HelloAlexCLTue, Jan 26, 2010 You raise really important questions. Whether one decides that all things exist always independently of our observation or nothings exists independently of our observation is for the most part inconsequential. These are two extremes within ontology, the question of being, which is where most western philosophy begins (Derrida recognizes this as a pivotal question, and in one of the interviews with him that skyphone posted, he claims to - in his work - question that question). What is the ontological status of the mind's apperceived referent? I guess the best answer I can think of - which happens to be infuriating - would be that the referent neither exists nor doesn't exist.
It seems that the perpetual suspension of the ontological question is essential. Many mystical languages of various traditions employ a language in which a statement continually turns back in on itself in order to retain the absence of a referent, or at least continually empties and refills the the place of referent. I've been collecting my thoughts on this kind of language and will continue to do so for a few months, but I should be able to put together a post on it shortly thereafter.
You raise really important questions. Whether one decides that all things exist always independently of our observation or nothings exists independently of our observation is for the most part inconsequential. These are two extremes within ontology, the question of being, which is where most western philosophy begins (Derrida recognizes this as a pivotal question, and in one of the interviews with him that skyphone posted, he claims to - in his work - question that question). What is the ontological status of the mind's apperceived referent? I guess the best answer I can think of - which happens to be infuriating - would be that the referent neither exists nor doesn't exist.
It seems that the perpetual suspension of the ontological question is essential. Many mystical languages of various traditions employ a language in which a statement continually turns back in on itself in order to retain the absence of a referent, or at least continually empties and refills the the place of referent. I've been collecting my thoughts on this kind of language and will continue to do so for a few months, but I should be able to put together a post on it shortly thereafter.