I just read a transcript of an interview on a TV PBS program called "Thinking Allowed.  The word "universe" was used at least ten times along with other referents to it.  There was no attempt to define what was meant by the term "universe."

When we refer to the universe, what exactly are we referring to?  What is the referent?  Is the universe a thing, or is it something else?  Do we know if the universe has any substance beyond the instant of the moment?

Every individual who encounters the word universe brings to it their own personal meaning, concept or definition of the term.  This of course results in a myriad number of mental pictures of what a universe is.

During the interview the question was brought up of whether the universe was benevolent or malevolent.  In order to come to a commonly accepted answer to this question we must first come to a commonly accepted definition of what the universe is and isn't.  Is there a logical or commonsense way to go about this?  Let's try!

The only way we come to know the universe is by experiencing it.  We are trapped within it so are forced to communicate with it on a daily basis.  The universe tells us about itself as we constantly bump our heads against it.  We would not survive for very long if we didn't "listen," i.e., pay attention.

It's a form of mutual communication that starts at birth when the physical environment impinges upon on our brains through our body's sensory receptors to create or structure a picture of itself.  For example, through sight, the brain cells within our skulls structure a picture of the continually changing visible forms that the universe creates before us.  We come to think that we are actually viewing an object when in reality we are only experiencing an image of that object painted within the jell contained inside our skull.  If our eyes are not perfect or the brain is defective, then the image transmitted to our brain cells becomes distorted, i.e., the information communicated is inaccurate.  Thus, our knowledge of the universe is only as good as our body's perceptual mechanisms used in conversing with it.

Also, using the sense of touch, smell, and hearing, other images and information about the universe are transmitted to, and structured within, our brain cells.  So what we come to call the real world is only a reproduction like copy, not always perfect, contained within our skulls.  Through this process the universe tells us what constraints, opportunities, and resources are available for our continuance.  We don't tell the universe what the rules are, it tells us.  We can only know what the universe is by it telling us through impinging upon our sensory mechanisms.

So, in essence, our awareness of a universe and what a universe is, is direct, and results from a mutual interaction where information is exchanged through a communication process called experience.  We are "conversing" with the universe.  The universe is "talking" to us.  But, who are us?  Since we are made of the stuff of the universe, whatever that is, you might say we are, in a sense, the universe communicating with itself.  So why not let the universe tell us what the universe is?  Let the universe define itself.  I think if we ask it directly it will tell us how best to live our limited lives happily and healthily within the constraints that it has provided.  It's a communication process, an ongoing unstoppable activity, most profoundly spiritual in nature.  The spiritual aspect is brought into greater clarity by asking the questions:  Are we talking to the universe or is the universe talking to us?  Who's doing the listening?