Dec 19, 2019, 7:03 PM
The question is only whether metaphysics = paradigm. As far as I know it does (must). So to say there is no such thing as metaphysics, is only to say that there is no such thing as relativism. In other words, there is either a most parsimonious paradigm for the description of reality or their isn’t.
As far as I know there is always and everywhere one most parsimonious and most complete paradigm, and that discipline we call science slowly converges upon it. And that this most parsimonious paradigm always and everywhere will provide decidability between less coherent (complete and consistent) paradigms.
And the current limitation on progress in physical science is our present failure (or challenge of) creating a language (mathematics or logic of) of geometric rather than point (positional) relations.
The more obvious demands of protein modeling appear to be working toward a solution to that problem more so than physicists.
As far as I know social science (cooperation, law, politics) is solved because it’s at human scale. As far as I know economics remains unsolved and is a harder problem than the transition from positional (curves) to geometric (shapes), if for no other reason than we simply can’t create consistent categories so are stuck with bayesian categorization, prediction, falsification, and adaptation, with symmetries (which are showing up in certain economic patterns) providing the intermediary measures that the original data itself cannot.
So, I don’t see the meaning of a discipline of metaphysics other than the rather obvious demarcation between deflationary (logical, operational, empirical, science) and fictional (allegorical) grammars (vocabularies). And it certainly appears to do nothing more than that.
The underlying conflict being that the most parsimonious language launders information present in experience. And as we have seen the empathic vs analytic difference in demand for priority on one hand, and a desire for psychological sedation (suppression, mindfulness,) on the other.
And from my tests over the past two years in particular that (masculine vs feminine cognition ) appears to be impossible to resolve. Which as far as I know is the source of the conflict of the present age, and what’s driving the incentive to separate (or dominate).