Things that Exist


The existence of "things that exist" is not contigent upon whether or not their existence can be proven.

Therefore the "proof" of the existence of the physical object is utterly disconnected from its potential impact on your perception or ability to perceive - leaving you with only your perception (and no proof) as a gauge of \'isness\'. Our perception tells us "these things exist", but how do we know it\'s correct? As you\'ve noted, we cannot. So we have that proof is a fantasy and "tentative knowledge" is close to the "isness" as our minds can get. I think this is a fundamentally requisite acknowledgement given the nature of the relationship of a point of view to its environment. Perhaps it is the very establishement of a point of view (and thus its definition) that is the essense of this limitation on knowledge as when one defines a point, we define that a circle could encompass that point and from the perspective of that point (you can\'t disprove that the incoming information about your environment has not been manipulated). In our case, we are the point and did not choose to establish it. It was established for us (birth).

Perception is the boundary of self and knowledge. You are a tautology established by nature - a perpetual/instantaneous redefinition.of yourself, made up by youself.

"I think therefore I am" is a statement of faith. It says "I believe it is reasonable to assume I exist." It is necessarily valid, or "reason" has no foundation.

"I have faith in reason" should be the fountainhead of both reason and spirituality. It is a path to unity that minimizes divergence to perception, rather than potentially unreasonable conclusions drawn from those perceptions.