We are all One

[Mishelle]

Wow, In the belly of the beast, Fantastic!  I never would have considered this community as a cult, but then again, I know absolutely nothing about cults.  I will look into this more!  Interestingly, this e-mail recently showed up in my inbox talking about cults, I know it's long and maybe too boring for you to read, but just in case, here it is. If you felt called to reply again, just so you know, I'm really listening and appreciating your insights!

love & cheer

Mishelle

Dear Mishelle, Are you in a cult? Here's the short answer: "You bet." And, worse, it's most likely an invisible cult! Okay, you're probably not a member of "a new religious movement or other group whose beliefs or practices are considered abnormal or bizarre by the larger society". But you're almost certainly a member in good standing of the Public Cult of the World, whose beliefs and practices are bizarre and abnormal by any objective healthy standard. After all, as the Dalai Lama has pointed out, in the Cult of the World you: "...sacrifice your health in order to make money. Then you sacrifice money to recuperate your health. Then you are so anxious about the future that you don't enjoy the present: the result being that you do not live in the present or the future; you live as if you are never going to die, and then you die having never really lived." It's a totally crazy way to live, when you look directly at it! But among us members of the ubiquitous and invisible Cult, it seems the natural order of things, unremarkable and inevitable. The Cult reinforces and conceals a great many other unwritten rules, invisible beliefs and unexamined assumptions too. (One example: the Cult inculcates you day and night with the message that you're a separate individual who must compete to "succeed" and build up a big, impressive ego-domain, or otherwise you're a "failure".) Some of the Cult's beliefs may be crazy (and make you miserable) but as soon as you start questioning them, you're the one who's risking madness. After all, you'd be departing from the Public Cult of the World's "consensus reality" (which is what defines insanity). One of the strictest rules of the Cult is the taboo against acknowledging that the Cult even exists. Thus, every day while you're working hard and focusing intelligently on your priorities, you're also being lulled back into being oblivious to the Cult and its bondage. You're being drawn into what consciousness researcher Charles Tart memorably dubbed "the Consensus Trance".  He described it as "a state of partly suspended animation, of stupor, of inability to function at [y]our maximum level... [dominated by] automatic and conditioned patterns of perception, thinking, feeling and behaving..." Is there any escape from the Cult? Sure, but here's the paradox: to leave the Cult you'll have to risk being seen as...joining a cult! The official Public Cult of the World won't provide any support if you want to wake up from the consensus trance. And if you find someone who has in some sense awakened and who offers to help you wake up, or if you band together with others for mutual support in waking up from the trance so you can leave the Cult....now that's when your family might start to ask "Hey, have you joined a cult"? Maddeningly, your family (and critics) will probably be right! Most small groups, however healthy and intelligent their premises might be, readily develop "groupthink" dynamics that can easily become unhealthy, and even dangerously "cultic". And yet without support and teaching, you're just going to be sucked back into the consensus trance and the mediocrity of the Public Cult of the World. What to do? Well, you can recognize that the consensus trance and the "programming" of the Cult is everywhere and that going in and out of trance is a constant, on-going process. As you do, it will become obvious that waking up from the trance needs to happen again and again, in many little moments of choice. This is what I mean by "practice" --- that choice to live deliberately, to embrace a way of life that's fully alive, always evolving, spontaneously in-the-moment, self-aware, humorous and free. (This is the core of the "Integral Spiritual Practice" I teach.) From this perspective, yes, you're in the big Cult, the one that keeps re-hypnotizing you back into the consensus trance. The point is this: you can "leave the cult" now --- in this very moment. May you do so, and may you keep leaving it, by waking up! Again and again and again --- every day, for the rest of your life. To your practice and awakening and freedom, Terry P.S. If you'd like to comment on this blog you can do so here.

[In the belly of the beast]

Glad I was of help.  Along the same lines, you might find this podcast by Stefan helpful:

Life Among the Suited Savages (start at 13:06/29:00)
http://youtu.be/R7q5qmBaYN0?t=13m6s

 

I read the e-mail following your message.  The general concept of the "Consensus Trance"
is often thought of as "The Matrix" by many FDR members, along with many other voluntarists and a segment of libertarians. 
Unfortunately, unplugging from these mass illusions is much more
difficult than taking the red pill.  A more apt metaphor than the red pill
might be contained in the (otherwise cheesy) John Carpenter B-movie, "They Live", where the
protagonists have to put on special sunglasses every time they want to
see through all of the illusions contained in their social reality.  In the same way, we must engage in the hard work of critical thinking, often with accompanying emotional discomfort and a feeling of isolation, in order to begin to see societies (not just governments) for what they truly are.

http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_eArD6Ic8Vi8/TKfnbBrAU0I/AAAAAAAAAH8/colJiz9vHpA/s1600/screen-capture-7.jpg

http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_eArD6Ic8Vi8/TKfnbTtWeBI/AAAAAAAAAIE/CeN4cySYZm0/s1600/screen-capture-11.jpg

Now that I think about it, the aliens revealed by the glasses could be thought of as the sociopaths and other such human predators hidden amongst us.

[In the belly of the beast]

I should add that while "They Live" is a nice diversion and contains a useful metaphor or two, these illusions are not imposed upon everyone by some inner circle or other conspiracy.  We impose these illusions upon each other, and always have, barring a few precious islands of clarity brought to us since the Renaissance, and especially the Enlightenment.

In other words, the state is merely a deadly symptom of this larger underlying pathology.

[STer]

 

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

 

 

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

[STer]

 

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

 

 

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.

[STer]

 

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

 

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.

 

[STer]

 

 

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.

 

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.

[STer]

 

Now that I think about it, the aliens revealed by the glasses could be thought of as the sociopaths and other such human predators hidden amongst us.

 

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

[STer]

 

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.

 

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.

[David L]

 

 

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

 

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.

 

The identity of which you speak cannot exist without a constant inflow from what is considered "outside" of it. 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.

In the same way, the body itself is inseparable from the universe "outside" of it, because "universe" means ONE, not two (or more than two). There is by definition nothing in the universe that is not a part of itself. "Universe" mean all-inclusive, all one.

I hope that clarifies further.

[David L]

 

 

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.

 

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 !!

 

[David L]

 

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

 

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. Maybe that was the point of the exercise the community was offering you---to impersonalize any sense of latent weakness within so it can no longer stick to anyone personally in the group. I don't know, but that's the sense I get from what you have shared. You could ask the group leader the next time you visit if that is in fact the intent of the exercise. The fact that you experienced ecstasy seems to indicate that you transcended your ordinary personal sense of self, but I certainly can't speak for you. For myself, ecstasy is a very good description for the transpersonal experience.

Thanks a million for sharing, you have really lit a fire here on the forum :-)

David

 

[STer]

 

 

 

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

 

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"?

[STer]

 

 

 

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.

 

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.

[STer]

 

 

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

 

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.

[David L]

 

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.

 

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.

[David L]

 

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.

 

I would not say that there is ultimately both one and many, although it may appear that way from the point of view of the bodymind. Otherwise we could not have a universe. Rather, I would say there is inherent oneness at all times that expresses and manifests itself in many ways. Many different and unique ways.Those differences and ways are to be respected and cherished, which, paradoxically finally leads us to their source----their source of oneness with each other. This is a more accurate description of the fundamental nature of existence as I see it.  I hope I'm not coming off as stubborn here. :-) 

[David L]

 

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?

 

 

If it makes no difference, they why the bother?

[Wesley]

 

 

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?

 

 

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.

 

[David L]

 

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. 

 

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. :-)

 

[STer]

 

 

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.

 

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.

[STer]

 

 

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.

 

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.

 

although it may appear that way from the point of view of the bodymind.

 

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?

 

Otherwise we could not have a universe.

 

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.

 

Rather, I would say there is inherent oneness at all times that expresses and manifests itself in many ways. Many different and unique ways.Those differences and ways are to be respected and cherished, which, paradoxically finally leads us to their source----their source of oneness with each other. This is a more accurate description of the fundamental nature of existence as I see it.  I hope I'm not coming off as stubborn here. :-) 

 

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.

[STer]

 

 

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?

 

 

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.

[STer]

 

 

 

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?

 

 

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.

[STer]

 

 

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. 

 

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.

[David L]

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.

I don't believe the holon concept states that the parts are "separate" from the whole, but I could be mistaken. If that's an intrinsic part of the definition, then I would disagree with it on that level. But otherwise the concept is sound in my view.

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."

Already said there are many expressions of One, silly.

 

[STer]

 

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.

I don't believe the holon concept states that the parts are "separate" from the whole, but I could be mistaken. If that's an intrinsic part of the definition, then I would disagree with it on that level. But otherwise the concept is sound in my view.

 

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.

 

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."

Already said there are many expressions of One, silly.

 

 

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?!

[David L]

 

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

As said before, many different expressions of one.

[David L]

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?!

Once again, try "separating" yourself from the universe, from the One.

[fingolfin]

This is exactly the same "essence" debate that's been going on for eons: aka mereology. Holons or not, it's not a new idea. Mereology isn't scientific. But don't get me wrong, it is an interesting and important ontological discussion (part of the philosophy of science). It boils down to one's key terms – as always!.

An object is not what it is "comprised of" (fallacy of begging the question, regress, etc). An object is conceptually static and bounded (finite, bordered by space). That a table might be touching the floor, or a tiny atom connected to another particle, is irrelevant to that particular table or atom in question. Both the table and floor, by virtue of being objects, are spatially separated entities regardless of whether another connecting medium lies between them. It's not an issue of "proof" or observation.

For the purposes of science and the immediate context, the object udner scrutiny (and that which is implied as soon as we say "the" table or "the" atom) is concetpually static and discrete.

All objects have structure (form; shape; architecture). It is their only objective, instrinsic property. If a forest has shape, it's an object for THAT theory. If not, it is a concept. (It's the same with motion; that an object moves (or changes shape) is irrelevant to the question of the object having static shape to begin with. Clearly, if some "thingy" moves at all, hopefully what's moving has shape!) What specific, particular shape an object has is a separate issue (i.e. physics). But it's conceptually static. At any point we should be able to "freeze frame" our movie and illustrate or point to the object in question. 

[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?

[STer]

 

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?!

Once again, try "separating" yourself from the universe, from the One.

 

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.

[STer]

 

This is exactly the same "essence" debate that's been going on for eons: aka mereology

 

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

[David L]

 

 

 

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.

[Wesley]

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