I think of the universe as that place where everything that is possible arises.
Even to the extent that what is impossible is possible in so much as I am able to know that there is a possibility of things that are impossible.
This has nothing to do with epistemology or thinking or really anything like that, because ultimately my thoughts are not only limited by actual physical things in the universe, but correspond with universal actuality. Which is to say that everything that is possible arises in the universe.
It’s not just a discernment of what I am able to think or no. What I am able to think or no says something else about the universe. When we talk about what I’m able to think or no we are referring to something else. We are not talking about what exists or doesn’t exist. We are talking about, well, we’ve shifted gears in the middle of a sentence. We are moving back-and-forth between spaces and not acknowledging that we are moving back-and-forth. And in that not acknowledging that we are moving back-and-forth, I think that we are talking about one set, one category
The simple fact that I can know of
something does not say something about my thinking more about the brain or the mind as much as it says something about the universe arising as such. To reduce it back to my thinking or that the mind is doing this is to shift gears in the middle of a sentence and change the terms of the game that we’re playing.
Or rather, it is to start playing a game right in the middle when we’re talking about something that is truthful.
Because both the brain and the mind have to have been a part of the universe. I’m not sure how I’m able to think of some thing that doesn’t exist in the universe.
How is it possible for my mind to generate things that do not exist?
So, I think we’re missing a certain word between us. Because it’s like playing a fantasy game as if my mind is able to generate some thing that is not able to be generated. To think of things that cannot be thought.
So we’re missing something between us here because, I know what you’re saying. But in the context of our discussion I don’t think it really applies. It applies in some other way, some other space. That’s why I say I think we need to be really particular and really acknowledging about what we’re actually doing when we do philosophy. Rather than assuming that there is this great wonderful oneness of the universe that we are arguing about. Is the nature of this one this itself is cannot be assumed, but neither, it seems, can we even talk about or define between us with this one thing is. Rather, we just have to be reflective and out right about what particular universe were talking about. Because there is no grand one universe that we are able to come in to a definition for, it seems.
Because, what you might say, well that is a pissed emoji, which goes to how we know, which goes to the mind, which goes to thoughts. I think that stream, that connection, is leading from and towards a particular place that we are kind of leaving in the air. And if I disagree about it then we just got to agree to disagree. Which I don’t think that’s very productive so far is what we’re trying to do between us here