We are all One

[Mishelle]

Wow, some good exchanges here, appreciating all the input!  Here's what's coming up for me overall--I know and feel my "oneness" as in "connection" with Life all the time, it's Others I often don't feel connected to, and this is not an illusion or something I'm just "feeling" without any objectivity.  Stefan often talks about Anger and the important function it plays, this is a feeling that can be very much tied to objectivity and reason.  I think it's dangerous to dismiss or deny our anger, or any other feeling--they exist for a reason and clue us in to "the greater field," and our own deeper selves.  I'm not talking about being a slave to emotion here, but we should not be striving to become automatons!  This constant striving for "happiness" as the meaning of life is tied in here too--happiness is NOT the meaning of life!  Evolution is as close a meaning as there is, and it is often painful and unpleasant!

 What I'm hearing when Ken Wilbur and all the other New Age philosophers repeat constantly that we are One and somehow having this perspective will save the universe when IMHO in fact this will cause first Impotence and eventually Genocide.  If my rational anger at abusers is continually squelched from where will I get the power and wisdom to read and therefor to stay away from such people? If I'm asked to Love and forgive every human Evil as if it is my own evil, when I know it is not mine, how could this endless sea of compassion possibly help anyone or evolve consciousness?  There is nothing "new" in this New Age crap, it's as old as Faith, and it didn't work the first who knows how many times around, so why would it work now?

enjoying our wee chat, thank you loves [] 

cheers

Mishelle

[STer]

 

 

I think the problem is you're trying to make separateness all or nothing. There are degrees of separateness.

 

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)?

[STer]

 

If my rational anger at abusers is continually squelched from where will I get the power and wisdom to read and therefor to stay away from such people?

 

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.

[PatrickC]

This world is not at all what it appears to be. In the same way we previously thought it was flat, we presently think it is outside of us.

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.

[David L]

 

This world is not at all what it appears to be. In the same way we previously thought it was flat, we presently think it is outside of us.

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?

 

 

[STer]

 

 

This world is not at all what it appears to be. In the same way we previously thought it was flat, we presently think it is outside of us.

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.

[PatrickC]

 

 

This world is not at all what it appears to be. In the same way we previously thought it was flat, we presently think it is outside of us.

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?

Ok, I don't want to have a conversation about something you have already been discussing with STer. I want to know what the significance is for you about this 'oneness'?

[David L]

 

Ok, I don't want to have a conversation about something you have already been discussing with STer. I want to know what the significance is for you about this 'oneness'?

 

For me, the realization of oneness signifies freedom, wholeness, harmony.

 

 

[PatrickC]

 

 

Ok, I don't want to have a conversation about something you have already been discussing with STer. I want to know what the significance is for you about this 'oneness'?

 

For me, the realization of oneness signifies freedom, wholeness, harmony.

So it's just a metaphor then?

[David L]

 

 

 

Ok, I don't want to have a conversation about something you have already been discussing with STer. I want to know what the significance is for you about this 'oneness'?

 

For me, the realization of oneness signifies freedom, wholeness, harmony.

So it's just a metaphor then?

 

No, it embodies those attributes.

 

[Mishelle]

This is a very thoughtful reply Ster and I appreciate it very much.  It's not my own anger I'm concerned with, it's others' apathy and denial.  While what you express here sounds very healthy, my frustrating experience with my "new age women's community" is that unless it is sugar-coated and cooed in language like a mother with an infant suckling at her breast, then something is "wrong" (with me) and I must re-enter some transcendental meditation space until I feel nothing again and then re-approach said-conflict.  Everything must "feel good" -- it's truly exasperating!  I am very good at meditation and finding my calm balance again, the problem is then trying to give a hoot about what it was (rightfully) bothering me when I wasn't there.  That's why I mentioned impotence, this seems to be the goal, to be so non-threatening as even the weakest dove would not fly away.  I am much more like your dogs in conflict and that feels much more authentic to me!

BTW, wondering if you've seen this excellent clip - just ordered the book and really looking forward to digging deeper.

http://www.collective-evolution.com/2013/04/10/banned-ted-talk-rupert-sheldrake-the-science-delusion/

love & cheers

Mishelle

ps, i will look at these books you quote, thank you! 

[Mishelle]

Just to be more clear, what this has to do with the "We are all One"--it's like with the link before from the Thrive Movement blog about talking to people about what they don't want to hear.  She says talk from the "heart" first, in my community they call this the "We space".  It all sounds perfectly fine and pleasant except I really feel a lack of authenticity about it.  For example, in conflict, I'm to identify first and foremost with the other person's weakness, not my own strength.  So if that person is terribly uninformed and I am not, I still must ask questions, to draw her in, instead of "tell her" what I know to be true after years of research!  She hasn't a clue, I know what I'm talking about, but I must not speak or act from this place of knowing, but rather from her place of unknowing.  It sounds good in theory, that's why I keep practicing it, but I still have that nagging feeling of "this is fake and I don't like it!"  

This is why I'm in continued inquiry around the "we are one" concept.

thanks y'all for helping try to get it!

m

[masonman]

 

 

Oneness

 

I always get a little concerned when people start capitalizing words like this

[Mishelle]

Why, masonkiller? Either contribute something meaningful or don't bother replying please, it wastes all our time.

Cheers (notice capital and be as concerned as you wish!)

[STer]

 

This is a very thoughtful reply Ster and I appreciate it very much.  It's not my own anger I'm concerned with, it's others' apathy and denial.  While what you express here sounds very healthy, my frustrating experience with my "new age women's community" is that unless it is sugar-coated and cooed in language like a mother with an infant suckling at her breast, then something is "wrong" (with me) and I must re-enter some transcendental meditation space until I feel nothing again and then re-approach said-conflict.  Everything must "feel good" -- it's truly exasperating!  I am very good at meditation and finding my calm balance again, the problem is then trying to give a hoot about what it was (rightfully) bothering me when I wasn't there.  That's why I mentioned impotence, this seems to be the goal, to be so non-threatening as even the weakest dove would not fly away.  I am much more like your dogs in conflict and that feels much more authentic to me!

BTW, wondering if you've seen this excellent clip - just ordered the book and really looking forward to digging deeper.

http://www.collective-evolution.com/2013/04/10/banned-ted-talk-rupert-sheldrake-the-science-delusion/

love & cheers

Mishelle

ps, i will look at these books you quote, thank you! 

 

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?

[STer]

 

Just to be more clear, what this has to do with the "We are all One"--it's like with the link before from the Thrive Movement blog about talking to people about what they don't want to hear.  She says talk from the "heart" first, in my community they call this the "We space".  It all sounds perfectly fine and pleasant except I really feel a lack of authenticity about it.  For example, in conflict, I'm to identify first and foremost with the other person's weakness, not my own strength.  So if that person is terribly uninformed and I am not, I still must ask questions, to draw her in, instead of "tell her" what I know to be true after years of research!  She hasn't a clue, I know what I'm talking about, but I must not speak or act from this place of knowing, but rather from her place of unknowing.  It sounds good in theory, that's why I keep practicing it, but I still have that nagging feeling of "this is fake and I don't like it!"  

This is why I'm in continued inquiry around the "we are one" concept.

thanks y'all for helping try to get it!

m

 

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.

[STer]

 

 

 

Oneness

 

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

[STer]

 

 

 

Oneness

 

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.

[masonman]

 

Why, masonkiller? Either contribute something meaningful or don't bother replying please, it wastes all our time.

Cheers (notice capital and be as concerned as you wish!)

 

I'm sorry you don't find my words meaningful, I suppose its subjective. Stefan even brought it up in his videos on philosophy, when philosophers start creating capitalized proper nouns its always slightly worrysome.

[In the belly of the beast]

 

Why, masonkiller? Either contribute something meaningful or don't bother replying please, it wastes all our time.

Cheers (notice capital and be as concerned as you wish!)

 

 

Two reasons immediatedly leap to mind for me:

(1)  It brings to mind phrases such as "we're all in this together", used to justify coercion (government or otherwise).

(2)  Capitalized nouns such as Oneness, Relatedness, Enlightenment, etc. are frequently
employed in this manner by religions (especially in Buddhism, "God is within us" viewpoints, etc.), or in thinking that has all of
the garb of religion, whether in
pop-spitrituality/self-help/pseudo-psychology books or in "spiritual
meditation".  While this observation, taken in isolation, would merely be a "guilt by association" arguement, someone using vaguely defined terms such as "Oneness", "Connectedness", etc. as a way to justify a particular course
of concrete action is almost certainly arguing nonsense, based on
probability alone.  Such terms therefore put my BS detector on high alert.  That said, it's still best to listen to them until you can
either logically justify or disavow your initial gut call that they are spewing baloney, of course, but that usually doesn't take too long.

[PatrickC]

Mishelle I have to agree with STer and wonder why you still feel the need to be around this community. To me this stuff sounds deeply toxic. It reminds me of much of the contradictory stuff I learnt growing up in a Christian household. It's the embellishment of language, which may have some poetic license elsewhere. But in this case, I think is a deliberate obfuscation of the intent.

Having said that, I do understand what it's like to realise you no longer agree with people that you once shared a bond with. That it's quite isolating and scary of course. I wasn’t sure whether this was what you were dealing with rather than a better understanding of 'we are all one'. Since you seemed to understand the problems with that concept from the start of this thread. Just a thought I had.

[David L]

 

Just some thoughts along the present line of this thread...

Spiritual fakery, as with fakery in general, is indeed widespread, without a doubt. The ego constantly co-opts true concepts for its own separative agenda, especially the concept of oneness, and it also cleverly uses that very abuse as an excuse to dismiss the concept altogether, claiming it is bogus, dangerous, and thus mustn't be explored in depth. Indeed, the ego knows that the concept of oneness ultimately threatens its illusory hegemony as a selfhood totally apart from the world, even while struggling to incorporate that world into itself at the expense of those around it. It's only when a real crisis hits on a grand scale that you will often see the "Let's Pretend" game of separation fall away, revealing our better, truer, all-inclusive nature beneath. Then again of course, some will go in the opposite direction, into final self-destruction. 

Clearly, the more we realize we are all ultimately inseparable on a fundamental level, the easier it will become for all of us, in the same way that the cells of our body all benefit in the understanding of their rightful place in the integrity and oneness of the body as a whole. Nothing "New Age" about that, it's just that we've totally forgotten this ancient wisdom due to centuries of suppression by the church and the scientism that still prevail. Real science and spirituality are yet ahead of us, and I would suggest they have their foundation in the sincere exploration of our fundamental inseparability with life and existence. There is no separate survival.

[Mishelle]

Hi Ster,

The link has to do with connecting Spriituality and Science, which is the foundation of this discussion on "Oneness" as far as I can tell.  It's very basic and using a scientific approach to debunk some of the fundamental suppositions of science which conflict with spirituality.  It's just an intro, but I've bought the book and will try to use it to continue my inquiry as I try to feel and think through where and how this oneness theory isn't sitting right with me.  As for the community, I've learned a lot from them, and I'm hesitant to leave because of a few philosophical concerns which could very well by my own short-sidedness and based in intellectual assumptions and a general discomfort with that level of "intimacy" -- which is exactly what it feels like, very raw and profoundly difficult, and I rarely shy away from the hard stuff.

Thanks for all your input, it really helps to explore ideas with people holding opposing viewpoints.

love & cheers

Mishelle

 

[Mishelle]

Hi Masonkiller,

I apologize if my reply sounded harsh, I'm sure you have good reason for bringing up grammar.  It's just that rarely does grammar have any significant impact on philosophy, not even Chomsky tries to make such parallels anymore!  Sure they have been tried in the past by the best of linguists, but this is socio-linguistics and grammar is one of many angles used to make a generalization--under normal circumstances language changes too fast to force it to mean something terribly significant about anything.  

My immediate thought was this tendency to capitalize goes back to the Germanic linguistic tradition where all nouns are capitalized, making them stand-out, which helps in formulating the case-endings.  With 16 cases and the noun spelling changing to accomodate it does make it easier to have the noun stand out!  Whether this has anything to do with "Oneness" being capitalized seems to me to focus on the trees instead of the forest.  Or maybe I'm just bias, as a foreign language teacher for 20 years nothing bores me, or my students, more than grammar.

love & cheers

Mishelle

 

[Mishelle]

Hi Xelent,

It's very thoughtful of you to understand my sensitivity about breaking with this group which I do still share deep bonds with!  I really do want a better understanding of "we are all one" precisely because of this bond with them, which is the first time I've ever been "a follower" of anyone or anything -- typically I'm not a joiner at all and I'm quite used to isolation.  I want to keep my mind open, to hear other's thoughts, especially those who have a complete opposite worldview, and to learn how, if at all, these worldviews connect.  The New Age stuff is increasingly popular and influential, there is big money and power in these communities right now, and not just in California and Colorado--it's spreading fast around the globe.  I don't want to close my mind ever, to any worldviews, and at this point it's far too early for me to make assumptions about where and how this community is wrong, without exploring "my issues" around it.

That said, it does feel toxic sometimes!  And other times it feels very healthy and inclusive and this is where it departs from religion.  Maybe this is the way we are supposed to treat each other if we are to evolve socially, politically, culturally--ALL?!  I do not know, and my challenge is to remain uncomfortably in the not-knowing until I am certain.

thanks again for your reply

love & cheers

Mishelle

 

[PatrickC]

 

Hi Xelent,

It's very thoughtful of you to understand my sensitivity about breaking with this group which I do still share deep bonds with!  I really do want a better understanding of "we are all one" precisely because of this bond with them, which is the first time I've ever been "a follower" of anyone or anything -- typically I'm not a joiner at all and I'm quite used to isolation.  I want to keep my mind open, to hear other's thoughts, especially those who have a complete opposite worldview, and to learn how, if at all, these worldviews connect.  The New Age stuff is increasingly popular and influential, there is big money and power in these communities right now, and not just in California and Colorado--it's spreading fast around the globe.  I don't want to close my mind ever, to any worldviews, and at this point it's far too early for me to make assumptions about where and how this community is wrong, without exploring "my issues" around it.

That said, it does feel toxic sometimes!  And other times it feels very healthy and inclusive and this is where it departs from religion.  Maybe this is the way we are supposed to treat each other if we are to evolve socially, politically, culturally--ALL?!  I do not know, and my challenge is to remain uncomfortably in the not-knowing until I am certain.

thanks again for your reply

love & cheers

Mishelle

Yes of course, you should still explore with them as much as you wish. Breaking long term bonds (if it ever has to happen), should be a well considered process indeed and not taken lightly of course. I was curious if you had ever read Stefan's book Real Time Relationships (RTR for short). I think it could be a useful aid in your quest for clarity. Anyway, best wishes all the same.

 

[TheRobin]

Maybe it will help you more if you focus more on exploring the feelings that come up than the cocnept itself. Since the concept is obviously bogus, all that's left is a vague pleasent (or sometimes not so pleasent) feeling anyway.

My personal theory would probably go something like this: The idea plays with the hope for closeness and intimacy with other people. Something quite healthy IF the people in question are also healthy, good, nice, loveable, etc. So it kind of toys with the notion of "Wouldn't it be great if all people were actually good?", which, certainly, would be really great and something to wish for.
But, since not everyone is actually good, nice, loveable etc. it's equally unhealthy to simply pretend they are and treat them as if they're good anyway.
For one thing it's not healthy for one's self, since one exposes onesself to abusive and exploititative people, and on the other hand it's also quite disrespectful to those who actually are good and nice people. In a way it's like the communist idea of everyone deserving equal pay regardless of whether they actually do anything productive or just play videogmes all day.

[David L]

 

 

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)?

 

Sorry for the delay on this.  I would say that if you do not trust your own feeling of inner well being vs non-well being as a determinant in what is truly real and authentic in this regard, the claim of oneness can otherwise be validated empirically on the physical level by attempting to totally separate your body from the world :-)  This is also known as "suicide" ! 

The fact that you cannot separate your body from the environment indicates your body is one with it.

Hope that better clarifies.

[Mishelle]

Dear David, 

Thank you, very thought-provoking.  I absolutely resonate with the ego-resistance and that takes a tremendous amount of clarity, and in fact purity, to see past.  It reminds me of an exercise we did together with this community I've been speaking about where we did a long meditation and then moved around the room in that state of mind and interacted with each other.  It was one of the most profound experiences of my life!  I could only describe it as being on ecstasy, only we were drug-free of course.  To engage with others at that level was, dare I say, magical  And still, the struggle remains, and I do believe goes beyond just an ego struggle into an ethical one--identifying with the weakest leak, or the most violent one--can that be right?  We were a harmless group of women in a completely safe environment based on shared agreements, how to translate that into the real world?!

I really appreciate your time and thoughts, I remain in uncomfortable inquiry for as long as it takes.

love & cheers

Mishelle

 

[Wesley]

 

Sorry for the delay on this.  I would say that if you do not trust your own feeling of inner well being vs non-well being as a determinant in what is truly real and authentic in this regard, the claim of oneness can otherwise be validated empirically on the physical level by attempting to totally separate your body from the world :-)  This is also known as "suicide" ! 

The fact that you cannot separate your body from the environment indicates your body is one with it.

Hope that better clarifies.

 

I do not need to be one with all of the environment to survive. If I have an artificial feeding tube, a oxygen mask, and a regulated temperature I could survive for the rest of my life. This is not an ideal life, but it proves a point.

If I do not need the pencil that is next to me to survive, then I am not one with it.

If I do not need this molecule of air because I can replace it with any other air molecule or an oxygen mask, then I am not one with it.

I can cut off my fingernail, however before I do I still consider it part of me.

I do not need my arms to survive, but I do consider them part of me.

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.

 

[Mishelle]

Xelent, I haven't read it and will definitely do so now, thank you!

I've been listening to his reading of Lloyd Demause's The Origins of War in Child Abuse--very powerful--learning a lot. Absolutely amazed by the connections that are revealed when we stop looking at things through this "whitewashed" lens we've been fed. I think for those of us who are older, more indoctrinated, it becomes that much more difficult, or enlightening, as the case may be, to strip away all the false teachings.

really appreciate your input!

love & cheers

Mishelle

[Mishelle]

TheRobin, you have hit the nail on the head with "it's equally unhealthy to simply pretend they are and treat them as if they're good anyway."  This is what they truly believe will happen, ignore the dragons in the room and they will disappear.  I "feel"this as unhealthy and toxic, them as Pollyannish for thinking so naively, and they see me as toxically destroying the vision they are trying to stand in! And so we go round and round, with them trying to stand in LA-LA land, and me preparing for disaster. hmmmm, good thing to think more on this week, thanks!

love & cheers

Mishelle

[In the belly of the beast]

 

TheRobin, you have hit the nail on the head with "it's equally unhealthy to simply pretend they are and treat them as if they're good anyway."  This is what they truly believe will happen, ignore the dragons in the room and they will disappear.  I "feel"this as unhealthy and toxic, them as Pollyannish for thinking so naively, and they see me as toxically destroying the vision they are trying to stand in! And so we go round and round, with them trying to stand in LA-LA land, and me preparing for disaster. hmmmm, good thing to think more on this week, thanks!

love & cheers

Mishelle

 

A growing part of your mind is warning you that you are around highly irrational and corrupt people.  Cults and religions are effective because they offer a simple, all-encompassing explanation of reality, alongside the illusion of virtue and community, and intergenerational indoctrination beginning in childhood (once a cult becomes established).

Again, it appears as if you are being supplied with the illusion of community and acceptance amongst these women.  That hostility you receive for your expressed skepticism is a clear sign of corruption.

 

[David L]

 

I do not need to be one with all of the environment to survive. If I have an artificial feeding tube, a oxygen mask, and a regulated temperature I could survive for the rest of my life. This is not an ideal life, but it proves a point.

If I do not need the pencil that is next to me to survive, then I am not one with it.

If I do not need this molecule of air because I can replace it with any other air molecule or an oxygen mask, then I am not one with it.

I can cut off my fingernail, however before I do I still consider it part of me.

I do not need my arms to survive, but I do consider them part of me.

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.

 

 

It is simply a matter of things being in their rightful place. For your body to function as one, it musn't have spinal fluid flowing through your veins, which would be fatal. Yet you do have spinal fluid flowing within your spinal column, in its proper place, within your body that functions as ONE body. See?

Cyanide gas has its proper place in the universe. The human body has its proper place, too. Do you know what "universe" means? The prefix 'uni" means "one". Nothing in the universe exists in isolation when all is one, yet everything has its proper place at the same time.

Hope this makes more sense of what I'm saying. The body cannot exist in a vacum because it was not born in a vacum, it was born out the universe of form, out of a cosmic, planetary and mamalian matrix called the human species. To believe that we are not all ultimately one with each other and the world is literally a form of insanity.  Little wonder the  world is in the state it is in, eh?

[PatrickC]

I've been listening to his reading of Lloyd Demause's The Origins of War in Child Abuse--very powerful--learning a lot.

Yes, Lloyd has some valuable coin in this discussion.