I don't think they're so much one in the same. Just both pieces to what actually does exist. I see it like this
Existence+perception=the perceived existence
With both '+' equations, I don't think anyone can honestly say they know where the other piece came from, but without both, the solution wouldn't be. There has to be either some combination making up this existence, or this one existence broken down makes up the different combinations. Fuckin labels are confusing. Labels should be used to organize things, but when there's only one big picture, it doesn't need organizing. Labels would then only be used to try to describe. Some things we may never know. It would take forever to trace time back to forever without things being forgotten, lost, made up, misunderstood, or misquoted.
I kinda see what you're getting at, and I agree, to a degree; but, this is how I see it...
Our objective world, thee intangible database(world of essence), is like the computer game "the sims". When the computer(the perceiver) is focused on a part of the "sim world", it, that part of the "sim world", for that moment, technically, "exists". When the computer(percevier) is focused on one part of the "sim world", the rest of the "sim world" technically doesn't "exist" - because no perception is allowing it to exist, in appearance; but, when the computer(perceiver) goes back to focus on where the "red cup" was
last perceived, the "red cup" WILL re-appear in appearance with the same characteristics, due to projected perception.
The world of appearance is a result of the interaction between the subjective perceiver and the objective database.
"The coexistence of many states constitutes in fact the essence of 'reality', for through it permanence
first becomes possible."
That's just my take on it...
Edited by Boats And Hoes, 12 April 2012 - 06:01 AM.