We are all One

[STer]

 

 

 

 

If the "many" aren't separate from each other, then why do you call them "many"?

As said before, many different expressions of one.

 

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

[STer]

 

This discussion is not productive anymore. The language changes and cherry-picking make debate impossible.

 

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

[fingolfin]

 

 

This discussion is not productive anymore. The language changes and cherry-picking make debate impossible.

 

But the issue is precisely a lack of clear definitions and unambiguous language. E.g.:

 

The one ultimately becomes conscious of its oneness through the expression of itself as many.

 

[Stephen C]

If we were all one, we'd need a lot of diapers. 

[endostate]

If you start to feel too much oneness... seek help immediately! It may be a broken blood vessel in the left half of your brain.

VIDEO: TED Talk - Jill Bolte Taylor's Powerful Stroke of Insight (19min)
http://www.ted.com/talks/jill_bolte_taylor_s_powerful_stroke_of_insight.html 

[View:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UyyjU8fzEYU:450:300]

[Mishelle]

Nice!  That's a new one for me too, looked it up, along with Holon and now it seems we are getting somewhere essential!  I need to read much more of course, but what immediately popped into my mind was the fibonacci spiral.  This may sound like a leap, but couldn't the "we are all one" fit in here?  Say there's a higher intelligence looking into our galaxy--our cosmos, including all the people in it, through that lens we would all be moving, be essentially living, as one, right?  If I am understanding these concepts a bit, what is happening "energetically" in the smallest particles is replicated "infinitely" into the biggest picture--if it's true of a shell, and plantlife, and of a galaxy, wouldn't it be true of us somehow too?!

The "Oneness" need mean nothing more than functioning in the quantum field as one, which certainly leaves plenty of room for individuation or seperation at the same time.  When we describe ourselves as "being in the zone" whether alone in a creative endeavor or in team sports, is this not what is being expressed--we are in oneness with the field, and/or with each other. When you watch a flock of ducks or geese, or even two dogs playing, is this not how they move on a smaller scale--they really are one, they aren't talking about how and where their next move will be--they are one with each other and with the field beyond any need to communicate at all "out loud."

Maybe I'm grasping at straws here, but I am thrilled to learn these new terms and hear all these thoughts, so thank you!  On a practical level it means to me I don't have to overly-identify with someone's weakness or with their violence, it's not about claiming "oneness" with another individual or group at all.

 

love & cheers

Mishelle

 

[STer]

 

 If I am understanding these concepts a bit, what is happening "energetically" in the smallest particles is replicated "infinitely" into the biggest picture--if it's true of a shell, and plantlife, and of a galaxy, wouldn't it be true of us somehow too?!

 

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.

[Wesley]

 

 

The one ultimately becomes conscious of its oneness through the expression of itself as many.

 

 

 

LOL, Thats not my quote

[STer]

 

 

 

The one ultimately becomes conscious of its oneness through the expression of itself as many.

 

 

 

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]

Wow this is fantastic, thank you so much for sharing!  It makes a lot of sense too considering we are trying to speak about right-brain oneness with left-brain language.  this is why the oneness is so much easier to approach in meditation (or on drugs!).  love it!  This is an intellectual community, very left-brain, right?!  As an interesting side-note left-handed has been discouraged throughout history, and was forceably altered in children in central and eastern Europe until very recently.  Did the powers that shouldn't be want to discourage a feeling of oneness for some reason?  How many of you meditate and so have any idea what I'm talking about?  Are you left or right-handed?

fun stuff

love & cheers

Mishelle

btw, I'm left-handed.

[PatrickC]

I'm kind of feeling STer and Snipes frustration in this conversation.. But like Mr Fingolfin suggests, it's all about definitions (isn't it always). []

Anyway, not sure what to make of this video with Mr Sagan. But I think it touches on both sides of this debate perhaps. Certainly I can accept some aspects of 'onesness' as a metaphor I think.

[View:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XGK84Poeynk]

[Mishelle]

But that's just it--it's all "really really there" -- No metaphor here!  When we get out of the left brain, we feel it, when we put language on it, we lose it again. []

[PatrickC]

 

But that's just it--it's all "really really there" -- No metaphor here!  When we get out of the left brain, we feel it, when we put language on it, we lose it again. /emoticons/emotion-5.gif

 

No disrespect Mishelle, but I have no idea what that means. I'm careful these days that I don't project onto an idea, especially from an immediate emotional response. So whilst I enjoyed this video, I'm cautious that historically I have had a tendancy to be drawn into arguments that merely 'touched' me, without thinking further as to why. Back in the day I could mix up a beat that could get some folk into a stupor. Whilst there is nothing wrong with that per se, I think it's reasonable to ask what those feelings really mean, if that makes sense.

 

[Mishelle]

Xelent, I take no disrespect at all, I've been touched by your sensitivity in this conversation.  I actually did not like this video, at all, it reminds me of "my issues" with my new age community.  This is such a huge part of what's trying to be expressed here--to what degree do we allow and expect our intellect to make sense of our feelings?  Can we constantly rationally discount those feelings that make us act "as one" -- like true love, or as I mentioned before "being in the zone".  I've had what we call "out of body experiences" quite a few times in my 43 years--I repeatedly return to "rationality" to explain them, which then discounts them.  Yet, when I am honest with myself, when I don't try to explain it to anyone, when I just "BE"--I know what I felt, I know there was something happening there that still can't be explained by science.  I hear these stories from others again from the left-brain, and I try to rationalize them, I again discount them as not real, until I go into meditation again and know they are just as real as this so-called reality we experience as life.  There is more happening than we can see or express in language, is this "the oneness" -- that's what it feels like, and that's what the intellect is constantly attempting to explain away.

love & cheers

Mishelle

 

[David L]

Hi Mishelle,

I interpret what you're saying as the frustration that occurs when one mode of knowing tries to speak for another mode of knowing, which is known epistemologically as a "category error". In my studies, I have come to understand three general modes of knowing reality. 

Knowing by way of the eye of flesh.

Knowing by way of the eye of mind.

Knowing by way of the eye of Spirit.

The eye of flesh sees of course the world of form, the visible world seen through our eyes. Science has restricted itself almost totally to this empirical realm, although to my way of thinking it doesn't have to. In fact when it does this, it is called "scientism", because it has reduced its explorations of the universe to reductionist, dogmatic thinking---that is, it believes that any other way of knowing reality than through physical sense perception is mere superstition and "pseudo-science". 

But think about it---there is a world of mind that can't been seen with the eye of flesh. Take the Non-Aggression Priniciple, as but one example. You can't see it with your physical eyes, but you can see it with your reasoning, logic, and understanding. It is an invisible mental principle that has no physical form, yet definitely exists in the mental realm. 

And then there is the realm of Spirit, which cannot be perceived by either the eye of flesh, or the eye of mind, but can only be seen by the eye of Spirit, typically through meditation. This is the realm where the OBE takes place. But again, just like the eye of flesh is unable to perceive the world of logic and reason and principles, so the eye of mind is unable to think and reason properly about what lies outside of the bodymind. If it doesn't acknowledge its limitations in this regard, and tries to speak fully for the spiritual realm, it's making a category error. As I see it, this is the source of the frustration then. Confusing the different modes of knowing with each other, instead of knowing their proper places in the overall scheme of the knowledge quest.

Does this make any sense?

David

[STer]

 

But that's just it--it's all "really really there" -- No metaphor here!  When we get out of the left brain, we feel it, when we put language on it, we lose it again. /emoticons/emotion-5.gif

 

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?)

[STer]

 

Xelent, I take no disrespect at all, I've been touched by your sensitivity in this conversation.  I actually did not like this video, at all, it reminds me of "my issues" with my new age community.  This is such a huge part of what's trying to be expressed here--to what degree do we allow and expect our intellect to make sense of our feelings?  Can we constantly rationally discount those feelings that make us act "as one" -- like true love, or as I mentioned before "being in the zone".  I've had what we call "out of body experiences" quite a few times in my 43 years--I repeatedly return to "rationality" to explain them, which then discounts them.  Yet, when I am honest with myself, when I don't try to explain it to anyone, when I just "BE"--I know what I felt, I know there was something happening there that still can't be explained by science.  I hear these stories from others again from the left-brain, and I try to rationalize them, I again discount them as not real, until I go into meditation again and know they are just as real as this so-called reality we experience as life.  There is more happening than we can see or express in language, is this "the oneness" -- that's what it feels like, and that's what the intellect is constantly attempting to explain away.

love & cheers

Mishelle

 

 

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.

[STer]

 

Hi Mishelle,

I interpret what you're saying as the frustration that occurs when one mode of knowing tries to speak for another mode of knowing, which is known epistemologically as a "category error". In my studies, I have come to understand three general modes of knowing reality. 

Knowing by way of the eye of flesh.

Knowing by way of the eye of mind.

Knowing by way of the eye of Spirit.

The eye of flesh sees of course the world of form, the visible world seen through our eyes. Science has restricted itself almost totally to this empirical realm, although to my way of thinking it doesn't have to. In fact when it does this, it is called "scientism", because it has reduced its explorations of the universe to reductionist, dogmatic thinking---that is, it believes that any other way of knowing reality than through physical sense perception is mere superstition and "pseudo-science". 

But think about it---there is a world of mind that can't been seen with the eye of flesh. Take the Non-Aggression Priniciple, as but one example. You can't see it with your physical eyes, but you can see it with your reasoning, logic, and understanding. It is an invisible mental principle that has no physical form, yet definitely exists in the mental realm. 

And then there is the realm of Spirit, which cannot be perceived by either the eye of flesh, or the eye of mind, but can only be seen by the eye of Spirit, typically through meditation. This is the realm where the OBE takes place. But again, just like the eye of flesh is unable to perceive the world of logic and reason and principles, so the eye of mind is unable to think and reason properly about what lies outside of the bodymind. If it doesn't acknowledge its limitations in this regard, and tries to speak fully for the spiritual realm, it's making a category error. As I see it, this is the source of the frustration then. Confusing the different modes of knowing with each other, instead of knowing their proper places in the overall scheme of the knowledge quest.

Does this make any sense?

David

 

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.

[David L]

 

As an interesting side-note left-handed has been discouraged throughout history, and was forceably altered in children in central and eastern Europe until very recently.  Did the powers that shouldn't be want to discourage a feeling of oneness for some reason?  How many of you meditate and so have any idea what I'm talking about?  Are you left or right-handed?

 

Hi Mishelle,

I'm not left handed, but I do meditate daily. If I may be so bold, people who don't meditate don't know what they are missing, they are living on the surface of life only.

Your mentioning of left-handededness being discouraged throughout history is something I wasn't aware of. I've got to learn more about this, that's fascinating! It makes perfect sense that the  PTSB would want to discourage the feeling of oneness, that's why they call it "divide" and conquer.  :-)

 

 

[endostate]

 

If I may be so bold, people who don't meditate don't know what they are missing, they are living on the surface of life only.

 

To me this means as much as: people who don't watch TV don't know what they are missing, they are living on the surface of life only.

If I may be so bold, can you describe what they are missing?  What does it have that the surface of life doesn't?

[PatrickC]

 

 

But that's just it--it's all "really really there" -- No metaphor here!  When we get out of the left brain, we feel it, when we put language on it, we lose it again. /emoticons/emotion-5.gif

 

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?)

 

I thought this was well said.. I would only add (for better clarity), that the feelings are indeed real (ofc). Just that our conclusions about them can be wrong. Or at least in part wrong or perhaps an unconscious (misunderstood) projection on our part.

[Mishelle]

Hi STer,

Thanks to you and all who have shared so thoughtfully on this thread!  I have been able to get a lot more clarity around the topic, and have a better understanding now on how to move forward.  For me I realize I need both communities right now, this one and the new age one, and they really balance each other out.  I was trying to achieve some kind of integration and see now that actually it is quite unnecessary and maybe even destructive to try to get the new age group to think more rationally--that's simply not what they are there for and in fact exactly what they are reacting against--too much yang in our western culture, not enough yin!  And having been deeply in that community for over 3 years, I was really feeling overwhelmed, to the point of drowning in yin

I'm really glad to be here and expand again the left-brain from a new place thanks to that community. I don't have to move on or discard what's it's brought me at all, I simply need to make room for ever-greater learning, which is very exciting for me!  Like they always repeat--it's not an either-or, it's an and-with!  I appreciate you all very much and love how you so thoroughly think things through and value Objectivity and Truth so highly.  I will find a balance that works for me and I'm so lucky to have an opportunity to do so!

love & cheers

Mishelle

 

[Mishelle]

Hi David,

Yes this makes very much sense to me!  And I did already assumed you meditated from your previous posts

And you are also right about feeling that frustration in not being able to integrate these knowings and forcing myself in many ways to continually discount other ways of knowing. I think that's a natural progression, integration, but maybe I'm (and even the culture?) just aren't there yet.  Maybe there is "a proper place" -- or maybe the evolutionary call is a better integration.

In any case, I've really appreciated the discussion and having your "more esoteric" viewpoints present in the mix.

I look forward to much more interaction in future on this knowledge quest!!

love & cheers

Mishelle

 

[David L]

Thanks Mishelle,

I find the esoteric dimension richer and deeper than the exoteric, but you do need balance while you are still in material form. What you may find though, is that the more you taste the inner, the less you need to worry about the outer---the inner has a way of taking care of it for you, which frees you to develop even more inwardly. That makes esoterism the most practical way to live on earth!

Of course we are taught that materialism is the most practical way, but that's obviously proved to be false, as evidenced by the state of the modern world which is based on that ideology. That doesn't mean we should reject empiricism, it simply means that for empiricism to truly have meaning and sustainability, it has to be grounded in a deeper philosophy and experience which puts it in its rightful place. "Transcend and include" is the name of the game here :-)

I think we can really have a paradise on earth if we become open enough to exploring all the realms that existence bequeaths us and how they ultimately relate to each other.  In general, those realms are matter, body, mind, soul, and Spirit. There is of course a tradiltion to this integral approach, called The Perennial Philosophy. When modernity came in, though, the world lost the esoteric dimension, the world of interiors. Everything became an objective "it", an exterior, a "thing". Subjectivity and soul were marginalized and colonized to the point of near banishment.They became taboo subjects.

We've thus lost an awareness of the depths of who and what we truly are. For me it's those depths that really give life its full meaning, not the surfaces, though the surfaces are of course essential aspects of the whole picture, and have to be included as just as important as the other realms. Of course we're really talking here about a wholistic, integral philosophy that is all inclusive of existence.   

My view on it, at least.

David

 

 

[STer]

 

Thanks Mishelle,

I find the esoteric dimension richer and deeper than the exoteric, but you do need balance while you are still in material form. What you may find though, is that the more you taste the inner, the less you need to worry about the outer---the inner has a way of taking care of it for you, which frees you to develop even more inwardly. That makes esoterism the most practical way to live on earth!

Of course we are taught that materialism is the most practical way, but that's obviously proved to be false, as evidenced by the state of the modern world which is based on that ideology. That doesn't mean we should reject empiricism, it simply means that for empiricism to truly have meaning and sustainability, it has to be grounded in a deeper philosophy and experience which puts it in its rightful place. "Transcend and include" is the name of the game here :-)

I think we can really have a paradise on earth if we become open enough to exploring all the realms that existence bequeaths us and how they ultimately relate to each other.  In general, those realms are matter, body, mind, soul, and Spirit. There is of course a tradiltion to this integral approach, called The Perennial Philosophy. When modernity came in, though, the world lost the esoteric dimension, the world of interiors. Everything became an objective "it", an exterior, a "thing". Subjectivity and soul were marginalized and colonized to the point of near banishment.They became taboo subjects.

We've thus lost an awareness of the depths of who and what we truly are. For me it's those depths that really give life its full meaning, not the surfaces, though the surfaces are of course essential aspects of the whole picture, and have to be included as just as important as the other realms. Of course we're really talking here about a wholistic, integral philosophy that is all inclusive of existence.   

My view on it, at least.

David

 

 

 

What's interesting is that you can frame what is going on in our world in a quite different way though. People in our culture are materialistic, yes. But that materialism has to do with satisfying their own inner subjective wants and needs. It's not really outer focused. It's a narcissistic desire to fulfill their own inner states through acquisition and consumption. At the same time, they are actually failing to pay attention to the real issues of the outer material world. Problems like terrorism and environmental destruction are not being addressed sufficiently as people are instead focused, in the West, on using material consumption to manipulate their inner states to distract from material destruction.

More inner focus, alone, won't solve that. It's a problem of focusing on less important aspects of the outer world for the "wrong" reasons rather than focusing on the truly important aspects of the outer world that really, in my view, merit the bulk of our attention.

I agree there is a role for greater inner focus and work, as well. But inner work alone is not a solution. We have a problem both of lack of healthy inner focus and a misguided manifestation of outer focus.

It's also worth noting that some of the most dangerous places on earth, perhaps the places that most threaten the well-being of our planet currently, are places where people are not materialistic and are even violently opposed to materialism. In fact, they are driven to violence in part in opposition to materialism. So inner focus and a lack of materialism is no cure-all for the ills of our world.

[endostate]

This other realm fascinates me, but how is it different from watching a TV show?

Specifically, what's in there and how is it useful? Is it a comedy? Educational? Drama?

Without knowing what it is, David, your post sounds kinda like this:

I find the esoteric dimension watching TV richer and deeper than the exoteric, but you do need balance while you are still in material form. What you may find though, is that the more you taste the inner  watch the TV, the less you need to worry about the outer---the inner TV has a way of taking care of it for you, which frees you to develop even more inwardly. That makes esoterism watching TV the most practical way to live on earth!

Of course we are taught that materialism is the most practical way, but that's obviously proved to be false, as evidenced by the state of the modern world which is based on that ideology. That doesn't mean we should reject empiricism, it simply means that for empiricism to truly have meaning and sustainability, it has to be grounded in a deeper philosophy and TV experience which puts it in its rightful place. "Transcend and include" is the name of the TV game show here :-)

I think we can really have a paradise on earth if we become open enough to exploring all the realms that existence on TV bequeaths us and how they ultimately relate to each other.  In general, those realms are matter, body, mind, soul, and Spirit TV. There is of course a tradiltion to this integral approach, called The Perennial Philosophy. When modernity came in, though, the world lost the esoteric dimension TV, the world of interiors. Everything became an objective "it", an exterior, a "thing". Subjectivity and soul were marginalized and colonized to the point of near banishment.They became taboo subjects.

We've thus lost an awareness of the TV show about the depths of who and what we truly are. For me it's those depths that really give life its full meaning, not the surfaces, though the surfaces are of course essential aspects of the whole picture, and have to be included as just as important as the other realms (gotta pay TV bill). Of course we're really talking here about a wholistic, integral philosophy that is all inclusive of existence.

My view on it, at least.

[David L]

This other realm fascinates me, but how is it different from watching a TV show?

A TV show can only give you a superficial, exterior view of existence, while going within yourself gives you direct experience of the immeasurable interiority of life and consciousness itself. It is the difference between having always experienced your house merely from the outside, vs actually coming to reside in it yourself for the first time---but with an astonishing surprise:  the interiority of your house turns out to have limitless expanse, like an indescribable mansion providing endless spaces and adventures to explore!   

As sages throughout the ages have often enjoined us, Come home to yourself! 

[David L]

Mishelle,

I just came across a passage in Paul Ferrini's book The Bridge to Reality that made me think of your association with the New Age community and some of the issues you've struggled with regarding it, so thought I'd share. Perhaps it may bring further clarity...?  Here's the quote:

"When we accept darkness and light together, we move into an awareness of light that is non-physical. This is the light of truth, of compassion, the eternal light"

[endostate]

 

...going within yourself gives you direct experience of the immeasurable interiority of life and consciousness itself.

 

Sounds like daydreaming - how does it affect or benefit reality?

 

"When we accept darkness and light together, we move into an awareness of light that is non-physical. This is the light of truth, of compassion, the eternal light"

 

Ok I've accepted darkness and light together and I'm aware that light is non-physical. It doesn't appear to help me discern truth from falsehood or be more compassionate though.

Am I missing something?

 

TV can affect reality by bringing facts or laughs.  What does going within do? What can be brought here from there?

So far this sounds a bit like a "New Age" distraction to draw attention away from something.

[Mishelle]

Hi David,

Thanks for sharing this quote!  So do you feel these folks in the New Age communities have accepted darkness?  What I see is a perpetual turning away from darkness, as if it doesn't exist or they can simply choose to not pay attention to it.  I've been trying to read Ken Wilbur's A Brief History of Everything, again, and have a very hard time getting through it.  Some of it is just the format, this interview style he uses is very choppy and is constantly losing any natural narrative flow.  Of course he talks quite a bit about Holons, which was interesting and something I obviously skipped right over the last time.

But what most strikes me is the naivete and arrogance.  These people who call themselves "Enlightened" and have careers teaching others' to become "Enlightened" are privileged Western whites trying to teach other privileged Western whites about the true nature of reality.  I find this so arrogant as to be comical!  Like last night I watched Openhand: 5 Gateways documentary.  What I most want to say to these people is: "OK, you call yourself Enlightened, so go now to New Dehli and live and work among the street children who were sold by their parents into prostitution at age 8, and after 3 or 4 years, when you've made a significant enlightening impact on these kids, then come back and teach us spoiled folk something real about the nature of reality!"

And so I realize it's not the Oneness concept I have a problem with actually, it's the New Agers who sit on their pretty embroidered cushions in the land of luxury and preach it! [:O]

love & cheers

Mishelle

[Mishelle]

Gorgeously spoken on both sides, thank you, I've just been catching up my inbox and see STer has some of the same beefs I do and am still experiencing regularly in my community.  From this place of naval-gazing these folks go out to change the world, without any real clue what's happening and what really needs changing.

 For example, Ken Wilbur endorsed Obama in the last election--how can I then be expected to take him seriously?!  There is so much wishful thinking--one acquaintance in this group just recently deleted my "negative" links to several factual pieces on all Obama's promises and how none of them have manifested and yet, how is it folks are still buying it?  So, this woman who now wants to get political from her privileged perch is using censorship to make sure the Kumbaya Club is not affected by too much reality!  If I'm not cheerleading them in their mass delusions then I am considered the problem.

So the issue is going from this place of so-called inner wisdom and then applying that to the world outside--and this goes back to Don Beck's Spiral Dynamics.  This is Green thinking trying to solve all the world's problems from a place of complete seperation.  They have no clue whatsoever about poverty, or tyranny, or war, but suddenly they are in a position to preach about Oneness.  They call for no hierarchy and yet still see the world from the top of their holarchy!  If we are really One, why are they only One with those who agree with them, why are they not helping those who really need help?

oops, my anger and irritation are showing again, best go meditate []

love & cheers

Mishelle

 

[TheRobin]

From the outside it looks kind of weird. First you complain about how people censor things out to not have to accept reality, and then you end by censoring your own emotions through meditation. Is that really your own natural reaction to your own emotions or where and how did that start?Cutting one's self off from one's own emotions is never a healthy thing to do (well, except if you're trapped in a abusive situation that you can't leave, then it's perfectly healthy and esperately needed of course)

[Mishelle]

I was being facetious TheRobin, that's not always so easy to convey I guess in writing!

I will try I different smiley next time: []

[TheRobin]

Oh, I see Yeah, written language does that some time

Well, at least I learned a new word as a result of that (didn't know "facetious")

[Mishelle]

Wonderful!  I am touched by your sweet candor, and am so very pleased when we can all learn from each other--then I really do "get" this wisdom of Oneness!  Thank you for your note and forthrightness, I've appreciated your insights and also learned from them in this conversation and look forward to more!

love & cheers

Mishelle