hate to be this guy, but for the topic at hand, i have to suggest we not use the term 'universe,' as it is too vague and imprecise. some understand 'universe' to mean things material and 3-dimensional, when what i hope to discuss is the nature of all things - physical, conceptual, spiritual, emotional, existential, impossible, potential, ethereal, etc...
instead, i will refer to the realm of all experience as 'existence' or 'reality'.
in the great tradition of western thought since time immemorial, the most daunting philosophical/spiritual dilemma facing mankind has been the seemingly irreconcilable gap between things internal and external. that is to say, the central question of 'what is real?'
the objective or the subjective? the perceived or the perceiver? edit: the world or the spirit?
in this particular era of history, we see religion and science increasingly mired in this contentious debate. to which paradigm do we hitch our proverbial wagon? empiricism, or spirituality?
what is often forgotten in this war of mind-states is the subsequent, but immediately important, peripheral question - are the two truly mutually exclusive? this is what i want to discuss.
ok. so, my first question to you is this:
1. can a perceiver exist exist without a thing to perceive?
2. vice versa, can a thing exist without the possibility of ever being percieved?
3. do these scenarios nullify the definition of existence? and if so, what does that tell us of the nature of existence?
make any sense at all?
[This message has been edited by Eil (edited 10-07-2004).]
|
Threaded Mode
