Members of the previous forum can retrieve their temporary password here, (login and check your PM).

Reply to thread

Message

II.I Paradox: A Brief Discussion on the Idea of Oneness

This is not meant as a correction or judgment or anything of the like. It is a personal view I would like to share in that in possesses two functions: 1. To add further understanding to the paradox discussion from above and, 2. To illuminate more of the kind of thinking process inherent to the overall thread.

Oneness; everything is one. Through the interconnections that bring every individual thing to its singular existence, everything is one. Often when I encounter this idea there are a few things that I notice. One of the first things I notice is an abandonment of a previously held intrinsic observation for a “deeper” awareness of the nature of things as if the deeper awareness is more “real,” and in effect negating the former, in this case, the individual thing.

And don't get me wrong, having been engaging with psychedelics in various degrees and intensities for almost half of my life, I've been there; those illuminating spaces where all difference and distinctions fizzle, dwindle, and melt away, leading to a cosmic, almost omniscient awareness and connection with all that exists.

But is it that those distinctions don't actually exist when our consciousness expands in such a manner, or is it more accurate perhaps to say that such a perspective makes it seem as though previous conceptions don't actually exist, have less importance or pertinence, are not the “true” reality, etc?

We often come to the conception of oneness through reduction. Simply, we begin with the many and create classes, until we reach a duality; on/off, heads/tails, 0/1, up/down, good/bad, love/hate. Then we observe the complementary nature that is apparent to us in these opposing dualities (and we just came across another paradox which drives this that much more; for our minds, opposing things, that through their opposition define and support one another and are inextricably linked: there is a sameness to be seen in opposition) and through such compliment we see a link, and in seeing the link or connection, we categorize them together, thus everything is one.

But everything is also everything and one is also one.

Which brings me then to wonder, is such an observation and reasoning of the observation ontological or perceptive?

In other words, is it a description about how existence really exists, or does it say more about how our minds work in defining the structures of ontological nature and as such are more so indirect statements about ourselves?

I'm willing to entertain both in vary degrees, levels, and manners, but drawing clearly defined lines seems messy.

Once one line is drawn, a new, thinner, and more precise line is needed for clearer boundary delineation.

There may also always be moving parts for change is constant.

Does something being realized on a different level say that that level is more important, or just how it appears to us in a given context in which we think?

Let's use something smaller to look at this apparent paradox in another way. So far, this has all been in reference to “existence” or the “universe.” We'll shrink it down to the singular human being. As individual units, each of us is a singular “oneness.” But inside each of us, in an array of ways, we possess other “onenesses” that compose us or a facet of us. Physically, the individual atoms that compose individual molecules that have their functions in operating and creating as basic molecules or by combining to form more complex molecules which lend themselves to the creation of our bones, muscle, organs, etc. The individual microbes (some that share no DNA similarities with the host's cells). Cognitively, we each have individual subsets of personality that accumulate to create the overall personality that we see ourselves and other people see us as. Many individual things that aggregate and collate to make-up the singular human being (which upon consideration of other human beings creates individual communities, which leads to individual towns and cities, etc).

There is no single human being without its parts and there are no individual parts (of varying scales) to make up an individual being without the individual being...

A coin. Where does heads end and tails begin?

For me oneness is like a chain, in that I see all facets, parts and functions that make up the whole while also realizing the whole just as I see individual links in a chain when considering the chain.

So then, if we are reabsorbed into oneness (and the mind still exists), ego stripped, does that mean our individuality actually ceases to exist, or that we're just in state of too much indifference to notice such? Does the matter come down to an ontological reality or a perceptive one (and we may never know, so any alignment then becomes a matter of faith and the internal functions of mind that lead towards the holding of that faith)?

Plurality is oneness and oneness is plurality.

So all this to simply say, that subjectively, oneness and the conception of oneness appears as a paradox.

One love

<blockquote data-quote="Voidmatrix" data-source="post: 3887700" data-attributes="member: 5">II.I Paradox: A Brief Discussion on the Idea of Oneness
This is not meant as a correction or judgment or anything of the like. It is a personal view I would like to share in that in possesses two functions: 1. To add further understanding to the paradox discussion from above and, 2. To illuminate more of the kind of thinking process inherent to the overall thread.Oneness; everything is one. Through the interconnections that bring every individual thing to its singular existence, everything is one. Often when I encounter this idea there are a few things that I notice. One of the first things I notice is an abandonment of a previously held intrinsic observation for a “deeper” awareness of the nature of things as if the deeper awareness is more “real,” and in effect negating the former, in this case, the individual thing.And don&#039;t get me wrong, having been engaging with psychedelics in various degrees and intensities for almost half of my life, I&#039;ve been there; those illuminating spaces where all difference and distinctions fizzle, dwindle, and melt away, leading to a cosmic, almost omniscient awareness and connection with all that exists. But is it that those distinctions don&#039;t actually exist when our consciousness expands in such a manner, or is it more accurate perhaps to say that such a perspective makes it seem as though previous conceptions don&#039;t actually exist, have less importance or pertinence, are not the “true” reality, etc?We often come to the conception of oneness through reduction. Simply, we begin with the many and create classes, until we reach a duality; on/off, heads/tails, 0/1, up/down, good/bad, love/hate. Then we observe the complementary nature that is apparent to us in these opposing dualities (and we just came across another paradox which drives this that much more; for our minds, opposing things, that through their opposition define and support one another and are inextricably linked: there is a sameness to be seen in opposition) and through such compliment we see a link, and in seeing the link or connection, we categorize them together, thus everything is one.But everything is also everything and one is also one.Which brings me then to wonder, is such an observation and reasoning of the observation ontological or perceptive?In other words, is it a description about how existence really exists, or does it say more about how our minds work in defining the structures of ontological nature and as such are more so indirect statements about ourselves?I&#039;m willing to entertain both in vary degrees, levels, and manners, but drawing clearly defined lines seems messy.Once one line is drawn, a new, thinner, and more precise line is needed for clearer boundary delineation.There may also always be moving parts for change is constant.Does something being realized on a different level say that that level is more important, or just how it appears to us in a given context in which we think?Let&#039;s use something smaller to look at this apparent paradox in another way. So far, this has all been in reference to “existence” or the “universe.” We&#039;ll shrink it down to the singular human being. As individual units, each of us is a singular “oneness.” But inside each of us, in an array of ways, we possess other “onenesses” that compose us or a facet of us. Physically, the individual atoms that compose individual molecules that have their functions in operating and creating as basic molecules or by combining to form more complex molecules which lend themselves to the creation of our bones, muscle, organs, etc. The individual microbes (some that share no DNA similarities with the host&#039;s cells). Cognitively, we each have individual subsets of personality that accumulate to create the overall personality that we see ourselves and other people see us as. Many individual things that aggregate and collate to make-up the singular human being (which upon consideration of other human beings creates individual communities, which leads to individual towns and cities, etc).There is no single human being without its parts and there are no individual parts (of varying scales) to make up an individual being without the individual being...A coin. Where does heads end and tails begin?For me oneness is like a chain, in that I see all facets, parts and functions that make up the whole while also realizing the whole just as I see individual links in a chain when considering the chain.So then, if we are reabsorbed into oneness (and the mind still exists), ego stripped, does that mean our individuality actually ceases to exist, or that we&#039;re just in state of too much indifference to notice such? Does the matter come down to an ontological reality or a perceptive one (and we may never know, so any alignment then becomes a matter of faith and the internal functions of mind that lead towards the holding of that faith)?Plurality is oneness and oneness is plurality.So all this to simply say, that subjectively, oneness and the conception of oneness appears as a paradox.One love</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Voidmatrix, post: 3887700, member: 5"] [center]II.I Paradox: A Brief Discussion on the Idea of Oneness [/center] This is not meant as a correction or judgment or anything of the like. It is a personal view I would like to share in that in possesses two functions: 1. To add further understanding to the paradox discussion from above and, 2. To illuminate more of the kind of thinking process inherent to the overall thread. Oneness; [i]everything[/i] is one. Through the interconnections that bring every individual thing to its singular existence, everything is one. Often when I encounter this idea there are a few things that I notice. One of the first things I notice is an abandonment of a previously held intrinsic observation for a “deeper” awareness of the nature of things as if the deeper awareness is more “real,” and in effect negating the former, in this case, the [i]individual[/i] thing. And don't get me wrong, having been engaging with psychedelics in various degrees and intensities for almost half of my life, I've been there; those illuminating spaces where all difference and distinctions fizzle, dwindle, and melt away, leading to a cosmic, almost omniscient awareness and connection with all that exists. But is it that those distinctions don't actually exist when our consciousness expands in such a manner, or is it more accurate perhaps to say that such a perspective makes it [i]seem[/i] as though previous conceptions don't actually exist, have less importance or pertinence, are not the “true” reality, etc? We often come to the conception of oneness through reduction. Simply, we begin with the many and create classes, until we reach a duality; on/off, heads/tails, 0/1, up/down, good/bad, love/hate. Then we observe the complementary nature that is apparent to [i]us[/i] in these opposing dualities (and we just came across another paradox which drives this that much more; for our minds, opposing things, that through their opposition define and support one another and are inextricably linked: there is a sameness to be seen in opposition) and through such compliment we see a link, and in seeing the link or connection, we categorize them together, thus everything is one. But everything is also everything and one is also one. Which brings me then to wonder, is such an observation and reasoning of the observation ontological or perceptive? In other words, is it a description about how existence really exists, or does it say more about how our minds work in defining the structures of ontological nature and as such are more so indirect statements about ourselves? I'm willing to entertain both in vary degrees, levels, and manners, but drawing clearly defined lines seems messy. Once one line is drawn, a new, thinner, and more precise line is needed for clearer boundary delineation. There may also always be moving parts for change is constant. Does something being realized on a different level say that that level is more important, or just how it appears to us in a given context in which we think? Let's use something smaller to look at this apparent paradox in another way. So far, this has all been in reference to “existence” or the “universe.” We'll shrink it down to the singular human being. As individual units, each of us is a singular “oneness.” But inside each of us, in an array of ways, we possess other “onenesses” that compose us or a facet of us. Physically, the [i]individual[/i] atoms that compose [i]individual[/i] molecules that have their functions in operating and creating as basic molecules or by [i]combining[/i] to form more complex molecules which lend themselves to the creation of our bones, muscle, organs, etc. The [i]individual[/i] microbes (some that share no DNA similarities with the host's cells). Cognitively, we each have [I] individual[/i] subsets of personality that accumulate to create the overall personality that we see ourselves and other people see us as. Many [i]individual[/i] things that aggregate and collate to make-up the singular human being (which upon consideration of other human beings creates [i]individual[/i] communities, which leads to [i]individual[/i] towns and cities, etc). There is no single human being without its parts and there are no individual parts (of varying scales) to make up an individual being without the individual being... A coin. Where does heads end and tails begin? For me oneness is like a chain, in that I see all facets, parts and functions that make up the whole while also realizing the whole just as I see individual links in a chain when considering the chain. So then, if we are reabsorbed into oneness (and the mind still exists), ego stripped, does that mean our individuality actually ceases to exist, or that we're just in state of too much indifference to notice such? Does the matter come down to an ontological reality or a perceptive one (and we may never know, so any alignment then becomes a matter of faith and the internal functions of mind that lead towards the holding of that faith)? Plurality is oneness and oneness is plurality. So all this to simply say, that subjectively, oneness and the conception of oneness appears as a paradox. One love [/QUOTE]