The Distinction Principle

[Gem]

If, as they say, 'it's all one', how can we tell things apart?

[psychoslice]

Its all one, but as the mind body we are designed to see thing that seem apart, its the only way we can live as an organism.

[dreamt]

If we couldn't tell things apart, the question of 'all is one' probably wouldn't even arise. There would be no life to speak of, no questions to ask, no answers to seek. (Or that's what I imagine...).

[Free_Spirit1983]

Just to add to the previous 2 posts..

We see things as physically separate because of space.. We see space as nothingness yet it is something at the same time... It's a paradox.. Without space you wouldn't be able to look at the constellations in the night sky, or see your family or walk down your street everything would be a congealed blob of somethingness, a right old mess..

So in turn things look to be separate but everything is held together as one..

[H:O:R:A:C:E]

If, as they say, 'it's all one', how can we tell things apart?

Things aren't apart when seen from the perspective of "it's all one".
Distinguishing things "apart" is non-sensical from that vantage point.
It's all a matter of perspective.

[amy green]

What I find peculiar is if we are all one, why is judgement so taboo? This is an accepted form of conditioning that is inconsistent as I see it.

This is my thinking on this situation. I criticise myself (e.g. when I think I could have done things better) yet we are not supposed to judge others, since it is seen as duality??? However, if we are all one, i.e. others are extensions of ourselves, why is it not acceptable to extend judgement? I am not trying to encourage value judgements (notably, where there is disapproval) but, it would appear, we are not able to call a spade a spade e.g. discernment seems frowned upon. Keeping everything hazy/undefined can make reality look blurred.

Sorry Gem if this is slightly off track - although you may find this issue co-relates and interesting?

[Gem]

I reckon people are fond of the idea that all is one, but then they can tell things apart as well, so I don't know how that get that idea.

[psychoslice]

As the mind body we are designed to see all separate, how could we live our life if we didn't, but there comes a time when we as the mind body realize that we are much more than the body, its that simple.

[Gem]

As the mind body we are designed to see all separate, how could we live our life if we didn't, but there comes a time when we as the mind body realize that we are much more than the body, its that simple.

Yea... so the body/mind is distinct from what isn't the body/mind

[Juanita]

We are all One is simply an abstract knowing of the idea of oneness, with perhaps an overpowering feeling of oneness experienced once or even occasionally.....This does not mean that at the moment of transition you become one with the creator/oneness.... We were designed as physical beings with amnesia, to live, learn, experience and grow as unique separate entities in a world of separateness........The journey to rejoin the Godhead is a very long one....

[H:O:R:A:C:E]

What I find peculiar is if we are all one, why is judgement so taboo? This is an accepted form of conditioning that is inconsistent as I see it.

This is my thinking on this situation. I criticise myself (e.g. when I think I could have done things better) yet we are not supposed to judge others, since it is seen as duality??? However, if we are all one, i.e. others are extensions of ourselves, why is it not acceptable to extend judgement? I am not trying to encourage value judgements (notably, where there is disapproval) but, it would appear, we are not able to call a spade a spade e.g. discernment seems frowned upon. Keeping everything hazy/undefined can make reality look blurred.

Sorry Gem if this is slightly off track - although you may find this issue co-relates and interesting?


Here's my thinking: To accurately judge something, we need to be informed of ALL the factors involved. How can we do that? Who has access to ALL knowledge? Only "God" is in the proper position to judge.
Here's the thing: Judgement is a limitation. Judgement is a tool of "differentiation" and as such it separates things. "Wholeness" is the state of health, and that is hard to find while we whittle ourselves down into tinier fragments. Think of the teacher Jesus, did he advocate "judgement"? He preached repentance from judging, he advocated forgiveness.

[Saggi]

Perhaps, it's just that we all started somewhere

Whatever the belief there is a starting point

Some call it the Big Bang, some the Source, some Evolution and that's the distinction

The differences stop life being boring

Love and hugs

Jo

XxXx

[amy green]

Here's my thinking: To accurately judge something, we need to be informed of ALL the factors involved. How can we do that? Who has access to ALL knowledge? Only "God" is in the proper position to judge.
Here's the thing: Judgement is a limitation. Judgement is a tool of "differentiation" and as such it separates things. "Wholeness" is the state of health, and that is hard to find while we whittle ourselves down into tinier fragments. Think of the teacher Jesus, did he advocate "judgement"? He preached repentance from judging, he advocated forgiveness.
Obviously to accurately judge something we'd need to know all the factors involved but this is idealistic, largely impractical and we don't operate on that basis do we? Do you know everything about toothpaste before you buy a tube of it? Of course not! If we observe that a child is bright/clever, do we need to have quizzed the mother sufficiently and looked at all the school reports? Ridiculous. Such assessments/assertions can be modified in the light of better information anyway. The taboo status of judgements seems largely to do with negative comments...even these can be positively channeled into constructive criticism.

Yes (yawn, here we go) judgement is seen as separation/duality. You haven't addressed the key point in my post i.e. how it is possible to judge/discern within the framework of 'we are all one'. To reiterate - since I criticise myself (e.g. where I could have done something better), if others are extensions of myself (in the 'we are all one' philosophy), how is this not O.K. then? Discerning something is not the same as a value judgement. Furthermore, not all value judgements are negative!

[Gem]

People assume we all started somewhere, and believe there's a journey to Godhead, then a dude like Psychoslice would say 'You're already there'.

Then they say it's all one, BUT, because we are mind and body whatsists we perceive things apart... sounds silly Hehehehe.

Mental constructs, but really, is there a one? I find there is clear distinction.... and the enlightened ones are always saying stuff like 'you are not your mind' (as if that even makes any sense)... maybe you are not what you think you are, you are a true self and a self image... but no matter what, there is always a distinction.

[H:O:R:A:C:E]

Obviously to accurately judge something we'd need to know all the factors involved but this is idealistic, largely impractical and we don't operate on that basis do we? Do you know everything about toothpaste before you buy a tube of it? Of course not! If we observe that a child is bright/clever, do we need to have quizzed the mother sufficiently and looked at all the school reports? Ridiculous. Such assessments/assertions can be modified in the light of better information anyway. The taboo status of judgements seems largely to do with negative comments...even these can be positively channeled into constructive criticism.

Yes (yawn, here we go) judgement is seen as separation/duality. You haven't addressed the key point in my post i.e. how it is possible to judge/discern within the framework of 'we are all one'. To reiterate - since I criticise myself (e.g. where I could have done something better), if others are extensions of myself (in the 'we are all one' philosophy), how is this not O.K. then? Discerning something is not the same as a value judgement. Furthermore, not all value judgements are negative!


It doesn't require judgement to buy toothpaste.
It doesn't require judgement to ascertain cleverness.

Criticism, as you've described it, seems an attack.
What is the motivation behind the criticism?
Do you comfort yourself and assure yourself always
that you've always done the best you can?
Or do you nit-pick and scold yourself for not maintaining the standards you've held more dear than yourself??
Projecting that kind of criticism seems painful to me.
[I percieve it has such.]

Judgement, in and of itself, isn't bad.
What purpose it is set to determines that.

[amy green]

It doesn't require judgement to buy toothpaste.
It doesn't require judgement to ascertain cleverness.

Criticism, as you've described it, seems an attack.
What is the motivation behind the criticism?
Do you comfort yourself and assure yourself always
that you've always done the best you can?
Or do you nit-pick and scold yourself for not maintaining the standards you've held more dear than yourself??
Projecting that kind of criticism seems painful to me.


Judgement, in and of itself, isn't bad.
What purpose it is set to determines that.
Buying toothpaste requires discernment, some form of judgement/making a decision e.g. oh I don't like that brand because...

Detecting cleverness in a child is making a judgement/an appraisal of their quality. If I said the child was shy would that be a judgement then, i.e. a negative one? Do you only understand judgement in terms of value judgements?

Well perhaps I used the wrong word i.e. criticism. Rest assured I have high self esteem but I am focused on improving myself so I [I]do judge my behaviour if it falls short of my potential. So you still haven't addressed my main point about whether it is O.K to judge others if we view that we are all one, since this is seeing others as extensions of ourselves.
Perhaps someone else can answer this. I would really value a reply because I think it is an important point.

[Seawolf]

I reckon people are fond of the idea that all is one, but then they can tell things apart as well, so I don't know how that get that idea.
Some claim our transition from hunter gatherers to what we are today is result of using psychedelic plants. Since then science has found things that suggest everything is one. There's a lot more to it than just all is one, but the basic idea seems to have some validity. To me it means more understanding and relating to each other instead the walls we put up to separate ourselves.

[dreamt]

Examples maybe we can all relate to come in the state of sleep. Those types of dreams where we are unselfconscious, and it's like we're just this kind of neutral witness to whatever is happening.
When there is no distinguishing feature to tell that it's 'me' or 'my' experience. There is a 'floatiness' and a panoramic quality to these types of dreams.

[dreamt]

... my main point about whether it is O.K to judge others if we view that we are all one, since this is seeing others as extensions of ourselves.[/U]
Perhaps someone else can answer this. I would really value a reply because I think it is an important point.
I don't know if I can answer satisfactorily, but I will add my take on it. I think it's a good question.

I'd say that others are extensions of the self, to the extent that we have knowledge of or relationship to the person or situation in question.

I can make a criticism of self most legitimately, because I know myself better than any other person knows me.
People in relationship may in certain situations find that they have to make a criticism, or communicate something that could be unpleasant if said in the wrong way. So I would say that criticism could be constructive where there is love as a foundation, and so the relationship can continue and grow. In the same way - and as you have pointed out - that when a person is making a self-criticism, ideally there is self-esteem(love) as a foundation.

[Neville]

As far as my understanding extends, It is only all One on a molecular/sub molecular basis, A Spade is comprised of Atoms, as Is the Coffee table, but you would look real strange digging the garden with a Coffee table.

[Saggi]

As far as my understanding extends, It is only all One on a molecular/sub molecular basis, A Spade is comprised of Atoms, as Is the Coffee table, but you would look real strange digging the garden with a Coffee table.

But not balancing your coffee on a spade though? :confused: Hmmm,,, :D

Love and hugs

Jo

XxXx

[Neville]

OK Jo , you did get me there,:D

[Gem]

Examples maybe we can all relate to come in the state of sleep. Those types of dreams where we are unselfconscious, and it's like we're just this kind of neutral witness to whatever is happening.
When there is no distinguishing feature to tell that it's 'me' or 'my' experience. There is a 'floatiness' and a panoramic quality to these types of dreams.

Don't you think that there is an awareness of your presence as opposed to what it witnesses in such dreams?

[H:O:R:A:C:E]

Buying toothpaste requires discernment, some form of judgement/making a decision e.g. oh I don't like that brand because...

Detecting cleverness in a child is making a judgement/an appraisal of their quality. If I said the child was shy would that be a judgement then, i.e. a negative one? Do you only understand judgement in terms of value judgements?

Well perhaps I used the wrong word i.e. criticism. Rest assured I have high self esteem but I am focused on improving myself so I do judge my behaviour if it falls short of my potential. So you still haven't addressed my main point about whether it is O.K to judge others if we view that we are all one, since this is seeing others as extensions of ourselves.
Perhaps someone else can answer this. I would really value a reply because I think it is an important point.



I agree with the words you use. Judgement can be defined as "discernment" or "appraisal"; there's no problem there.
Yet you could simply grab the 1st available tube of toothpaste, or say: "give me whatever you've got".
In such cases discerment and appraisal aren't involved (right?).

I feel criticism can be "beneficial" or "detrimental", and I wonder what has motivated the criticism.
Does the criticism inspire happiness and well-being? Or does it seek to shame and belittle?
What's behind the criticism?

To answer your main point, I would say that everything is "OK"... all that matters is where it comes from.
What is the source of a thing? Does it spring from Love, or does it originate "someplace else"?
What is the basis of a thing (?)... that determines it's value, it's usefulness, it's "OKness".

peace2U

[H:O:R:A:C:E]

As far as my understanding extends, It is only all One on a molecular/sub molecular basis, A Spade is comprised of Atoms, as Is the Coffee table, but you would look real strange digging the garden with a Coffee table.


The gap between our world and any other world is filled only by space.
But "space" is literally "nothing"... so there is nothing separating us from Alpha-Centari (for example).
We are "connected" to the entire Universe. The entire Universe is One.

I don't recommend digging with coffee tables.

[Gem]

The gap between our world and any other world is filled only by space.
But "space" is literally "nothing"... so there is nothing separating us from Alpha-Centari (for example).
We are "connected" to the entire Universe. The entire Universe is One.

I don't recommend digging with coffee tables.

Space is a density in itself. That's only known in relation to denser objects, but if you consider the universe is motion, change... and that is inter-related... you still are left with constant space. Therefore there is nothing between because space is not different to matter at all, it's simply lower in density.

[amy green]

I don't know if I can answer satisfactorily, but I will add my take on it. I think it's a good question.

I'd say that others are extensions of the self, to the extent that we have knowledge of or relationship to the person or situation in question.

I can make a criticism of self most legitimately, because I know myself better than any other person knows me.
People in relationship may in certain situations find that they have to make a criticism, or communicate something that could be unpleasant if said in the wrong way. So I would say that criticism could be constructive where there is love as a foundation, and so the relationship can continue and grow. In the same way - and as you have pointed out - that when a person is making a self-criticism, ideally there is self-esteem(love) as a foundation.
Thanks for this reply. So are you saying that the 'we are all one' scenario does not mean that others are extensions of ourselves then, i.e. anyone and everyone? (This was my extrapolation for saying that, if I can judge myself - since others are extensions of ourselves - then why can others not be judged too?)

[dreamt]

Don't you think that there is an awareness of your presence as opposed to what it witnesses in such dreams? This is a particular type that is different in this way from the 'normal' type.
I'm assuming that most of our dream patterns would be similar (over the course of time at least).
In the normal type, there is some awareness that it's 'me'. It could be very tenuous at times, but there would be clues such as emotions playing out or finding expression. Or I can look at it later in some way and relate it to myself.

This other type is of a more 'removed' quality - landscapes, seas, characters seem beyond human, colour extremely vivid or 'textured' (different than normal).

To try and answer the question - I am not myself or any self I don't think, so it's not one thing being present to another, as such.
The last time it happened was a couple of months ago. It could have been anyone else's dream. I could only locate it to myself after I had woken from it.

Obviously none of this can be discussed objectively, or offered as 'proof' of anything. But thought I'd mention it for consideration anyway as I think it's all part of our experience, learning etc.

[Gem]

This is a particular type that is different in this way from the 'normal' type.
I'm assuming that most of our dream patterns would be similar (over the course of time at least).
In the normal type, there is some awareness that it's 'me'. It could be very tenuous at times, but there would be clues such as emotions playing out or finding expression. Or I can look at it later in some way and relate it to myself.

This other type is of a more 'removed' quality - landscapes, seas, characters seem beyond human, colour extremely vivid or 'textured' (different than normal).

To try and answer the question - I am not myself or any self I don't think, so it's not one thing being present to another, as such.
The last time it happened was a couple of months ago. It could have been anyone else's dream. I could only locate it to myself after I had woken from it.

Obviously none of this can be discussed objectively, or offered as 'proof' of anything. But thought I'd mention it for consideration anyway as I think it's all part of our experience, learning etc.

It's interesting to me because it doesn't profess an answer, it's just the way the dreams are. Sometimes I am a character in my dream and sometimes I'm not part of it. I'm the first person, the third person or I'm just aware of a scenario ... but I can never quite locate myself till I have a cuppa joe.

[dreamt]

Thanks for this reply. So are you saying that the 'we are all one' scenario does not mean that others are extensions of ourselves then, i.e. anyone and everyone? (This was my extrapolation for saying that, if I can judge myself - since others are extensions of ourselves - then why can others not be judged too?)
A 'we are all one' scenario would have to be defined first and then go from there.
I don't tend to use these terms myself, but my view or understanding is that it's basically about relationship.
We are all in relationship on the level of being human at least, and the things we have in common as humans.
It would be deeper according to groupings, and further in friends, partnership etc.

Looking at the question again, and no matter the definition of 'we are all one', it seems to be mostly just asking about others judgeing someone else for judgeing...
So maybe it could be presented something like this:

A judges B. C judges A for judgeing B.

Is C in a position to judge A?
- or -
Is C equally guilty of the type of judgement it accuses A of?

I don't want to misrepresent it though, so please correct or disagree as appropriate. It's just an attempt to clarify/simplify.

[dreamt]

It's interesting to me because it doesn't profess an answer, it's just the way the dreams are. Sometimes I am a character in my dream and sometimes I'm not part of it. I'm the first person, the third person or I'm just aware of a scenario ... but I can never quite locate myself till I have a cuppa joe. :smile:

I think the discussion is good because it asks for a definition of 'all is one' and similar terms.
It seems that these terms are mostly used quite loosely - allowing for distinction, difference within the idea. But maybe others have a more definite idea in mind.
It's probably similar to other spiritual terms in that way. But other terms have been around for longer.

[Gem]

:smile:

I think the discussion is good because it asks for a definition of 'all is one' and similar terms.
It seems that these terms are mostly used quite loosely - allowing for distinction, difference within the idea. But maybe others have a more definite idea in mind.
It's probably similar to other spiritual terms in that way. But other terms have been around for longer.

The terminology is a peeve of mine, the buzz phrases come up and I think to myself, I've heard that before somewhere HUNDREDS OF TIMES!!! I know it's a reiteration of things read, said and heard... mere parroting really.

With a thing like all is one, I noticed you say somewhere, it's one relationship. Like motion is relative. When there's a subjective experience by a being, that entity tends to experience the changing world, but the changing world also experiences the entity. Observation is a two way street, it's an eachother thing, an us. Wait, that looks like anus. Even in spiritual terms, we have a relationship with God. God has a panache for His image, the Image returns that adoration. So I tend to see that there is a distinction so is that one distinction, or two distinct things?

[Seawolf]

The idea is not that compatible with industrialized modern people because it's ancient and eastern. We tend to think in linear terms, whereas others think in circular terms. We categorize things into spiritual and physical, while others don't see a difference. Since our new age of eastern ideas has become popular in the West, we use terms that I don't think we actually grasp very well because it's not our history. We take the idea and put our own spin on it, then sell it as a self help book for $24.95.

[dreamt]

The terminology is a peeve of mine, the buzz phrases come up and I think to myself, I've heard that before somewhere HUNDREDS OF TIMES!!! I know it's a reiteration of things read, said and heard... mere parroting really. Couldn't the same be said of a lot of words though...
This is not a reason for me not using them.
What I meant simply was, to me, they're relatively new, so I'd use other words instead that are more 'established' or more clear to my mind.
I usually understand what is meant by the words when they're used.
Basically, the words are secondary (which maybe you're saying also but in a different way).
However, if people who do prefer these terms would discuss it more, it would mean that the terms will become more defined over time.
So even though 'secondary', the words are still important.

[H:O:R:A:C:E]

I think definitions can change.
When I first learned of "rote", it had a bad connotation for me.
(Something like the "parroting" you've mentioned Gem)
At some later time, I came to appreciate how "rote" learning serves
(or can serve) a useful, beneficial function.
Essentially, the word hadn't changed; but it's meaning, at least for me,
was now different. It was a personal journey of sorts.

I believe that we each have our own personal journeys, and I don't want
to require anyone to accept my perceptions of things as universally true.
To each their own.

[dreamt]

I agree that definitions can change.
I used the word 'established' and maybe then it seemed I was talking about things being 'fixed'...
This was not what I meant, or not exactly.
To try and explain: I was intending to discuss how words are used in the sense of 'communication' - specifically of the type that wants to reach the general mind, as in a forum like this for example.
This is in contrast with more internal types of communication.

I agree with your point, H:O:R:A:C:E, that it's a personal journey. I see it very much so in this way.

The point I'm trying to make is: if people are going to communicate about ideas - in particular ideas to do with things shared - then there needs to be some agreement arrived at first.
So when I say something is 'established', I mean there is some 'core' to it. I didn't mean there is no scope for imagination or change of definition somewhat.

Is there inconsistency to what I'm saying? It's not like I have everything worked out, but this is where I'm at for now.

[H:O:R:A:C:E]

I agree that definitions can change.
I used the word 'established' and maybe then it seemed I was talking about things being 'fixed'...
This was not what I meant, or not exactly.
To try and explain: I was intending to discuss how words are used in the sense of 'communication' - specifically of the type that wants to reach the general mind, as in a forum like this for example.
This is in contrast with more internal types of communication.

I agree with your point, H:O:R:A:C:E, that it's a personal journey. I see it very much so in this way.

The point I'm trying to make is: if people are going to communicate about ideas - in particular ideas to do with things shared - then there needs to be some agreement arrived at first.
So when I say something is 'established', I mean there is some 'core' to it. I didn't mean there is no scope for imagination or change of definition somewhat.

Is there inconsistency to what I'm saying? It's not like I have everything worked out, but this is where I'm at for now.

We learn the alphabet 'by rote', and we learn that 2+2=4.
Learning these things provides the framework by which we communicate to each other.
It acclimates us toward a common understanding.

I think we've already established a starting point for discussion;
we don't need to keep searching for 'the beginning'.

What I want to say now is: what of when the established 'rules of order'
are no longer satisfying? What if we want to make 2+2=5 for awhile.
There is the 'common-sense' framework of particular ideas already
imposed on us (things like: "Death and taxes are the only two things you can be sure of.").
What of when we no longer want those rules to apply to us?
I believe that the rules of reality are not truly something outside of us, something imposed upon us.
I believe that we are capable of freedom from such rules. We are empowered to make our own, satisfying realities...
irregardless of what people may insist that we need to do or believe.

So Gem, to answer your original question: If, as they say, 'it's all one', how can we tell things apart?
I'd say: how do you want to do such a thing. I believe you can (or can't) do it that way... as you wish.

One of the things I'd learned 'by rote' was that "kindness is a virtue".
I'd like to keep this idea forever true. :smile:

[dreamt]

We learn the alphabet 'by rote', and we learn that 2+2=4.
Learning these things provides the framework by which we communicate to each other.
It acclimates us toward a common understanding.

I think we've already established a starting point for discussion;
we don't need to keep searching for 'the beginning'. I don't think it's so much about verifying "2+2". I think it's something more like saying "what are the properties of 2, '+', '=' " ...
As you said, there’s a framework already. I think what I'm saying is that we need to refer to the framework and to understand it in order to use it better.
What I want to say now is: what of when the established 'rules of order'
are no longer satisfying? What if we want to make 2+2=5 for awhile. Of course, when rules no longer satisfy, rules change. It depends on what type of dissatisfaction we're talking about though as to whether it's the rule that's the problem or the dissatisfaction.
There is the 'common-sense' framework of particular ideas already
imposed on us (things like: "Death and taxes are the only two things you can be sure of.").
What of when we no longer want those rules to apply to us?
I believe that the rules of reality are not truly something outside of us, something imposed upon us.
I believe that we are capable of freedom from such rules. We are empowered to make our own, satisfying realities...
irregardless of what people may insist that we need to do or believe.I was talking about finding agreement, by which I mean agreement that is true, not agreement in a distorted meaning of something imposed.
I appreciate what you're emphasising here - freedom.
So we want freedom and we want agreement on things that are important. These are interrelated I think.

[God-Like]

But not balancing your coffee on a spade though? :confused: Hmmm,,, :D

Love and hugs

Jo

XxXx

Or you could just shovel in the coffee lol .

Hope u are well Jo by the way :hug3:

x dazzle x

[H:O:R:A:C:E]

I don't think it's so much about verifying "2+2". I think it's something more like saying "what are the properties of 2, '+', '=' " ...
As you said, there’s a framework already. I think what I'm saying is that we need to refer to the framework and to understand it in order to use it better.
Of course, when rules no longer satisfy, rules change. It depends on what type of dissatisfaction we're talking about though as to whether it's the rule that's the problem or the dissatisfaction.
I was talking about finding agreement, by which I mean agreement that is true, not agreement in a distorted meaning of something imposed.
I appreciate what you're emphasising here - freedom.
So we want freedom and we want agreement on things that are important. These are interrelated I think.

I'm gonna try to go Zen on ya dreamt.
What I meant earlier was that we already know the framework.
Someplace deep inside of us, we already know every nuance of the framework, intimately.
We are responsible (subconsciously) for creating the framework - we've been using it (again, subconsciously) to impose restrictions on ourselves.
Our Freedom is a precious thing and it cannot be taken from us.
Nothing of true value can be taken from us.
[I refer you to Message from Babaji post 267: "...what is real cannot in any way be taken from you."]

Society has dictates on what is proper behavior; what is acceptable.
These 'rules of order' are impositions (as I experience it)... they limit our freedom(s).
But actually, all is good, it is only we ourselves who are responsible for imposing on ourselves (!).
So, if there is a problem, "the fault lies not in the stars, but within ourselves."

I think "the problem" is the dissatisfaction.
Dissatisfaction is not satisfying (that's the "Zen" part).
I agree that freedom is an important thing. :smile:
'Interrelated' feels like 'communication' to me, and this is a joyous thing.
I hope my meaning(s) have come through clearly.
I believe that we're all one species here, and I don't wish to foster
discord or disharmony with anyone -- I find such 'dramas' unsatisfying.

peace2u

[Absonite]

Separation and differentiation are not the same.

Unfortunately, too many people espousing modern spirituality synonomize the two - and therefore confuse being separate with being different. Worse, the consider oneness as some kind of totalitarian sameness were no differences can exist!

The moment one simply accepts that separation and differentiation are not the same, then one can recognize oneness - union - without erroneously attempting to annihilate (or foolishly disregard) differences.

[Gem]

Couldn't the same be said of a lot of words though...
This is not a reason for me not using them.
What I meant simply was, to me, they're relatively new, so I'd use other words instead that are more 'established' or more clear to my mind.
I usually understand what is meant by the words when they're used.
Basically, the words are secondary (which maybe you're saying also but in a different way).
However, if people who do prefer these terms would discuss it more, it would mean that the terms will become more defined over time.
So even though 'secondary', the words are still important.
It's not that you use them, merely a generic thing, it's like I don't like the bulk of popular music, but I still know the lyrics, and the ditties get stuck in my head. The thing I notice, not just on a forum, but also in my real life spiritual social activity, is that people have things that they can use as answers, but song birds have tunes in their heads and aren't really listening.

[Gem]

Separation and differentiation are not the same.

Well said.

Unfortunately, too many people espousing modern spirituality synonomize the two - and therefore confuse being separate with being different. Worse, the consider oneness as some kind of totalitarian sameness were no differences can exist!

That's why Shakespeare says, to be or not to be... one can make that distinction, but not separate the contrasting principle.

The moment one simply accepts that separation and differentiation are not the same, then one can recognize oneness - union - without erroneously attempting to annihilate (or foolishly disregard) differences.

[Absonite]

Notice how it's fashionable for many to proclaim that human bodies necessarily make events occurring in this world seem separate, merely because such bodies differentiate experience as a five-fold perceptual environment.

Just because my human body differentiates sights, sounds, textures, scents, and favors does not mean that I discern those precepts as separate from each other. After all, on the most basic level the union of those five-fold precepts is the very environment I experience as this world! And the intimate interconnectivity of sensually discerned entities and environment (the intense interaction of organisms and habitat) is the basic foundational unity of this world!

Whenever someone goes on about how everything seems separate just because our human bodies differentiate experience as different precepts (sense data) they completely lose me - both because I recognize that they make the common mistake of confusing differentiation with separation, and because the inexorable consequence of such confusion is that their perspective union tends to be totalitarian sameness without differences.

[dreamt]

It's not that you use them, merely a generic thing, it's like I don't like the bulk of popular music, but I still know the lyrics, and the ditties get stuck in my head. The thing I notice, not just on a forum, but also in my real life spiritual social activity, is that people have things that they can use as answers, but song birds have tunes in their heads and aren't really listening.It's kind of natural sometimes maybe, as in children learn how to speak in this way.
When it's adults though and it happens a lot, I don't know what it is. Maybe it's a variety of things. It is at least some non-interest in communication and which defeats the purpose of communication.
It is all around in society though - politicians, advertising etc.

Whenever someone goes on about how everything seems separate just because our human bodies differentiate experience as different precepts (sense data) they completely lose me - both because I recognize that they make the common mistake of confusing differentiation with separation, and because the inexorable consequence of such confusion is that their perspective union tends to be totalitarian sameness without differences.I don't know but I get the feeling sometimes that the 'all is one' or a similar slogan could be used(or abused) in this way. Obviously it tends to be used mostly by people coming from a spiritual background. But it could also be used by atheists and people who have this more social-political idea in mind.
I could foresee some phrase like this becoming used universally, but with different groups of people having some very different ideas of what it means.
In the same way that the word God has been used by politicians going to war etc. So not a new thing, but maybe with more potential to unite, since it doesn't have a historical baggage such as the word God would.

[Gem]

It's kind of natural sometimes maybe, as in children learn how to speak in this way.
When it's adults though and it happens a lot, I don't know what it is. Maybe it's a variety of things. It is at least some non-interest in communication and which defeats the purpose of communication.
It is all around in society though - politicians, advertising etc.

I don't know but I get the feeling sometimes that the 'all is one' or a similar slogan could be used(or abused) in this way. Obviously it tends to be used mostly by people coming from a spiritual background. But it could also be used by atheists and people who have this more social-political idea in mind.
I could foresee some phrase like this becoming used universally, but with different groups of people having some very different ideas of what it means.
In the same way that the word God has been used by politicians going to war etc. So not a new thing, but maybe with more potential to unite, since it doesn't have a historical baggage such as the word God would.
Communicating is an art and it doesn't really have pretexts, it's just that one person means something by what they are communicating and another person has to understand it.

The understanding part is a bit hard, because the tendency is to interpret it within one's own mental framework, and these frameworks can become rigid with personal dogmas and personal value and moral systems.

They say things like 'your projection' but it isn't like that really, there is no your and your no mine; communitation is between people. One communication, two (or more) people.

[dreamt]

Communicating is an art and it doesn't really have pretexts, it's just that one person means something by what they are communicating and another person has to understand it.

The understanding part is a bit hard, because the tendency is to interpret it within one's own mental framework, and these frameworks can become rigid with personal dogmas and personal value and moral systems.

They say things like 'your projection' but it isn't like that really, there is no your and your no mine; communitation is between people. One communication, two (or more) people.Maybe this is why some tend towards more local or narrow-focused groups for their socialising, as this would cut down on some of these things, such as understanding another’s beliefs etc. It’s not as interesting that way though I think. It’s good to have a group with one basic interest, such as spirituality, and obviously then there’s room for variety within that.

Yeah, mental frameworks etc can become overly rigid, but not irreversible I don't think, unless the person wants it to be. Communication itself would be a good way to address this, although that’s assuming it’s not too late and the person hasn’t been offended or something.

I think communication is wonderful when it actually happens. As you say, it is one movement, a kind of flow. When it doesn't happen then, it can feel wrong. Sometimes people persist anyway. Sometimes persistence pays off, sometimes it doesn't. It's kind of fascinating the different styles and ways there are.

[Gem]

Maybe this is why some tend towards more local or narrow-focused groups for their socialising, as this would cut down on some of these things, such as understanding another’s beliefs etc. It’s not as interesting that way though I think. It’s good to have a group with one basic interest, such as spirituality, and obviously then there’s room for variety within that.
I do that too, go into narrow focused groups and it becomes a social scene, I was in the drug scene for a while and now i'm in the Buddha style clique, and their mannerisms irritate me... but not because they're prats... it's because I'm male and over 40, so griping is an inherent need.

Yeah, mental frameworks etc can become overly rigid, but not irreversible I don't think, unless the person wants it to be. Communication itself would be a good way to address this, although that’s assuming it’s not too late and the person hasn’t been offended or something.

I think communication is wonderful when it actually happens. As you say, it is one movement, a kind of flow. When it doesn't happen then, it can feel wrong. Sometimes people persist anyway. Sometimes persistence pays off, sometimes it doesn't. It's kind of fascinating the different styles and ways there are.
Fascinating... it sure is...

[Touched]

It is true we are all One, but it is also true we are all individual.

This is the nature of the universe. :)

[the_crow]

If, as they say, 'it's all one', how can we tell things apart?

All one, does not mean the same.
All are part of the whole. But the whole is the sum of all things.
You, by yourself, are a sorry thing, lacking context.
But in the context of The Whole, you become something fine.