STer

As I already pointed out previously, the identity of things has to do not only with what they are made up of, but the arrangement of those parts. My body may have the same elements as some other entity, but if those elements are arranged differently in me than in it, we are not "one." There is a crucial distinction that leads to very different properties. Not everything that has the same ingredients is the same thing. Those ingredients, mixed in different amounts and different configurations create different things. Meaning, it cannot exist in isolation from it. Meaning it is ultimately one with it, even though it may express itself differently and uniquely from it. Your heart expresses itself differently than your brain, but they are not two isolated entities, they are merely differentiated organs of ONE body. The body is precisely ONE because its organs ("parts") are inseparable from each other. This is the heart of where you are expressing things inaccurately. The fact that a particular thing cannot live without some other thing doesn't make those things one thing. It makes them two INTERDEPENDENT things. The existence of the word "interdependent" in our language is evidence of your flawed thinking in this. The reason the word exists is because we recognize that there are things in the universe that are not the same thing, yet can't exist in their present state without each other. You say that because two things are not isolated entities they are "one." No, they are two NOT ISOLATED entities. They are two interdependent entities. But they are still two, not one. Your definition of oneness does not match any definition of oneness that I have ever heard or could find in any dictionary. What you are describing does fit the word "interdependent." But this is where motivation comes into play. You could just call these things "interdependent" and it would be accurate and I doubt anybody would question that. But that's not enough for you. You have some other motive for calling them "one" (and capitalizing it as has been pointed out). And you struggle to not settle for calling them interdependent, which, though accurate, wouldn't fulfill the agenda that you think is served by claiming they are "one." What is your motive for insisting on calling them "one" rather than interdependent? What agenda is only served by calling them "one" but not served by calling them "interdependent"?

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.

If you're into this kind of concept, you might enjoy and find a similar concept in this short piece and the books/film it mentions. Synesthete Takes on Psychopath in Novel by Neuroscientist/Writer Focused on Biology of Morality and Aggression

If cyanide is introduced into my body then I die. I hope to be the opposite of "one" with a poison. I do not believe that logically, ability to separate and survive can be used as the definition as "being one". I also do not understand how all of the environment gets lumped into one category when some things are infinitely more important to my survival and other things are even detrimental to my survival. This is a brilliant point. If the criteria for being "one" with something is that separating from it kills you, then what do you say about things that NOT separating from kills you, like too much cyanide? The entire logic behind this, that "If you can't separate from something w/o dying, you are one with it," is so flawed. And to look at it even another way, if we are one with everything, then how could we ever die? By the definition being used here, we are at all times "one" with everything that exists and therefore could never lack anything necessary for survival.

As I already pointed out previously, the identity of things has to do not only with what they are made up of, but the arrangement of those parts. My body may have the same elements as some other entity, but if those elements are arranged differently in me than in it, we are not "one." There is a crucial distinction that leads to very different properties. Not everything that has the same ingredients is the same thing. Those ingredients, mixed in different amounts and different configurations create different things.

Are you trying to understand whether "we are one" is true or just whether it feels good or leads to nice outcomes if one believes it? These are two different goals. Something can be patently false and people can build warm relationships around a shared delusion. People treating each other kindly because of a belief doesn't mean that belief is true.

From all I can tell, you and I pretty much share the same viewpoint on the whole "we are one" concept.

I always get a little concerned when people start capitalizing words like this Actually looking back I don't think I even did capitalize it other than because it was at the beginning of a sentence lol. You quoted the wrong person to make this point, though I think it's a funny point perhaps worth making.

I always get a little concerned when people start capitalizing words like this Hey, I was just capitalizing it to match the quote of the person I was responding to (and challenging). I'd never capitalize it like that myself

Again it sounds like you are just having trouble accepting that you simply don't agree with that approach. I don't agree with it either so perhaps some validation helps you accept what you really believe as opposed to feeling some obligation to fake it. A lot of theories sound good on the surface but fall apart quickly when questioned even moderately.

It sounds as if you're attending this New Age community even though you don't agree with their approach. So I'm not sure why you are still involved unless you just have friends there you don't want to part from. But it sounds like you see the flaws in that approach as I do. You simply seem to be hesitant to accept that you just don't believe in those tenets once and for all. I haven't seen that clip. It looks interesting, but is it related to this discussion about anger or just something separate?

Sorry David, but this requires further explanation.. This sounds like one ought to ignore ones perceptions of the world around them and start to embelish on them. OK. Would you say the body is inseparable from the world? You're still missing the point that "separation" per se isn't even the issue. Our bodies are made up of various elements. Yet our bodies have emergent properties that could never have been predicted from those elements and that you would not find if you arranged those elements in a different configuration. You seem to imply that simply having the same materials in one thing and another makes them somehow one and the same. It does not. The same materials arranged in different configurations make very different things with very different properties. For things to be one and the same they must not only have the same materials, but have them arranged in the same way. You keep ignoring this latter requirement.

Mishelle, I think discomfort with the emotion of anger and a desire to suppress it so as not to have to deal with that discomfort also is very key in this whole dynamic. This reminds me of a quote from Derrick Jensen's book Endgame that you might find insightful: “Or, and this brings us back to our discussion, anger may unduly frighten you – when those in power became angry, you suffered. To be clear: All of this stepping away from anger – the presumption, for example, that anger toward the culture would lead to displacing that anger toward your friends – makes sense if you are afraid of your own emotions (or if you yourself displace your anger), if you are afraid of anger because you have been abused – made powerless in the face of “forces over which you have little control” – and realize in your body that the anger you feel only highlights your own impotence. The point, it seems painfully (and beautifully) clear to me, is to not eradicate anger, but to try to be clear about when and why and at whom I am angry, and to be mindful of my anger. When appropriate, to let anger inform and even possess me so long as it does not consume me, as I can, when appropriate, let love or fear or joy inform and possess me so long as they too do not consume me. To aim my anger, not displace it, just as I would hope to aim and not displace my love, fear, or joy. I do not mind when someone expresses anger at me for something I have done to him or her. I do, however, mind when someone expresses anger toward me I do not deserve. The same can be said, obviously, for love and other emotions. My dogs sometimes fight over their food dish, even though there is another a few feet away and even though they love each other even more than they love me. Every time they fight, minutes later they’re once again cozying up to each other. This may seem odd, but I like it when I see this process, because each time it reminds me again that anger is just anger – I learn the same lesson each time I hear songbirds scold each other, or see bees tussle, or I snap at my mom or she snaps at me – and I’m reminded that outside the context of an abusive relationship, anger is nothing to be frightened of. Anger is just anger. Attempts to “transcend” anger emerge from this fear, and also from the same old body-hating traditions that want to rid us of all of our “flawed” animal nature: transcendent spirit (cosmic consciousness, God’s eyebrows, and so on), good; animal nature/emotion, bad. Outside of this abusive context, of course, none of it makes any sense at all.” This can also be seen in terms of the Internal Family Systems model. It means one has to get to know the manager and firefighter parts of him or herself that may involve anger and try to help these parts become healthy by listening to their anger, not running from it. Only then can you find the hurt (and possibly also angry) exiles that need healing underneath. But while doing so it's important to work on staying in Self, rather than what IFS calls "fusing" with these angry parts.

I would say there are degrees of a SENSE of separation, without there being any actual separation in reality. I know that's a very challenging position to take from the point of view of the body and the five physical senses, but I stand by it. And on what would you base this claim other than simply some subjective feeling you have, which has no more validity than someone else's subjective feeling that we are separate? How do you know it isn't you who has a SENSE of us not being separated even though we actually are (at least in part)?

If the discussion about determinism can progress any further than it already has, then you will find this board most interested and open to the discussion. If there is any kind of 'viewpoint' here, it is one of improving philosophical ideas. Sadly rehashing old debates becomes kind of futile and frustrating in that endeavour, if that makes sense. It's interesting to note that we have actually had some discussions around the topic recently. So either Stefan's demand is really more of a request (or challenge perhaps) to move the topic along into a new and more fruitful area. Or people are being disrespectful by bringing the same arguments up each time. If the reason for not allowing discussion of determinism is that there is a belief that nothing new can possibly be said about it that hasn't already been mentioned on this forum, then that should be stated as the reason for banning its discussion. I wonder if Demitri would accept that reasoning. Perhaps the rule could be something like this: You are free to discuss determinism as long as you first make sure that what you are going to say has not basically already been discussed. The onus is on you to scour the previous threads. If you post and it is found that what you posted has already been discussed, then you will be banned. So the topic is not off limits, but wasting precious bandwidth and storage space duplicating something on the topic is. As for saying that the only viewpoint here is improving philosophical ideas, I'm not sure how you can say that. Everyone is well aware that FDR is a pro-anarchist, pro-peaceful-parenting, pro-empiricism place. It definitely is based on certain values and not others. It takes a stance. Perhaps not every single person who posts here agrees with those stances, but the bias toward them is pretty clear. I'm not saying there is anything wrong with that. It's perfectly legitiamte to have a forum dedicated to those values. I just wonder if the preference for those values should be openly stated, rather than claiming it is just about philosophy as if it is value-free.

Demitri, I think there is something possibly to what you're saying, but you are using the wrong angle on it. There is no violation of the free market in Stef banning whatever topic and whomever he wants from a forum he owns. What you could frame as a "violation" is claiming the forum is dedicated to "philosophy" and then banning a particular philosophical discussion. And if you look at the title of this thread, that was the original approach of it. Stefan makes a couple claims with this forum. One is that he advocates for the free market. Another is that he advocates for an open philosophical discussion. I don't see him calling into question the first one. But I have seen the second one called into question a couple times. I myself have called it into question before. I've asked if this board is really dedicated to promoting philosophy or rather to promoting a particular philosophical viewpoint. It often seems to be more the latter. And this can be misleading to claim the forum is merely a philosophy discussion when, in reality, it is very much an advocate of a particular viewpoint. So you might say that banning discussion of determinism flies in the face of claiming the forum is an open philosophical discussion and is rather evidence that it is a discussion only of certain aspects of philosophy that most of the people here agree with. In my case, I've run up against this more when I've called into question whether there is any biological basis to people becoming abusive or exploitative. That viewpoint doesn't seem very welcome here. But if it's an open philosophy discussion, why should any viewpoint not be welcome? You may ask the same about determinism. So the real question is whether it would be more honest to refer to FDR as a discussion of philosophy from a particular viewpoint rather than just overall.

Hi there. Different does not mean separate (although it can SEEM separate). The Oneness differentiates Itself into myriad levels, or holons of order, which express the inherent order of the unmanifest Oneness. I'm guessing you are familiar with Ken Wilber's work? I think the problem is you're trying to make separateness all or nothing. There are degrees of separateness. Two things can overlap 20% or 50% or 75%. Nothing in the universe is 100% separate, that is true. Nor are things in the universe 100% overlapping. They are both connected and have space. You are trying to call any amount of overlap between two things "being One." "Being One" is too extreme a phrase to express something much more nuanced like "All things, to some degree or another, are connected." Those two ideas should not be conflated. Wilber is actually mentioned a few times on the Holon wikipedia page as he has expressed some views on this.

If interested here is the wikipedia page about the holon concept and another page about holons on a site named after the concept.

Oneness and separation obviously cannot co-exist together, but oneness and the APPEARANCE of separation can. At first glance It APPEARS like my body is separate and apart from the world, but a closer examination reveals it is not separate. It is made up of the world, just like the wave of an ocean is made up of the ocean. Oneness and separation certainly can co-exist because systems exist at different levels. A variety of parts work together to create a unified whole at one level. And yet underneath they are separate parts. Your kidney is a working system. Yet it is made up of many cells that each are separate. And yet each cell is a working system made up of parts and so on. Check out the concept of a "holon." This term refers to something which is both a whole in itself, as well as a part of a larger whole at the same time. This aspect of things being holons is fundamental to how systems work. And the concept of "emergent properties" is also key here because it shows us that each system level can have characteristics as a whole that we couldn't have predicted from any of its parts.

I agree. And if the feelings alone were a sufficient basis on which to proclaim what is objectively true, then the feelings of those who feel separate or disconnected would have to be given weight, as well. So we're back to epistemology and why I don't believe that simply feeling something is enough to support truth claims (other than the truth that you are feeling something).

That is a faulty test. The inability to live in complete isolation doesn't prove we are "all one." It just proves that to some degree, we rely on others. You can see how faulty this proposed test is by looking at the opposite test. What if I said that I challenge you to live complete enmeshed 24/7 with everyone else on the planet with absolutely no space or privacy whatsoever. I bet you can't do that either. In fact I know you can't. You'd be physically crushed, not to even go into the emotional torment. Does that prove we are totally separate with no connection at all? This is all-or-nothing thinking and is faulty. We can neither live with total enmeshment or complete separation. We live in the balance in between.

What does "We are one" even mean? In some ways we are all connected and in other we are separate. That balance of interconnectedness and separation is crucial. To simply say "we are one" ignores all the ways there is space between us, and that space underlies the diversity that is so crucial to resilience. We rely on both connection and space to survive and thrive. It is unhealthy to lose sight of either one.

MIshelle, It depends what we mean by love. If by love it means we wish the best for the person, then fine. I see no problem, even in the case of someone harming you, wishing the best for them. But the question that arises is why it isn't just as important to love yourself. And that isn't just a selfish thing either. You are important to others in your family and community. So my question for this New Age teacher would be why it isn't just as important to love yourself which would then require you to stand up for and protect yourself. Also, standing up to the person harming you could enlighten them just as much as them harming you can enlighten you. This logic isn't so terrible when it's applied in all directions. But when someone applies it only or almost always to encourage love from the victim to the abuser and conspicuously fails to put as much effort into encouraging it in the other direction, you know something is off.

Yes much of what you say in your first response is what I'm talking about. We might put it in terms of having an extremely high emotional quotient. I didn't say the correct environmental conditions could create that regardless of genetic predisposition though. That's obviously far from true. There are many genetic conditions that would significantly limit someone's capacities in those areas.Perhaps it is the case that with the right genetic mix - that doesn't mean some overall perfect genetic mix, since there is no such thing, but rather one well suited to the particular environment - a given person could manage to come out relatively healthy despite a very challenging external upbringing.I'm not sure what point you're getting at though. Anyone with any credibility at all agrees that both genetics and environment play interconnected roles to varying degrees in various cases. That's certainly my view.By "specific care" I mean measures that a particular child, due to having a certain condition, requires for optimal health that most other children do not require. Yes if a parent is aware of a child's diabetic needs and fails to meet them, then some might say that violates "peaceful parenting." It's really unhelpful to get on a tangent about the definition of "peaceful parenting." The point is if they knew about the diabetic needs and failed to take care of them, that would be considered neglectful. But what if they don't know about the diabetes or the special needs that it brings? That's the situation we are likely facing with other biological issues right now that we are not yet able to identify well. My point was that as we improve our ability to accurately diagnose more biological conditions, parents will have the ability to provide the appropriate unique care for those children who have them and who, at the moment, are not getting that care.

Brilliant point. Point? No seriously, how do I get that to go down? I like money. Thank you. Great point that their real belief in that philosophy would be displayed by their willingness to put their money where their mouth is. As for making that happen, good luck.