Metaphysics or Word Play?

How Many Heads Do you Have?

Borrowing a joke (or a profundity?) from Bertrand Russell's Our Knowledge of the External World , I will now demonstrate that the reader has two heads. According to common sense, and the consensus of most (Occidental) philosophers, we exist "inside" an "objective universe," or -- to say otherwise -- the "objective universe" exists "outside" us. Very few people have ever doubted this. Those who have doubted it have arrived, inevitable, at highly eccentric conclusions.

Well, then, avoiding eccentricity and accepting the conventional view, how do we know anything about that "external universe?" How do we perceive it? (For convenience, I will consider only the sense of sight in what follows. The reader can check for himself, or herself, that the same logic applies if one changes the terms and substitutes hearing or any of our other senses.)

We see objects in the "external universe" through our eyes and then make pictures -- models -- of them in our brains. The brain "interprets" what the eye transmits as energy signals. (For now, we will ignore the data that shows that the brain makes a gamble that it can interpret these signals.) Again, very few Occidentals have doubted this, and those who have doubted it arrived at strange and incredible alternatives. So, then, we live "inside" an "external universe" and make a picture or model of it "inside" our brains, by adding together, or synthesising, and interpreting, our pictures or models of parts of the universe called "objects". Then, it follows that we never know the "external universe" and it "objects" at all. We Know the model of the "external universe" inside our brains, which exist inside our heads. In that case, everything we see, which we think of as existing externally, actually exists internally, inside our heads. But we have not arrived at solipsism, remember. We still assume the "external universe" from which we started. We have merely discovered that we cannot see it or know it. We see a model of it inside our heads, and in daily life forget this and act as if the model exists outside our heads -- i.e., as if (1) the model and the universe occupy the same area of space (as our map that tries show "all" about Dublin would occupy the same space as Dublin) and (2) this space exists "outside." But the model and the universe do not occupy the same space and the space where where the model exists can only be located "inside" our brains, which exists inside our heads.

We now realize that, while the universe exists outside, the model exists inside, and therefore occupies much, much less space than the universe. The "real universe" then exists "outside" but remains unexperienced, perhaps unknown. That which we do experience and know (or think we know) exists in local networks of electro-chemical bonds in our brains. Again, if the reader cares to challenge any part of this, he or she should try to imagine an alternative explanation of perception. It will appear, or has always appeared to date, that any and all such alternatives sound not only queerer than this but totally unbelievable to "people of common sense."

Well to proceed, we have now an "external universe," very large (comparatively speaking) and a model of same, much smaller (comparatively speaking), the former "outside" us and the latter "inside" us. Otherwise, I could not get up from my chair, walk to the door, go down the hall and accurately locate the kitchen and get another cup of coffee from something I identify as a Coffee Maker.

But where does our head exists? Well, our head obviously exists "inside" the "external universe" and "outside" our brain which contains the model of the "external universe." But since we never see or experience the "external universe" directly, and only see our model of it, we only perceive our heads as part of the model, which exists inside us. Certainly, our perceived head cannot exists apart from our perceived body as long as we remain alive, and our perceived body (including head) exists inside our perceived universe. Right?

Thus, the head we perceive exists inside some other head we do not, and cannot, perceive. The second head contains our model of the universe, our model of this galaxy, our model of this solar system, our model of Earth, our model of this continent, our model of this city, our model of our home,our model of ourselves and atop our model of ourselves a model of our head. The model of our head thus occupies much less space than our "real" head.

Think about it. Retire to your study, unplug the phone, lock the door and carefully examine each step of this argument in succession, noting what absurdities appear if you question any individual step and try an alternative.

Let us, for Jesus sake and for all our sakes, at least attempt to clarify hoe we can have two heads. Our perceived head exists as part (a very small part) of our model of the universe, which exists inside our brain. We have proven that, have we not? Our brain, however, however exists inside our second head -- our "real" head, which contains our whole model of the universe, including our perceived head.

In short, our perceived head exists inside our real head which exists inside the real universe.

Thus, we can name our two heads -- we have a "real" head outside the perceived universe and a "perceived head" inside the perceived universe, and our "real" head now appears, not only much bigger than our perceived head, but bigger than our perceived universe. And, since we cannot know or perceive the "real" universe directly, our "real" head appears bigger than the only universe we do know and perceive -- our perceived universe, inside our perceived head.

The Metaphysical System
How unsuspected metaphysical assumptions control us, and how to undermine this control...

"Metaphysics is about what there really is"
The Bluffer’s Guide to Philosophy

Metaphysical musings about "what things really are" have been called "meaningless" by many modern thinkers. For example, consider these metaphysical statements:

"God is a gas" (Alan Partridge, Radio Norwich DJ)
"Saddam Hussein is evil" (President Fraudulence)
"Modern art is crap" (Phil O. Stein, BBC head)

How do you verify statements about the "true reality" (or "identity", or "essence") of God, Saddam Hussein or modern art? According to some people (eg the Logical Positivists), only verifiable statements have meaning, and metaphysics tends to produce unverifiable statements.

For example, how do you verify that modern art "is" (or isn’t) crap? Until somebody invents a Crap-o-Meter, the "crapness" remains a subjective evaluation – nobody can objectively detect "essence of crap" inside art.

What about "God is a gas"? We can verify gas, but not "God". And even statements such as "nitrogen is a gas" look dubious, since nitrogen "is" a liquid too.

Similarly, the statement "Saddam Hussein is evil" seems unverifiable, and therefore meaningless. So what can we verify? "Saddam gave an order to torture X people on date Y". We could verify that with documentary evidence. Prosecuting people under international law doesn’t require metaphysics.
How Metaphysics Controls Us

For most of us, our habitual language expresses unconscious metaphysical assumptions. And since our language tends to program our beliefs about "reality", we perceive reality in terms of metaphysics. This makes us act stupid.

A lot of western metaphysics derives from Plato and Aristotle. Let’s call this unfortunate Platonic/Aristotelian legacy "essentialism". Essentialism views reality in terms of block-like entities inhabited by "true essences". So, for example, the essence of "evil" inhabits the entity Saddam Hussein. Therefore, Saddam "really is" evil.

Anything that makes us act stupidly without knowing it, controls us. Essentialism makes us act stupidly by the process of GIGO (Garbage In, Garbage Out). If our incoming perceptions consist of block-entities with "true essences", our resulting thoughts won’t exhibit much complexity, flexibility or subtlety.

For example, if we perceive a human block-entity with a "dumb asshole" essence approaching, we act accordingly (like a monkey smelling an enemy). But if we perceive that this person merely behaved in "asshole" fashion in the past, after having a hard day, we might act more intelligently.

Abandoning the habit of metaphysical essentialism not only raises IQ, it also helps us feel better emotionally. Imagine being surrounded by people who "really are" bastards, bitches, liars, cheats, assholes, etc. Now imagine being surrounded by people who contain no such "bad" essences/identities, but who only behave part-time in ways we dislike.

(Note: as an amateur satirist, I can say that politicians "are" Stupid Assholes without contradicting what I preach in this article).

On a more serious note, many unpleasant "isms" (eg fascism, racism, sexism) arise from the perception that some individuals "really are" just units of a group essence/identity. We could eradicate all such "isms" at the level of perception, given an education which removes metaphysical essentialism from language – something to bear in mind for people who think philosophy "really is" nothing to do with the real world.
How to Undermine Metaphysics

"A change in language can transform our appreciation of the cosmos"
– Benjamin Lee Whorf

Over the last two centuries many strategies have emerged for undermining the metaphysical control system: Existentialism, Pragmatism, Instrumentalism, Deconstruction, General Semantics, Surrealism, etc. You could almost regard it as the major intellectual "conspiracy" of the 20th century.

Many fields besides philosophy have adopted this trend to a greater or lesser degree: modern science, psychology, sociology, anthropology, literature, etc. Unfortunately the fields that need it most – politics and religion/ideology – seem to have ignored it.

Let’s look at two popular strategies, one difficult and one easy: Deconstruction (difficult) and E-Prime (easy).
Deconstruction

In seeking "essential truth", metaphysicians want a solid foundation, a fundamental grounding of "truth" at a central point. With this centre/origin fixed, they also need to define its opposite: the false/peripheral.

Everything then fits into binary opposites, with the first term articulating the fundamental, positive, true, solid "ground" – and the second term representing the negative, false, derivative, deficient, lacking, "dilution" or "corruption":

Being – Non-being
Presence – Absence
Good – Evil
Life – Death
Cause – Effect
Light – Dark
Strong – Weak
Pure – Impure
Simple – Complex
Original – Imitation

In this metaphysical system, the "negative" secondary term comes after the original term. The "primary", the "good", the "true" always comes first. Then the corruption follows. Politically and socially this translates into the belief that:

"Everything is turning to shit"

Like many 21st Century reactionaries, Plato believed in an original "Golden Age", with nothing but degeneration and corruption to expect in the future. You can see how this type of metaphysics might correlate with political conservatism.

A metaphysics of binary opposites limits logical reasoning to either/or choices. Either something "is" strong, or it "is" weak; either it "is" good or it "is" evil, etc. No in-between, no "maybe", no paradox, no irony.

Deconstruction subverts metaphysics by disrupting its foundations and dislodging its certitudes. How? By throwing a Zombie in the works. Zombies don’t fit into the metaphysical either/or categories of "alive or dead". And what about "inside or outside"? The force which controls a Zombie – "is" it inside or outside?

Metaphysical difficulties arise not just with "real" Zombies but also with glazed-eyed consumers in supermarkets (for example). Can you say with certainty whether zombie-like consumers "really are" hypnotised? Do you know anyone who "is" unhypnotised?

Deconstruction derails, destabilises, corrupts and contaminates metaphysical language. And that "really is bad" from the metaphysician’s perspective. But only metaphysics asks what deconstruction "really is".
E-Prime

"Whatever you say a thing is, it isn’t"
– Alfred Korzybski

English Prime, or E-prime for short, arose out of General Semantics. It looks like standard English, but with the words "is", "are", "was", "would be" (and other cognates of "is") removed. Removing the "is" (of identity) from language effectively eradicates metaphysical statements about what things "really are".

For example, the sentence: "Fred is a commie" would appear in E-Prime as something like: "I regard Fred as a commie". E-Prime expresses what we perceive and think about things, rather than what things "really are".

E-Prime makes sense when applied to science – eg the argument over whether an electron "really is" a wave or a particle:

Standard English:
"The electron is a particle"
"The electron is a wave"

E-Prime:
"The electron appears as a particle to instrument A"
"The electron appears as a wave to instrument B"

The two standard English statements contradict, whereas the E-Prime statements seem complementary. E-Prime makes sense of emotional "human" issues too:

"That film is sexist" (standard English)
"That film seems sexist to me" (E-Prime)

With standard English, debates often degenerate into hysterical "Yes, it is!", "No it isn’t!!" type arguments (monkey metaphysics). E-Prime seems to avoid this.

Who knows: in the future, E-Prime might even help prevent a war.