|
it seems to me its only a one-off situation.
there are two possible ways of structuring reality, imo.
meaninglessness and confusion
questions of perception of reality (possibly marred by proximity to meaningless and over-deconstruction)
questions of interpretation of reality
ultimate reality
or
ultimate reality
questions of perception of reality
questions of interpretation of reality (possibly marred by proximity/reliance on empty conceptional frameworks)
confusion and meaninglessness
each proceeds from micro to macro. i'd say "simple to complex" but i think that may not clarify what i'm saying. to me, it's more important to be self-critical at the point of interpretation. i can see the world, but what does it mean. am i chosing to look away from some things? should my attention be here or there? what is the nature of things, put together?
i see you saying that it's more important to question the perceptual level. do you see the world as it is? is the sky blue? what is nature of things, taken apart?
each is an aesthtic, a worldview. i don't see how either is some how more "pure" than the other in terms of assumptions made, or beliefs held. we have proof that neither is more important. to chose one over the other is an act of faith.
__________________
For God so loved creation, that God sent God's only Son that whosoever believed should not perish, but have everlasting life.
-John 3:16
|