I'm way out of my league here, honestly. I'm just a not-so-humble poet/photographer who occasionally looks up and says, wtf is going on?
But it occurs to me that this entire discussion is being run on a very narrowly-constructed, peculiarly "Western" set of axioms. No Buddhist, say, would even have this discussion with you, I don't think.
A thing "is" what it is: we know it, if at all, by what it "seems". We comminicate, if at all, through codes: the codes have no "objective reality" but that's ok because, at any ontological level, even if there is such a thing as an objective reality, it exists outside our codes. In this sense, to discuss the "nature of reality", no matter how much we dress it up with scientific terminology, is so close a kin og discussing how many angels can dance.. etc... as to render the differences between "theological" and "scientific" thought as no more than a difference in coding.
It seems perfectly reasonable to me to posit (as some have) that the whole of human knowledge — nay, the whole of human existence — is an example of mass hysteria and that in a very real sense "reality itself" morphs to reflect/embody what the perceiver chooses to perceive.
Gawd help me. I'm sinking fast. I'll just go write a pome, I think, until myhead stops aching...
(robt)
|