It is weird...
undivided wholeness abstracting into innumerable relatively stable, relatively autonomous sub-totalities * (that would be us
) , each with a unique individual perspective , and each with a slightly different apparatus for articulating it's perspective . Is it a surprise that such individualities - seemingly separated and disconnected from their source and, in fact, somehow hatched into this realm with no awareness of that source, or of any previous instances of individualized awareness , and then slowly (painfully, often) becoming more aware of "things" - would encounter and manifest differing ideas and opinions about "what's happening" , and frequently be in seeming and real disagreement ? Nope, no surprise at all .
This idea of oneness... thrown around a lot ...understood and experienced to varying degrees over the years ... finally (because of insanely cool parts of that dreadful book) hitting and being digested at a very deep, fundamental
(and mental, in a way that makes irrefutable sense ) level ... well , it's just easy for me to see that we're all really talking about the same thing . The same thing ... that's different for each one of us . We're all right, within the limitations of our own apparatus , so we
each have a viable piece of the whole bigger picture to offer , but none of us is completely right , as far as being able to offer an objective opinion about a bigger picture .
That's what I think .... I think
So yeah, it can be difficult , and with practice,
one may even become somewhat skilled
ok bye
* from David Bohm's 'Wholeness and the Implicate Order' , a complex and difficult book mostly about physics, in the same way you could say that a dictionary is about words . A book I'm finding I can only digest about 1/4 of , but what I am following is pretty amazing