When we communicate we use words and therefore ideas. This leads to many misunderstandings even amongst people who fundamentally agree, let alone between people who are coming from entirely different perspectives.
The aim of this project isn't to just bring together people with a particular perspective, but to bring together different perspectives and to work together towards mutual understanding. In light of this please contemplate these issues...
Within the cosmic context there are two main sub-contexts, lets loosely refer to these as empirical (world of the senses) and transcendent (that which underlies the sensory world). Empiricists cannot conceive of the existence of anything beyond the world of the senses but they could not experience that world if there wasn't something beyond it. Transcendentalists often deny the reality of the world of the senses but nevertheless we still experience it.
Ultimately there is only one reality, but there are two fundamentally different ways of looking at it. Hence the two contexts are not fundamentally separate but when we speak we either speak in one or the other context so in order to work towards mutual understanding we need to understand which contexts we are speaking in and the differences between them.
To simply state one side and deny the other widens the factional divide between empiricists and transcendentalists. And mixing these contexts by making transcendent statements in the empirical context or empirical statements in the transcendent context leads to endless confusion and only serves to widen the factional divide. This divide is a major cause of unnecessary confusion and conflict.
Hence it is important to build a bridge of mutual understanding between these contexts so that people on both sides of the divide can understand each other and not merely ignore each other or engage in futile debates that use the same words but with different meanings, which only widens the factional divide and leads to confusion and conflict.
Most discussions leave the context unstated and implicitly speak from an empirical context, believing that context to be all there is. Many other discussions leave the context unstated and implicitly speak from a transcendent context, believing that it is the only one that is real, whilst implying that the empirical context is just an arbitrary, meaningless delusion. Both of these types of discussions widen the factional divide and add to the growing confusion. It is not just a matter of expressing one view or the other and building a following that will overwhelm the other, that only leads to a propaganda war. What is required is mutual understanding.