There are many perspectives; logically sound or unsound, philosophic, emotional, scientific, reactionary, etc—and all of them “empty”, nevertheless.We wouldn't have to talk about this shit if there weren't 2 perspectives to operate out of.
The universe is all that is, by definition. The word itself is a referent that encompasses both the idea “all that exists materially” and the reality of “all that exists materially”.The universe exists as a thing in itself independently.
The Universe is supported by a myriad array of causes/conditions therefore is not a thing in itself.
either way is an act of consciousness.
You are free, of course, to elaborate on that definition for the purposes of making your argument.
At best, all I can make (with a lot of guesswork) from the above is that you appear to be suggesting that the physicality of the universe is infinite?
Notwithstanding the wild guess above, when we add the premise of thingness and existence ("emptiness"), this is what your argument looks like:
1. All things lack inherent existence (things exist/are caused).
2. The universe is a thing without causes/exists independently (is a “thing in itself”—self-caused).
3. If (1) and (2), the universe is a thing in itself/self-caused.
4. The universe is supported by a myriad of causes/conditions (is not a “thing in itself”—not self-caused).
5. If (1) and (4) then: the universe is not a thing in itself/self-caused.
And, your argument as a whole seems to boil down to this:
6. The universe is both a thing in itself and is not a thing in itself (i.e., the universe is both uncaused/self-caused and caused).
7. THEREFORE: (either way) the universe is an act of consciousness.
So, my foremost questions to you are as follows:
a) What is a “thing in itself” if not a self-caused thing?
b) How is it that (1), (2) and (4) can all be true at the same time?
c) How does (7) follow from the stated premises?
