STer

This comment is full of assumptions and cries out for supporting citations of any kind.

You might be interested in this piece about a news segment regarding "almost psychopaths"

David, Well at least we agree on one thing. This is a debate over epistemology. Not a debate to have in this thread though. But plenty could be said in response to this post. In any case, I don't think there is much point continuing the discussion of "oneness" which is really just a proxy for the overall epistemology debate. If you'd like to get deeper into the epistemology debate itself, I'd be open, but I'll leave it to you and I'd suggest a new thread for it.

You know, there is always the option of just admitting that, at this point in time, we simply don't know some answers. Perfectly legitimate and honest stance.

As I alluded to with David L., this is a difference of epistemology. FDR is a place dedicated to a certain epistemology based on reason, evidence and empiricism. That means that when we feel something, we question it and test whether what we subjectively experience matches reality or not, we don't just assume our feeling is accurate. David L. (and probably many of the people in the group you keep mentioning) have a different idea of what constitutes knowledge. They believe that if you feel something strongly enough, it must be there. I could lay out all the arguments for why those of us who don't believe that believe as we do. But I think that is a whole subject deserving of another thread (and that surely already has plenty of threads). The bottom line is this discussion seems to be between empiricism and a form of subjectivism (or is there a better term for it, anyone?)

The term complex mechanisms might have been a poor choice of word, as I intended it to be a generalization of psychological issues that are not straight forward, which would include susceptibility to manipulation. What are the implications of holding someone responsible for a choice they make that is the result of scar tissue or a lack of knowledge? I'd say there is a spectrum of responsibility on the victim's part. On one end, you have people who have been repeatedly warned by friends, family and others that they are being fooled and choose to ignore it. On the other, you have people who are quite wise and nonetheless can still fall prey to a really good con artist. I'm not saying the victim never holds any part of the responsibility at all for their plight. But I'm just saying it's not really fair to assess that without knowing more details about a particular case.

LOL, Thats not my quote We are all One. So it is all of our quote. In fact this entire thread only has one post. In fact there is only one thread on this entire forum which is one with all other forums. Everything ever said at any point throughout eternity is all of our quote.

Mishelle, I am very skeptical of these "energetic oneness" kinds of theories no matter how you slice them. Taking scientific ideas and trying to stretch them into pseudoscience is a favorite maneuver of people trying to push New Age ideas. And so I hope you won't take this one and do that with it necessarily. But along with these terms you've been hearing in this thread, you will also be very interested in looking into fractals.

I mostly agree. But it could still prove productive when David L. gives us all his money. So don't lose hope!

Why do you call them many different expressions of one rather than just one expression of one? The one ultimately becomes conscious of its oneness through the expression of itself as many. Prove it

It strikes me that even though autism is the overall condition, it's the OCD-like symptoms that can go along with it that you seem to be struggling with most. You might look into resources for parents of kids with OCD and I bet you'd find some people who really relate to what you're struggling with.

Oooh thanks for introducing that term. I had not heard of it. I will read more about mereology

There's that old David L. selective answering. Way to ignore the defintion of the word part which you didn't find convenient and skip over that. As for this, you are equivocating with words so much you really aren't even speaking English. I've concluded that this is a pointless discussion since I'm speaking English and you're speaking a language of your own where words like "part," "many," and "one" have different meanings than they do in English. That's also why you capitalize "One" - because in your language it is capitalized, while in English it is not (unless at the beginning of a sentence.) You are a mystic who wishes to believe what he wants to believe and will twist the meanings of words as much as you have to to believe it. Nothing more can be said about it.

Why do you call them many different expressions of one rather than just one expression of one?

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/part?s=t part [pahrt] Show IPA noun 1. a portion or division of a whole that is separate or distinct; piece, fragment, fraction, or section;constituent: the rear part of the house; to glue the two parts together. If the "many" aren't separate from each other, then why do you call them "many"? This is equivocation at its finest. Also as I mention in one of my later posts, there is the question that arises again and again. You claim everything is primarily one and the many are just expressions of this one, rather than all the other options, like the exact opposite being the case, that the many are primary or that both are equally primary: How do you know?!

I certainly agree that that there are many complex mechanisms at work, but I cannot say that such mechanisms invalidate or relevant to the responsibility for a free choice. For instance, people tend to join the military for a number of complex reasons such as: propaganda; money; primal desires; "honor", but this does not mean a person ought not to take full responsibility for their act of joining and actions in the military. To not take responsibility would be to dissociate from the part of themselves that caused the action to begin with, which is to offload fault onto a concept or others, and to not recognize one's one capacity and willingness to act in such a way. Taking full responsibility is not to beat yourself over something that cannot be changed, but rather to admit to a part of you that was likely created through infliction, and to be aware of this in regards to your life in the present. My comment wasn't about it being complex. It was about the fact that abusive people are often manipulative and deceptive. It's not the complexity I'm commenting on. It's that the choice is often made without all of the information available and even with disinformation being put forth. In a case like that, it's hard to hold someone responsible.

I think this hits on a really important topic. It has come up in a few other threads I've been in. I raised the point that the more we learn about any biological conditions a child may have, the more it enables us to customize parenting to their needs. And some conditions require specific types of care so just saying "peaceful parenting" doesn't really give enough information to apply in those cases. I often use the example of a diabetic child. Just being non-violent wouldn't enable you to understand the very specific dietary needs such a child has. So I see our increasing ability to accurately diagnose - if used ethically - to be helpful to peaceful parents. Autism is another such example. What are the specific needs of an autistic child? How do those needs interact with what is meant by "peaceful parenting." And in general, how do you reconcile peaceful parenting with any particular biological conditions with special needs? I assume the most difficult question of all would be whether there are any children whose special needs make it so that they do need a little more "pushing" in certain directions - in ways that with some other children might be considered "nonpeaceful" - in order to be healthy. This could be an interesting topic for a podcast/video, etc. There are already many parents I'm sure struggling with this question. And I expect the number will grow as we become able to diagnose more conditions than we currently can.

I think it's important to remember that abusive people are often extremely manipulative, charismatic and/or deceptive. So it's not always so easy to tell that someone is abusive early on and many don't show their abusive qualities openly until after they have someone in a vulnerable position. On the other hand, sometimes there are red flags. But even then, a lot of people grew up in unhealthy environments where those red flags were normal so they don't stand out at all as what they are - signs of danger. I think we'd need to know a lot more details to know how to accurately assign responsibility in cases like this.

Wow. First of all I do not own the air I breathe so it would be irrational and arbitrary for me to suddenly say I own this body which depends upon it. That's totally inconsistent. Rather, this body is a gift being constantly bequeathed by the universe as a whole for my enjoyment and use, just as the air is which freely nourishes it. I can't claim a separate survival, so I can't claim self-ownership. If anyone's the rightful owner, it's the universe itself, not this little me. More and more I just go with the flow, and the flow can be very nice when I'm out of its way. :-) That was some masterful dodging of Snipes' point by selectively responding to only one tiny snippet of what he said. Meanwhile you continue to evade where the rubber hits the road. Would you be willing to give all your money to us since we're all one anyway? And if someone were to steal the money or other goods that are in your possession, would you simply allow it since you claim you own none of this anyway? You talk the language of not owning anything. But would you respond to being robbed as if you own nothing, which would mean simply allowing it since it wasn't yours? And I mean that in reality. Not just philosophical musing. If a person robbed you tomorrow of everything most of us would call "what you own" would you in all honesty simply allow it since you don't own it? These philosophies are really not very meaningful until you are put to the test by real world situations, where your responses reflect what you really believe much more than what you claim to believe when all is well and peaceful on a message board.

If it makes no difference, they why the bother? Well, because if you do not own you or your property, then it is not wrong for me to take your property or kill you. After all, it is just a part of me. Why can't I go take anything I want and do anything I want? I do not create or destroy matter and everything is a part of me. No one else has a just claim above me. After all, there is no seperate person to challenge me anyway. This is what I find so ironic about this "Oneness" idea. It's used by people to promote this idea that since we are all one, we shouldn't steal or hurt others because doing that to them is doing it to ourselves. Let's just ignore the problem that there are self-destructive people and masochists so that would actually tell them it's ok to hurt themselves through others rather than only directly, leading to some unintended consequences. But the other problem is what you raise here. In fact, if everything is one, then how can anything even be considered stealing? And yet, when you ask people who claim to have this philosophy to put their money where their mouth is, almost all of them suddenly balk. Actions speak louder than words. It's easy to say everything is One. It's a lot harder to act like it. If someone was willing to back up that belief fully in their actions, I'd still think they're extremely misguided, but I'd at least have some respect for their consistency.

If it makes no difference, they why the bother? To prove that you really believe it makes no difference through actions, rather than just words, so we can see that you aren't just saying that when it doesn't have any consequences for you and failing to live it when it would. So, if you really think it doesn't matter, are you willing to prove it by transfering me all your money? And if your response is "No I don't have the motivation to do it since it doesn't matter." I think most of us would see through that evasion.

I would not say that there is ultimately both one and many Ok then you aren't talking about holons because that's the definition of a holon - something that is both one whole and a part amongst many parts. I guess you disagree with the holon concept. You also contradict yourself since you mentioned 100 million fingernail cells or something like that. Apparently to you there can be 100 million cells but at the same time there are not "many cells." It's amazing what you can do with word play. I think the only reason I'm still engaging in this is because I find such manipulation of language really an important thing to point out, if not to you, since you seem beyond reach, then to others who are reading this. So to be clear, what appears to others is wrong and what appears to you is right. And why is that again? How do you know you aren't the one who is in the illusion and the others are seeing things accurately? We have a universe because all of the parts are connected, not because all the parts are one part. Your stubborn refusal to accept that there is a difference between two things being part of a whole system together or being interdependent vs. only being one thing is pretty large. You keep saying "Well since they make up ONE whole that means everything is one." No it means there is one whole made up of many things. So there is both a oneness and a manyness at the same time. If you can't understand or accept that, we really are at an impasse. I doubt you will accept it because I think there are some almost religious aspects to your desire to focus on this "Oneness." It does something personally for you emotionally so you keep focusing on it while ignoring the manyness which for some reason you don't find as inspirational. Or is it that manyness is expressing itself in oneness by coming together in wholes? Or is it BOTH? You have absolutely nothing to back up your claim that the oneness is primary rather than the manyness being primary or both being paradoxically going on at the same time. If you just admitted this is what you enjoy thinking because it feels good to you, rather than trying to put this forth as some fact that you can know, then I'd just say "OK enjoy your belief if you like." But when you keep promoting these things to others as if they're facts, rather than a belief you have chosen for yourself for personal reasons, it's something I think needs to be called out on a board dedicated to empircism and reason.

But it does, at a more inclusive level. This is the essence of the holon we talked about earlier. The cells of your fingernail make up your one fingernail. Your fingernail is not just one hundred million cells---it is ONE finger nail. If you deny this oneness, you deny the reality of anything being one thing. You are going out of your way to use unnecessarily confusing language. First, the essence of the holon is that things are BOTH parts and wholes. Meaning each thing is both one whole and a part among many parts (see that many aspect you keep leaving out?) at the same time. Things are not just all one. They are both many and one. But beyond that you are using two different meanings of the word "one." Yes there is one fingernail. But there are a hundred million cells. And each cell is not "one" with every other cell. They are many different cells that, together, comprise one whole. Except that one whole is also a part amongst many. The fact that you always focus on the one/wholeness aspect and ignore the many/parts aspect shows huge amounts of bias and that you have some agenda for constantly focusing on only half the story.

Hi Mishelle, As I see it, the weakest or the most violent part of another is not truly part of another, nor is it truly part of you. Not the real you. Identifying with it in another may be helping you to get beyond any remnant sense of it belonging strictly to you, but ultimately it belongs to no one. David, I thought Stephen's earlier wisecrack was quite insightful when he mused about what it would be like if people who think everything is one and nothing belongs to anyone would transfer their money to his bank account. Since we are all One anyway and everything is inseparable, would you transfer all of your money to me? If not, why not? What difference does it make if I have it or if you have it since it is all One with no separation? This may sound like a joke, but treat it as a serious question because I think it has some real intellectual consequence.

If everything is One then how can things have different proper places? If they are in different places, and must be in particular "right" places, then there are multiple things being discussed. In your own comment there, you distinguish cyanide, which has one proper place, from the human body, which has another proper place. Those sound to me like two different things. Let's take a piano. One piano. It is precisely a piano because it has many different strings and keys, layed out in their proper places. This arrangement of unique differences is what makes it a piano. ONE whole piano. Take away any of the keys or strings or parts and it isn't a piano proper anymore. The oneness of the differences makes the music, see !! Did you ever look up holons, which I posted about? Because all you're doing here is describing holons. Holons are things that are both wholes themselves and parts of larger wholes. The strings are wholes in and of themselves - whole strings. They are also part of a larger entity - the piano. And the piano is part of a larger entity still. This is basic systems thinking. Systems are parts of larger systems which are part of larger systems. Concentric circles. Russian dolls. So what does this mean? Is a string a whole or is it a part? Is the piano one whole thing or is it a combination of many different things? You do see the paradox of saying "there are many different strings and keys...but they are all one" right? Well that's exactly the paradox. Everything is BOTH a part and a whole. Yet you refuse to accept the paradox and keep trying to focus only on the whole side of things and ignore the parts side. If you want to call the wholes "ones" that's fine. But you have to then in the same breath admit that the parts are "many." So it is misleading to say "everything is one" and leave it there without also saying "everything is also, at the very same time, not one, but many" Say both at the same time and we have agreement. Try to focus on one side of that and ignore the other and it is misleading and biased.