How do you know this? Maybe it’s not the other way around. Maybe things are only connected because of our ability to consider them that way.
Hmmm, interesting take. Nevermind Christianity. Muslims, Buddhists, and even atheists also follow the one, but the one is not a single man, it’s a group of smart, sophisticated, inbred sociopaths. Queen Elizabeth, Prince Philip, the usual suspects, Rockefellers, Rothschilds, etc, are members. All religious, political and economic structures are the same. The secret is; they’re all based on hierarchy, mind control, domination and submission, sadism and masochism. We have temporarily been given an illusion of choice and separatness, but when the time is right (post ww3), we’ll all be united once again (Atlantis). Just ask Albert Pike, George Orwell, JFK, and the builders of the Georgia Guidestones, Denver Airport, and Astana.
Chances are even those surrounded by The One don’t know he’s The One, because his intelligence is too high.
Think of Neo and Morpheus from The Matrix. Very few people actually knew Neo was The One. Zion didn’t know until heresay began. Morpheus was the one searching for The One from the beginning. But, they didn’t know how Neo did the things he did. All they knew was that he could do impossible things.
Maybe. Maybe the Morgans, Bill Gates, Al Gore and Prince Philip serve this elusive one. Maybe it’s a God from our standpoint, or a demon.
You can only consider connection through an analysis and comparison of what is “thought” to be separate. Without identification nothing can be separated from anything else; things appear differently, but if there is no thought to identify and separate those differences as being something different, then the differentiation exists as a whole (like a mosaic). Consider a sphere, it’s one thing, but you can identify and describe various properties of the one thing (roundness, 3 dimensional, etc.). All of life is like this.
But things can’t be “joined” or “one” without identification either. Dualism is implicit in any monism.
Good point. Taoism is a form of dualistic monism, I think.
Perhaps so. Tentative might have thoughts on that if asked.
How?
Well, in this order, from this progression, to this return:
Really. . . Ideally in Concept . . and Really.
So the questions follow: How real is realest real? To what degree of permanance. Is the void more important?
The air you breath in is the air I breath in. The word, the image, the seperate category, none that changes the air we exhale. We are made up of the same stuff as stars. Do not let the spirtual guru all-in-togeter talk make you forget that, even if they are right for the wrong reasons.
You are the universe. You are the God Head.
Absolutely, because “joined”, “one”, “monism” and “dualism” are all concepts. Get out of the land of ideas, you can’t think about oneness unless you are referencing the myriad (I mentioned this before). I’m referring to what’s beyond concept, and thought.
Now you might argue that what we experience perceptually is a type of thought or concept, in which case this conversation must go much deeper. For our current purposes though, I hope everyone can understand that without thought, life (if it still exists), is without seperation.
Edit: I’ll go further to say that beyond thought, nothing could be considered “one” either because there could be no consideration at all. The reason I do jump to there being properties of oneness prior to thought is because everything is in existence. Therefore, everything exists together. We could describe this togetherness conceptually as one.
I get where you’re (not) coming from. Also, we could consider that there would be no questions or conversation at all about oneness, reality, unity, and so forth, unless we had previous knowledge about them. So there is no need to ask anything about them. But only for the sake of maintaining an identity that is created in us from the knowledge we have do we give continuity to knowledge so as not to be lost in the total lonely vastness of the oneness of all things.
A claim to any experience of a unity or union with oneness presupposes not only an awareness of the experience as an object, but also a recognition of it as an experience. And these conditions are enough to destroy any possibility of there being a unity, let alone an experience of unity, because any recognition implies a division between the subject and the object. How can there be an experience of unity where there is a subject left out of the object of experience?
The experience of unity is one referenced as so, after the experience. You can only experience unity if at another time you have/are experienced/experiencing division. If you were pointing to the fact that you cant have one without the other, I would agree. It seems as though our entire existence as thinking beings, is paradoxical to the core.
What if you had no knowledge, no thoughts on the matter? There would be no thinking about it. But there can’t be thoughts, knowledge of things, and no thinker. The ‘thinker’ arises when knowledge is there, when thought is there. Then there comes into existence the one that is reading the knowledge it was given. But until the knowledge comes, there is no thought. So, it is a movement of knowledge that is there. And the illusion of a ‘thinker’ happens only when the knowledge is used to achieve something.
Knowledge is in itself willful (ie. achieving something). As such, the thinker and knowledge are forever connected. If the thinker is an illusion, then so is the knowledge.
All we have are the senses. They don’t ‘know.’ The neurons don’t know. They just contain. If the knowledge does not belong to you, why the concern for the whereabouts of the ‘you?’ Unless, of course, there is some strong sentimental attachment to the source of the knowledge. Sometimes it takes courage to stand alone.
Knowledge and ego are one, not separated. There is the logical mishap, your mistake, error, contradiction.
That’s if knowledge is power for the sake of the self … and I guess you’re perfectly right about that. Rarely does one see knowledge just for the sake of knowledge. We’re more than mere computers now aren’t we? But I still wonder how it comes about that one’s conscious identity can be pinned down by just a bunch of knowledge and thoughts. I mean if we go about exchanging ideas through the medium of communication and by means of words and information, all it amounts to is recalling knowledge that we have acquired from various sources. We’d be no more or less than memory storage devises (like tape recorders) turned on and the ‘play’ button pushed. So maybe we are like computers. But that’s stupid because actual computers can do the work in place of us faster and much more efficiently.
Double post
The senses and the neurons, just as “we”, the “thinkers”, are literally knowledge. Our bodies, this computer in front of me, and the rest of the world are all thoughts (oftentimes solid, objective, and shared thoughts, but thoughts nonetheless), ie. knowledge. Nothing can be known unless it is knowledge (or put more plainly because that sentence is weirding me out: anything that can be known is knowledge). In the existence of “any thing” there is an implied identity (the properties which us thinkers enjoy extrapolating and thinking about). Could it not be said the same that what I am, or who I am, is a natural expression of my implicated identity; ie. my existence? If so, then our senses and neurons don’t have to “know” as we do (knowing is a manifestation of our particular existence/identity), but they certainly are/exist as something, an expression of a particular identity/property. As such the neuron and sense contain embedded will through their mere existence as knowledge/property-like (they impose and offer themselves to us through their existence).
Knowledge doesn’t necessitate a “belong[ing] to” outside of its existence as whatever it is, but it will always belong or be a part of something. Our process of knowing requires us to separate “knowledge” from whatever prompted that knowledge (primary (the prompt) versus secondary (the extrapolation) knowledge). In doing so, the newly acquired or secondary knowledge becomes our identity (or adds to it). At this point, this knowledge is literally what we are; it has become us and we have become it. It does not belong to us, but it is us. Just as the primary knowledge is the prompt. Any attempts to consider knowledge outside of, needing to be sentimentally attached to, or in any other way separated from a self whether real or illusory will dismiss its actuality and existence.
We’re just a different kind of computer, or the computer is just a different kind of us. Our communication consist of nerve endings and other immaculate stuff that allows us to experience a very rich world. All things are kind of just communicating at every level, just in different ways and through different manifestations.