The Metaphysical Man

If a stone sits atop a hill, it will either roll down or stay balanced there according to the immutable laws of physics. As the ground around it erodes slowly, the rock will eventually tilt and then tumble at the exact moment in which the gravitational pull on the mass of the rock becomes greater than the force of the earth holding it in place. There is of course no choice whatsoever on the part of the stone in the matter. The cause of the stone rolling down the hill, and the direction it takes is purely a function of natural law and, were we able to collect perfect data, and virtually infinite amounts, the exact moment of its fall and the course it would take down the hill could have been predicted years, or even ages before it happened. The end effect of the stone rolling down the hill is just a tiny link in a chain of causes and effects stretching back to the beginning of the earth and beyond. In fact the fate of the rock was set irrevocably in place from the very moment of material creation. The laws of physics determined the size shape and atomic mass of its elements millions of years ago and when it fell down the hill it was those same rigid, unchanging laws of physics which determined the precise moment and direction of its plummet. A person observing the rolling stone may not understand all the laws of physics causing it to move, nor have been able to keep track of the infinite variables involved in guiding its course, but this is irrelevant to the fact that the forces moving it are real and do not need his understanding to work. The causes and effects of its motion are fixed and will carry out their processes to their final end, understood by some human observer or not.

If a man sits atop a hill, will he walk down it or stay put according to the same such laws? Or will he walk down the hill in the direction which he chooses?

If the man is nothing more than the material he is made of then he, like the stone, MUST leave the hill in accordance with the laws of physics which control that material. Yes, the equation is infinitely more complex than the relatively simple one determining the direction of the rolling stone, but it is in the end a function of chemical certainty which way the man will walk down the hill. We may not understand all of the chemical processes of the brain, and its decision making process. We may not be able to track and compute the subtle chemical differences between the man who walks down the north side compared to the man who walks down the south side. We may not be able to discover the relationship between sight, sound, touch, or taste and the final decision of the subject, but, if the man is wholly material, our ignorance as to the causes are irrelevant to their certainty. The man’s perception of choice is only a natural effect of the chemical processes which cause it.

The scenario can be reduced to a simple logical syllogism: If all motion and interaction of all material in the universe is circumscribed by the laws of physics, and if the human being is entirely material in nature, then all the motions and interactions of human beings are circumscribed by the laws of physics. Humans have no free will and are absolute slaves to the despotic laws of physics.

But if there is something more to mankind than just the material they are made of…

For free will to exist we must carve out of the human being a vacuum in which it may reside. It cannot exist in our material. If it does exist it can only exist in the nonmaterial, "metaphysical" element of the human soul.
Here is an extremely simple example of purposeful human motion to further illustrate the point: my fingers moving across the keypad of the laptop in front of me. j - There it is. My index finger on my right hand extended slightly and pushed the 'J' key. Why? What is the ultimate original cause of it? The tendons in my finger tightened along the rigid but hinged bones of my finger and this caused the tip of my finger to move downward and out slightly thus depressing the J key of my computer. Well what caused the tendons to tighten? The muscles of my hand and forearm flexed. That motion was in turn caused by neuro-electro stimuli being applied by the nerves which end in those muscles. That small stimuli was coordinated in the Madula Oblongata of the brain so that the needed muscles would flex in the correct order and intensity in order to produce the exact motion needed. The individual stimuli propagated from various parts of the brain involved in fine motor skills, working together with those parts which are responsible for sight, proprial receptors, and hand eye coordination. This is as far back as modern medicine can track the chain of causes, so we continue in the abstract. The material, or chemical chain of causes and effects can only go back so far before reaching a point where the previous cause either lies outside of the human being, or we are forced to assume an uncaused cause within the human being. For those who assume the former the chain of material causes will eventually reach back, as with our rolling stone, to the origins of matter itself. This is the positivists ontology. This is the course of Spinoza, Nietzsche, and Weinberg.

There is however that second assumption; that there is an uncaused cause within the individual which accounts for the ultimate propagation of the neuro-electro stimuli coming from my brain and making my fingers move. Just like Aristotle's unmoved mover argument for the existence of God, any purposeful movement can be traced backward to a metaphysical unmoved mover inside the human - which is the ultimate cause of my finger pushing the J key. The metaphysical action (thought) proceeds and creates the physical action (pushing the key). That unmoved mover of the individual is the “I”. I am the unmoved mover of my soul. I am the god of my choice. I am the ultimate cause in my life. I chose to push the J key, that is why my finger moved. This is the Romantic ontology. It is the course of Plato, Emerson, Henley, and Barfield.

Here is the real kicker in this. The chain of causes leading to the stone rolling down the hill also implies a metaphysical reality. The creation of matter, which to the true positivist is the ultimate origin of all subsequent causes, is explained by theoretical physicists as being the result of a "quantum flux." Far be it from me to attempt an explanation of what that is precisely but as Charles Schroeder has pointed out, the only way that a quantum flux can occur is to have the laws of physics in existence before there was matter to govern. In other words, the principles which govern the material interactions of our universe existed before there was material. So the metaphysical proceeded the physical (as it always does). And so to does the microcosm of the mind mirror the macrocosm of the universe, which is a very Medieval and yet profoundly modern thought.

Which ever version of the chain of causes we pick at this point in our ontological case study is only done on an arbitrary basis. We are at this time still only assuming one version over another without any real reason to do so. But when the question comes to a chain of effects entering from the outside, I think that one version becomes clearly preferable to the other. This is where the relevancy of Barfieldian epistemology really comes clear.

When light enters the eye it sets off a chain reaction of biochemical stimuli much like the one we were discussing above, only in the opposite direction. Instead of propagating in the brain and then exiting it to cause something to happen, this chain of neuro-electric pulses is running from the sensory organs into the brain. The first effect is that the rods and cones transform the light of the visible spectrum into neuro-elctric waves which are transmitted via the optic nerve to the sight centers of the brain. Again this is as far as we are able to ride modern medicine. From here the positivist says "and then we see," as if stating where the nerves lead to is the final bridging step from chemical reaction the phenomenon we call sight. There is no mediating step between the chemical reactions and the sensation humans call sight. I find this to be a great lacuna in the Positivist's epistemology.

Barfield, and many before him as well, said that from that point of chemical stimulation, the imaginative brain must then create a mental metaphor representing what the stimuli is indicating and it is these mental metaphors that we actually "see", or are the end effect which bridge the gap between chemical reactions and actual sight. This goes for all of the five senses in fact. The imaginative mind must create a mental metaphor for the stimulus coming from the ears and this mental metaphor is what we actually "hear" and ditto the senses of taste, smell and even touch. To the Romantic, or Barfieldian, there is no such thing as unmediated perception of any kind. It was with this mediating step, between the material chain of effects and the end effect of sight, which Barfield concerned most of his philosophical writing.

I, as you have probably guessed, believe that the Barfieldian epistemology is much more convincing. However, something is implied in it, though never stated, and I think it bears mentioning. If there is a mediating step between the neuro-electric chain of stimulus and sight, then there must be something to which it is being mediated. Mediation naturally implies a second entity. In fact, if everything we perceive is really a mental metaphor does this not imply that there is something else interpreting these metaphors.

I believe that the very act of perception is itself a powerful argument for the reality of a metaphysical element to the human being.  It is this very real nonmaterial entity which is the self, or I.  It is the originator of our purposeful actions; the fount of our character, thought, and decisions; and it will not dissipate when the flesh fails and molders away.




Invictus

Out of the night that covers me,
Black as the Pit from pole to pole,
I thank whatever gods may be
For my unconquerable soul.


In the fell clutch of circumstance
I have not winced nor cried aloud.
Under the bludgeonings of chance
My head is bloody, but unbowed.

Beyond this place of wrath and tears
Looms but the horror of the shade,
And yet the menace of the years
Finds, and shall find me, unafraid.

It matters not how strait the gate,
How charged with punishments the scroll,
I am the master of my fate;
I am the captain of my soul.


         --William Ernest Henley