastic purposes. Ignorance of science and mathematics, as you seemed to be saying earlier, is something worth striving for. These disciplines only serve to cloud the minds, preventing the Eastern mind from coming to frution as it is blocked by the dogmatic sceintific thinking of the Western mind. If you are limited by the "scientific method," by logic, by using only your Western mind to think, then you are missing out on the real truth, the truth that comes through to you by believing what you want with your Eastern mind. Your implication that these people should learn MORE mathematics and science tells me where you're really coming from: your dogmatic Western mind! -- Peace, CJ (Charles J. Riordan - unirot!cjr)
eric@chronon.UUCP (Eric Black) (03/17/86)
Doesn't "metaphysicians" refer to the doctor healing him/her/it-self?
#include <all/sorts/of/smileys.pict>
--
Eric Black "Garbage In, Gospel Out"
UUCP: {sun,pyramid,hplabs,amdcad}!chronon!eric
VOICE: (415) 941-0403
US SNAIL: Chronon Computer Corp.
2570 El Camino Real W. Suite 206
Mountain View, CA 94040friesen@psivax.UUCP (Stanley Friesen) (03/18/86)
In article <143@spar.UUCP> ellis@spar.UUCP (Michael Ellis) writes: > > I don't think the meaning of `metaphysics' has changed much since > the time when it meant `the study of the nature of being and reality'. And as such it is a branch of *philosophy*, and is quite distinct from parapsychology. > > What has changed is the fossilization of our `scientific' society, > which largely brands anything not fitting into its 19th century cause > and effect worldview as incomprehensible, even heretical. To such > folk, `What Is' has been fixed for all time by the scientific method; Maybe this is the popular misconception of what science is, but the real thing is antithetical to anything being "fixed for all time". The basis of the scientific method is *modifying* theories and hypotheses to fit new data as it comes in. Anyone dedicated to this principle cannot conssider any conceptual model fixed. > consequently, if metaphysics is not ordinary science, then it must be > antiscience, and therefore no better from occultism. Or it could be philosophy, there are more things in the world than just science and pseudoscience. > > Science, having defeated Religion, is now the ultimate arbiter of such > matters. Like those in times past brainwashed by Religion, the modern > day Scientismists CANNOT EVEN THINK incorrect thoughts, except in > terms of extreme charicatures: "If you shirk logical analysis and > verifiable evidence, you will become like Jerry Falwell! Defeated religion!?!? Science and religion do not even deal with the same issues and questions! Why should the belief that observation supercedes a priori assumptions(the scientific method) have any impact on religious faith? > > Does spirit `exist'? Does virtue `exist'? How about universals? Or > mind? Whatever can `ethics' mean? From the conventional scientific view, > these are nonsense questions. They are neither verifiable nor > falsifiable in any traditional scientific sense. Obviously, such > questions are the result of delusion! No, they are not nonsense questions, they are simply not *scientific* questions, there is a difference. Part of the reason that they philosophical not scientific is that the answers depend on the definitions used. With one set of definitions any of these have one answer and a different under a different set of definitions. -- Sarima (Stanley Friesen) UUCP: {ttidca|ihnp4|sdcrdcf|quad1|nrcvax|bellcore|logico}!psivax!friesen ARPA: ttidca!psivax!friesen@rand-unix.arpa
mmar@sphinx.UChicago.UUCP (Mitchell Marks) (03/20/86)
Wait wait, Sarima (Stanley)! It seems you're overlooking the heavy
irony in Michael Ellis's posting. No, he didn't use smily faces, but the
tone shows up nonetheless -- and anyway, he's not a stranger to the net,
and you could guess what position he'd take. The two of you are on the
same side here, if we boil it down to two sides (though you approach it
differently).
In philosophy, 'metaphysics' is no longer an insult, as it was in some
circles earlier in this century. And I don't just mean in "funny Continental
stuff" either, but in respectable Anglo-American stuff. In that context,
it does not mean theology, it does not mean parapsychology, etc.
Example. From the flap blurb for Parsons's (technical, respectable,
very formal) book _Nonexistent Objects_ : "Using various modern techniques
from logic and the philosophy of language, he formulates a metaphysical
theory of nonexistent objects." I quote the jacket copy because it's
convenient, but the author says the same thing. Neither he nor his publisher
is out to deride his work, or call it airy and sloppy, etc.
--
-- Mitch Marks @ UChicago
...ihnp4!gargoyle!sphinx!mmar