Are you trying to say I am the me and I'm also the chair I'm sitting in because we are both composed of matter?
No, because you are both composed of the same matter, and there is no break between you and the chair at the finest level of resolution.
Which conjugation of metaphysical are you using, If it is "essential" physical then terms of matter doesn't mean anything.
Well I don't really know thedope, how many "conjugations of metaphysical" are there? LOL, I thought I was approaching this on very simple terms but apparently it's become more convoluted than I could ever envision (as usual). I await Mr. Writer's reply.
met·a·phys·i·cal [mèttə fízzik'l] adj 1. relating to metaphysics: relating to the philosophical study of the nature of being and beings or a philosophical system resulting from such study 2. speculative: based on speculative reasoning and unexamined assumptions that have not been logically examined or confirmed by observation 3. abstract: extremely abstract or theoretical metaphysical subjects removed from everyday life 4. incorporeal: without material form or substance the metaphysical realm of pure thought 5. supernatural: originating not in the physical world but somewhere outside it a metaphysical explanation of beauty and goodness 6. arts Another spelling of Metaphysical met·a·phys·ics [mèttə fízziks] n 1. philosophy of being: the branch of philosophy concerned with the study of the nature of being and beings, existence, time and space, and causality (takes a singular verb) 2. underlying principles: the ultimate underlying principles or theories that form the basis of a particular field of knowledge (takes a plural verb) Symmetry is part of the metaphysics of quantum mechanics. 3. abstract thinking: abstract discussion or thinking (takes a singular verb) [Mid-16th century. < medieval Latin metaphysica (plural) < medieval Greek (ta) metaphusika "(the) metaphysics" < ta meta ta phusika "the (works of Aristotle) after the 'Physics'"]
Beyond the quark, beyond the Planck scale, all the way to the frothing quantum chaos that underlies all reality, where spacetime is up for grabs and matter is formed and unformed randomly and unceasingly. But even at deeper levels of resolution, metaphysical levels . . . Are you arguing against the idea that the universe is one continuum? It appears as discrete separate realities only in specific contexts where our observational apparatus is wired to give this impression so that conscious action is possible, consciousness presumably being a non-local emergent phenomena of our nervous system. The chair doesn't look like you, so you don't do something stupid like try and feed it the food you need to eat. But in the realest of senses, this is a hallucination that your brain has evolved to provide you with, really there is no point at which you and chair are divided . . . it is a gradient.
Alls I'm sayin is, we have to define what a 'you' is, and when you go talking about how I'm the same as the chair because there is a sea of materialism that underlies all of reality, I have to question what 'you' truly means. What I know is that "I" am aware of the chair and my own body not on a quark level, but on the level that I can perceive the nature of my own physical/mental boundaries and that of the chair, and on that level, whatever "I" am is definitely not the chair. I mean, of course there must be something under and above all of this. Reality is one big fractal, there *must* always be one more layer underneath the last one holding up the former, it's turtles all the way up and down. So in THAT sense, when we say there is a gradient and when we inspect closely enough and zoom in enough to where the chair and myself are inseparable, I do agree, the layer underneath would compose everything, so everything on this layer would indeed share that similarity. However, whatever fundamental sense of self that I have is not identifiable with a foreign chair because I am not functioning from that "denser" or "less dense" layer of reality, "I" am functioning from this layer of reality.
I completely agree. The sense of "Me-ness" flows outward from my awareness, but not outward from my chair. In this framework (turtles et al) psychedelics are then what i have always felt they are intuitively; a sort of 'cheating', a brief hop up or down a level(s), a glimpse into a context of this mundane reality that we are naturally blocked off from in ordinary functioning.
So I guess the question is, is that up-level or that down-level any more meaningful or real than this one, and does hopping around really matter at all? The nature of the fractal leads me to believe that the answer is no.