All metaphysics originates in human thought. There's no way to rationally argue that metaphysics exists somewhere outside of human thought except insofar as it can be shared among humans using language.

So metaphysical concepts can be 'experienced' only through contemplation, reflection, reasoning, interpreting.

so how do we make progress in the science and for that matter why is it a science

How is metaphysics a science?

Can metaphysics also be shared among humans through necessity, and thus universality? For example, it is necessary that certain conditions must be met in order for us to have experience.

Are you presupposing a common psychology among humans that seeks metaphysical answers? I would agree with that.

Just cognitive conditions as far as I'm concerned.

The arcane becomes mundane..
One doesn't seem to "experience the knowledge of the metaphysical", one experiences the metaphysical directly, that is why you cannot get it from a 'book' or a 'teacher'. (Nothing of 'value' comes easy!)
There are many paths that you can follow to 'learn of metaphysical basics'; magic, mysticism (in all it's shapes and forms), all sorts of disciplines, ... If the intent is pure and dedicated, I see no reason for the practice not to be fruitful. It might take a few decades, but that does speak to 'integrity and sincerity of intent'.

I feel that the metaphysical knowledge if their is such a thing, I feel that such a thing would be a manifestation of divine truth (hence its experience in mysticism and magic) and as such is transcendental. But as no words can describe divine truth, because of its omniscient, omnipotent, all encompassing nature. The knowledge of it is contradictory in that in the divine sense, truth to one is falsehood to another (i.e. jesus is lord to one and Allah is lord to another). And as such the truth only manifestly understood in the individuality of human experience. Hence the wars not to mention the close mindedness and argumentativeness over the god concept. If we take the individuality of human experience and the individuality of the experience of truth (considering that metaphysical reality is truth) we must accept the fact that metaphysical experience is wholly up to individual conception based on experience. With that said one must surely accept and be open to differences in conception and most importantly expression between individuals. As well as accepting that their is a definite psychological alignment in the mass consciousness in order for metaphysical progression of thought to take place. This requires an open mindedness which a lot of would be philosophers do not possess. So from there how do I make progress in this science?
Thanks

I don't know if progress is the correct word here, isn't it more of an experiential perception of a broader reality not confined to the present here and now?

For example I attended a performance of Mahlers Second Symphony, have seen it before and know the score very well. As the music progressed I began to notice an affective change come over me, that and the fact that I was involuntary rising out of my seat in the Opera House. I began not only to feel the music on a deeper physical and emotional level, but began to experience an intense physical euphoria with accompanying physical changes, my pupils dilated and i experienced more light that what i would normally in the auditorium, My breathing at first became shallow and i just simply blissed out for the whole performance. Obviously i was responding to the spiritual aspects of the music and the physicality of the music its self.

Meditation induces changes in the physical state of the body, and so does solid blocks of exercise by activating particular chemical reactions in the body. So do drugs, think of Huxley and the Merry Pranksters for that matter.

But an experience which transcends the everyday is an indicator of a 'more than this' element to what we perceive as the world we live in. Even Sarte in Nausea has the central character experience a moment of transcendence, and he was an Existentialist with no time for the divine.

I think if you want to call it the spiritual that's fine but experiences which transcend the normal human condition have been documented by artists and intellectuals throughout history, the issue is i think how to actually induce them or are they mere random occurrences triggered by a combination of internal chemistry and external stimuli? And do they lead to any specific insight into the human condition? Or are they manifestations of the spiritual fabric of life?

Lucky! It's one of my favorite pieces of music, that first movement kills me every time I listen to it. It's been a number of years since I last saw it live.

Sounds like an autonomic effect that can indeed be mediated emotionally. Remember that western tonal music is VERY much focused on dissonance and resolution, as well as contrasting via dynamic range (i.e. loud vs soft). Particularly in the first and last movements of Mahler's 2nd Symphony, he uses those contrasts and conflicts to tremendous effect. If you are familiar with Mozart's Requiem, think of the HUGE crescendo towards the beginning of the Lacrimosa.

So you are experiencing tension and release, which produces stress and catharsis, and there is a big interplay between your sympathetic and parasympathetic nervous system here.

Also be aware that responsiveness to music is well-established to be culturally ingrained. So you may find Chinese opera to be bizarre and unlistenable; but they may have the same reaction to Mahler.

But you haven't made the case that this is intrinsic to the world as opposed to intrinsic to us. Certainly when you experience the sublime it seems as if it should emanate from the world. But the sublime is an experience, not an intrinsic quality.

But you haven't made the case that this is intrinsic to the world as opposed to intrinsic to us. Certainly when you experience the sublime it seems as if it should emanate from the world. But the sublime is an experience, not an intrinsic quality.[/QUOTE]

I would say that external trigers effecting internal states, and these would be both emotive, affective and physical combine with the actions transpiring in the environment to produce a subjective response. But the sublime as experienced by I at moments like these, because of a combination of elements that I have outlined, caused a response in me both physical and affective.

I didn't go with the intention of having an epiphany while listening to Mahler. The circumstances were ripe for it to happen and it did.

I don't think the sublime emanates from the world, it is in the world and occasionally we connect with it. For me it was in the music of Mahler that i encountered that night. This projection of the sublime on to the world was a particular fallacy of 20th Century writers that the experience of the Divine or Spiritual had to be anchored in the world via a specific event, a moment of Satori. When in affect it transcended what they/we know as the normal world and they took an internal subjective experience and gave it objective form in the world. For example think The Razors Edge as just one example.

I think that we as sentient beings who are both culturally conditioned and possessing subjective awareness attempt to clarify and classify events that occur to us so we are able to make sense of them. The Spiritual IMHO is an internal function and one way the spiritual is made manifest is though our creative abilities which we then project the results on to and in to the world for others to experience.

It would stand to reason that if the spiritual is an intrinsic quality then it is a common denominator possessed by all beings and is revealed by specific action and form that produces something for example music which is experienced by others, or maybe the spiritual is made manifest in an action afforded from one person to another.

The 'mundane' world consists of all sorts of arbitrary 'distinctions', the 'duality' of existence.
The 'arcane' admits of no such 'line' (arbitrary distinctions), hence the 'Oneness/Completeness' of each and every universe in each and every moment.

metaphysics can only be experienced and reflected upon.

Can it? I thought it was a form of mental calisthenics which produced a physical reaction depending upon the nature of the rumination. And it is also part of the shared discursive experience with others where insights are shared and opened up for further discussion.

Would you care to explain why metaphysics can only be experienced and reflected upon?

If something can "only" be experienced and reflected upon, what is left besides those two??

Maybe what is being referred to here is not metaphysics, which has a very clear definition, but what lies beyond metaphysics. Metaphysics sits firmly in Nameless's mundane world of distinctions and contradictions. Beyond this lies Reality itself, and this is what some claim can be known directly, and not by abstraction and computation.

Those such as myself that have not received the blessing of direct inspiration can only attempt to understand aforementioned Reality through the application of the mind toward solving the riddles of metaphysics.
That is strictly the domain of logic and reason and indeed also of distinctions and contradictions.

I agree, but with the proviso that because we have not yet received the blessing of direct inspiration it would not follow that we 'can only' settle for metaphysics. On this basis someone could say that because they do not understand metaphysics they can only attempt to understand Reality via direct inspiration.

Aedes,

Your support of religion is inconsistent with what you are saying here. Care to explain?