My Metaphysical Framework and Orientation

The following is my attempt to outline my current metaphysical model and framework. I hope it sparks an ongoing discussion/collaboration.

To set the tone, I am using this as an opportunity to formalise my thoughts into writing in a structured way – and though my voice can gravitate towards something prescriptive, dogma is anything but my intent. I invite you to disagree, challenge and offer your own perspectives. If the outcome of this writing is that I am privy to perspectives that are so far unknown to me – that is a positive outcome in my books.

I will structure this writing into three parts.

First, establish a framework which answers “Why even bother?” with all this metaphysics.

Secondly, once the above is established, I will provide a rundown of where I have gotten thus far (in terms of a proposed aligned way to orient in the world) and will propose a model to unify external and internal reality.

The third will ground us back into the real-world applications.

Note: By metaphysics, I simply mean our assumptions about the nature of ourselves and reality. Are we biological machines or something more? Do our choices matter? Is meaning discovered, created, or absent altogether? We may never know the final answers, but the positions we adopt inevitably influence how we orient ourselves towards life.

Why does this matter?

The first question I must answer is “what is the point of metaphysical engagement?” Of this writing? Does not the materialist view suffice? Surely building on fundamental axioms and diverging into increasing complexity from solid ground is the best (or even only) approach?

This is the scientific method. And it has brought about the enlightenment.

You may challenge: “What has god-seeking given the world but war and tribal identity? Conflict and chaos? From the dimming of the intellect under the stern fist of religious authority?”

These are all fair criticisms.

The materialist view (or something akin to the scientific method) as a source of information to live and abide by is extremely important. It is something akin to reason from first principles. Another way to frame it is a bottom-up approach to solving the big questions. Start with the most fundamental axioms and build. Each successive step following and reproducible from the previous.

What is also possible, however, is the top-down approach. Both exist and both MUST meet in the middle in and of the fact that they exist. A scientist is first and foremost an observer of phenomena.

I suggest that subjective experience must be accounted for, because it exists. And if it exists (because we are perceiving it) it can be traced backwards and is a source of information. The scientific method must eventually answer for all that exists, obviously, because it exists.

The objective and subjective must eventually integrate for a combined universal law. And in fact, they are not in opposition to one another. Our models are just incomplete if one cannot be accounted for.

If we acknowledge that the subjective experience is a source of information (in and of the fact that it exists) we can apply reason to it.

And if one of our goals is to live well, we must wrestle with the subjective experience and understand how it is constructed. It is quite clear that if two people experience the same external phenomena, each can have entirely different subjective internal experiences. The proportionality of suffering is not the same.

Taking influence from Eastern yogic traditions, I propose to live a full-fledged life in any pursuit – there are four categories which need simultaneous optimisation (this is one model, by no means the only model).

1.     Jnana. Intellectual inquiry/enquiry into Truth. The realm of philosophising one’s way to living well (at least in their own estimation). Cutting through illusions with intellect.

• Important, but insufficient for a complete life. This is the sword of discernment one must always wield.

2.     Bhakti. Devotion. Love

• Without devotion to whatever is in front of you, be it work, exercise, writing, learning -> one will not move. Devotion is the idea of using your emotions to invest in what is in front of you.

  
  

• The shadow is blind devotion, which is mitigated by Jnana. Discernment first, devotion second.

  
  

• But without investing one’s heart, one can never truly live. The poets, the minstrels, the artists all dance with devotion.

3.     Karma. Action without commentary.

• From this state of Truth orientation (Jnana) and Love orientation (Bhakti) one acts cleanly. Without commentary.

  
  

• The suffering from any action comes from the resistance to the action, not the action itself. This applies in all examples. Doing the dishes, studying, writing something. The action itself is neutral. The generated resistance causes the suffering. Even pain. As raw sensation, it is just sensation. The resistance to the sensation (which developed for good evolutionary reason) is the cause of suffering, not the sensation itself. Fully dissolving into the present moment (what is in front of you) with equanimity seems to be the solution to acting cleanly without suffering. From a state of truth and love.

4.     Raja/Kriya. Some kind of formalised meditation or introspective practice. To train attention, equanimity and undo the grooves of habit/compulsion that unconsciously leave us a slave to the whims of the wind.

• There are many roads in this path, but it will not be my focus in this paper.

I propose that the journey to self-realization (at the bare minimum one can call this living a better life in one’s own estimation) is balancing these four domains effectively. Not leaving one behind.

Orienting in a direction is to me, the heart of metaphysics. And necessary for any meaningful pursuit of anything. Particularly liberation.

Toward a Unified Account of Reality and Experience

I don’t begin with belief. I begin with what cannot be denied.

There is is-ness.

Something is.

Strip away everything that changes - body, mind, memory, identity, culture, even the sense of “me” - and what remains is not an object, not a thing, but the fact of being itself. Not a concept, but that within which all concepts appear.

This is not “my awareness.” The “my” is already a construction. What remains prior to that is simply what is.

From this starting point, the traditional split between mind and matter becomes unstable. We observe two domains:

• There is structure (the objective world, describable by science)

• There is experience (the subjective, lived reality)

Neither reduces cleanly to the other. So instead of trying to derive one from the other, I propose that reality is a single process with two inseparable aspects. Structure (external) and experience (internal).  Not two substances. Not reducible. Not separate.

Localisation and the Self

I propose that experience does not appear uniformly. It appears locally. Certain structures (such as the human brain) instantiate a bounded perspective. This gives rise to a centre, a narrative and a sense of ownership.

What we call the “self” is this constructed layer. Functional, but not fundamental. The infinite is bounded into local experience through structure. An interpretation which I favour is that we are the universe experiencing itself. Why? Because we are a subset of the universe. And we have experience.

Now. If the self is constructed, it can loosen. Through introspection, meditation, or direct inquiry, the boundaries can soften and identification can drop. What remains is not omniscience, but clarity. No longer a separate knower. Just what is, as it is. This does not collapse the world. Localisation still functions. Structure still constrains. But the ownership dissolves.

Tribal identities are evidentially the cause of conflict. Our intellect works within the bounds of our identity. Everyone is logical in their own minds. A warmongering imperialist - from their own perspective, is doing a fantastic thing. But their strong identification towards an ideology/group makes their intellect work within those fundamental parameters. The solution to falling victim to this bias (which will veil our clarity and distort perception) is to expand our identity into something more universal. Rather than have most of our identity be a function of the location we were born, I suggest to expand one’s identity to the cosmos itself (all that is). Then your intellect will function for all that is. If done properly, I suggest that the result is clarity.

There is a strong argument that consciousness is the most fundamental substrate of the universe (rather than emergent from complex informational systems). A metaphysical claim within certain yogic traditions is that coalesced consciousness is energy. Coalesced energy again is matter (the energy-matter link of course, is well established in science).

I initially called consciousness the fundamental substrate. But more precisely, the ground is not a thing, not even “consciousness” in the usual sense. It is pure is-ness. Featureless, prior to subject and object.

What we call consciousness is the first articulation of that ground when manifestation occurs. From there I propose that experience and structure co-arise. The world and awareness unfold together.

What are the implications?

Consciousness is not produced from nothing, nor is it everywhere equally expressed. It is an intrinsic capacity of reality, locally instantiated through structure. AI or other systems may, in principle, instantiate experience - but not necessarily personhood. Ethics shifts naturally. If the self is not fundamentally separate, compassion is not moral, it is structural.

Orientation:

The aim is not to know everything, though perhaps this is the most fundamental human desire. The aim is to see clearly, act from truth, and move with compassion. There is a drive to know. To understand, to unify. This can be seen as reality folding back on itself. But life is not just to be understood. It is also to be lived. To integrate the subjective with the objective.

Final Position

Reality is a single, undivided ground. Pure “IS-ness” which manifests as both structure and experience. Structure localises experience into perspective. The self is a functional construct within that. Dissolving identification reveals underlying unity without removing the constraints of structure.

What this means for ME

In moments where the ego (sense of self) dissolves, even briefly, what remains is not emptiness but clarity. Effortless being. A recognition that truth, awareness and being are inseparable.

The individual self – the ego, the ahamkara - is not an error. It exists; therefore it belongs within existence. But I suggest that it is not fundamental. It is a filter. The ego is a structured culmination of memory (biological, evolutionary, cultural, personal). This accumulated structure shapes perception into a localized node - giving rise to the experience of separateness.

When identification with this structure loosens, the filter thins. And through that thinning, unity is perceived. Truth becomes increasingly self-evident experientially. Compassion arises naturally. Not as a moral command, but because of clarity.

I propose that if one truly sees the whole, one cannot help but understand others. Their conditioning, their suffering, their actions. This is empathy. And from empathy, compassion emerges. Truth is the primary organizing principle, and love does not compete with truth. It unfolds from it. When truth is allowed to stand unobstructed, love is what remains in relation. The ego, then, is not to be destroyed, but understood. It becomes a functional mask to be worn lightly.

This allows for full participation in life without being caught in its psychological weight. This is detached involvement. This is “Leela.”

Spiritual inquiry to me, must answer the fundamental question: How do I live well?

And I propose that the answer is not found in belief. I don’t believe in believing. Believing is assuming something one does not know. Instead, hold probabilities of what might be true from one’s lived experience and walk forwards. Holding all positions lightly and open to new information. This is the seeker of truth. It is an injustice to collapse positions prematurely. Beliefs are tools. Provisional and revisable.

I propose one must question everything, especially oneself. Orient toward truth and remain rooted in love. This orientation shapes internal experience. And internal state shapes action. And action shapes the world one inhabits. The external world is not fully within control, but internal orientation is.

I propose that Truth exists. Not as something to own, but as something to orient towards. If I start lying, to myself or others, the whole system breaks. Because then I can’t trust my own perception. And if I can’t trust that nothing I build has integrity. So honesty isn’t a value I’ve chosen arbitrarily. It’s structural. Without it, everything distorts.

Subjective experience isn’t optional. It is part of the dataset. Body and mind are not distractions from truth; they are where it is encountered. Ignoring them in favour of abstraction is incomplete. At the same time, I don’t suggest collapse into pure feeling or pure logic. Both top-down and bottom-up matter. One must hold them together, lightly, and let reality correct you.

So the task seems to become cultivating a state that allows for the clearest perception and the most aligned action. Individuality remains, but as expression, not identity. Each person is a node. A localized configuration of memory and experience within universal consciousness. To detach from that memory is not to erase it, but to stop mistaking it for the whole.

I suspect orientations of this kind may be necessary for addressing many of the problems of the modern world. Raising class consciousness is important. But all real change must emerge from the individual. And the motivation of “saving the world” and “equality” aren’t very motivating from an individual’s perspective, particularly for those who are a victim of existing power structures. Benevolence can overflow from those with plenty, but the hungry man wants his belly full. Call this Maslow’s Hierarchy of Needs, animal brain, etc.

But one is at their best, in their own experience, when they are truthful and loving. Their own subjective experience of life will improve. Saving the world is but a consequence of the individual seeing clearly. Of loosening the hold of ego. Of saving oneself. Of self-inquiry. Of transcending the animal brain into conscious action rather than unconscious reaction.

And life is lived.

Fully, but lightly.

Engaged, but not entangled.

Truthful, and therefore loving.