This is because, as demonstrated by Hume, it is impossible to induce NECESSARY CONNECTIONS from "empirical data." Metaphysics cannot assume a concrete reality because such an assumption annihilates the method from the start.

One commonly equates to any "spiritual" notion a sort of "metaphysical" status, as if spiritual and metaphysical were synonymous terms. But this is a nihilistic statement. It is nihilistic because it denies the first fact of our existence, concrete reality, as having any involvement in spiritual activity. Cannot sex be spiritual? Or manual labor? Cannot the adrenaline rush of sky-diving be a SPIRITUAL experience?

Equally, the products of INTUITION cannot validly be sublimated into a metaphysical scheme.

I must say, you started off very smart, like I could barely understand what you were saying, to a point. I believe that metaphysical is simply the connection between emotions, thoughts and the body. I'm in all honesty, though, hazy about what it means.
However, I'm mostly replying to address your last comment because the person you were talking about before I know nothing about, and I didn't really catch what you were trying to argue.
I have to say, that you can have a spiritual experience while doing anything, like sex or sky diving, but in essence the word spiritual is derived from the root word spirit. Spiritual means that it involves spirits. A connection with God is spiritual because you are connecting with His spirit, or the Holy spirit. A demonic experience is spiritual because they are spirits. Sex in itself, for example, is not a spiritual experience. You can have a spiritual experience while having sex, but sex is an emotional and mechanical expression of love, and an adrenaline rush is simply a chemical rush in your mind, and has nothing to do with spirits, in itself.
So I have to argue against that concept, and as far as your metaphysics argument, I don't know the person's theory that you are talking about, so I don't understand what you are arguing.

A way out of the maelstrom of present day metaphysics is by actually taking a few steps back to metaphysics as Kant defined it. Kant said, though I am paraphrasing that it, metaphysics, cannot exist unless the demands here stated on which its possibility rests, be met.'

A metaphysics that overlooks Kant's critical demands would be for Kant, at least, and I agree with Kant, meaningless. But Kant left the door open to speculative reason, and the possibility of a metaphysic that adheres to his critical demands. My understanding here is that for metaphysics to be objectively valid it would have to relate to, or refer to, the world of our immediate experience. It would have to be able to make sense of certain aspects of the world that we experience that would otherwise always remain for us mysterious.

For instance, there are certain persistent metaphysical questions such as: What is change? How do we make the idea of time, rationally meaningful? Can we use speculative reason to deduce, or make a judgment concerning whether or not the universe is finite in its extent, or infinite in its extent? That is, did the universe have an ultimate beginning? And if it did have a beginning, how can we put forth rational, meaningful speculations in this regard? Why does everything within the realm of our experience suggest that everything that we can point to is something that has come into existence from a previous state of nonexistence?

Of course, there are other metaphysical questions that can be put forth, but these are just a few of the problems that I would consider metaphysical in nature as they transcend our immediate sense experience. They also seem to reach beyond the scope of empirical sciences. Though cosmologists state the universe had a beginning some 14 or so billion years ago, and that it might have begun with a singularity, what can possibly account for such a beginning? A singularity is a dilemma dismissed by mathematical theorists because the laws of physics cannot be used to make sense out of it. But can metaphysics make sense of it?

Where physics leaves off, perhaps metaphysics begins.

The central question for Kant in his critical philosophy concerned just how much we can hope to know, and how can we relate judgments grounded on pure reason to the world of our concrete, sense experience. The three central questions Kant points to have to do with, as he says: God, Freedom, and Immortality. Can we actually come to grips with such ideas and make rational sense out of such ever persistent cosmological problems?