Freethought & Rationalism Archive

victorialis · 05-22-2002, 01:14 PM

Maybe this "we are one" idea is sufficient simply as an idea, and all we're supposed to do is look at it -- like art.

Eudaimonist · 05-22-2002, 04:46 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by victorialis:
<strong>Maybe this "we are one" idea is sufficient simply as an idea, and all we're supposed to do is look at it -- like art.</strong>

From The Life of Brian.

Brian: Look. You've got it all wrong. You don't Need to follow me. You don't need to follow anybody. You've got to think for yourselves. You're all individuals.
Crowd: YES! WE'RE ALL INDIVIDUALS!
Brian: You're all different.
Crowd: YES. WE ARE ALL DIFFERENT.
Follower: I'm not.

victorialis · 05-23-2002, 05:35 AM

demon-sword -- I don't think what you attempted was silly at all. In your OP you've described human consciousness as penetrating but limited. Why not test the limits, as long as one avoids unnecessary risks and keeps the ego in check?

The master and the blue light are devices of imagery; they're only imaginative supports, although mystical "furniture" can be enjoyable for its own sake. Astral travel? I have no idea of that, although I've heard of it.

Much of the result of such practice is determined by expectations. Did you engage "the universal consciousness" with questions? A contemplative practice needs an objective -- the more specific the objective, the better.

Most of us function now in a state of chronic sensory overload. It seems reasonable to me that if a completely calm state can be induced at will, regular ol' cognition ought to work at least as well then as it does outside a completely calm state. It needs to be directed thinking, though -- a gentle steady focus, not freefall. While intuition can't be forced, it can be nurtured.

The value of any insights gained should then be tested in an acid bath of skepticism, just like we'd test ideas acquired in any other context. Pursue this regimen for a while, and the resulting insights tend to improve rapidly in quality -- as does one's overall outlook. There's nothing mystical, religious or dangerous about this; it is no more than the focused, deliberate use of consciousness.

I recognize it is fashionable now to say that we don't (and can't) know anything. That's a handy-dandy self-refuting disclaimer. We all know more than we think we do. It matters very little, from day to day, whether or not this knowledge is absolute. Most of us are moving too fast ever to find out how much we do know, much less how we know it -- hence the popularity of disclaiming knowledge altogether. I think that's reckless.

Quite sensibly, nobody who fully enjoys the use of consciousness wants to risk their wits with dubious practices. But these consensual limits upon the scope and capability of individual consciousness may have no reality of their own beyond the consensus. There's always more to know, and anyone can know it.

Boro Nut · 05-23-2002, 09:00 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by demon-sword:
<strong>Are we all one?</strong>

Speak for yourself deary. I'm not one and I don't want to be one. If I met one I'm not sure I would talk to it either.

Boro Nut

victorialis · 05-23-2002, 09:18 AM

It takes one to know one.

Boro Nut · 05-24-2002, 03:28 AM

Only in the biblical sense.

Ruy Lopez · 05-25-2002, 06:21 AM

from Victorialis: need for an objective...

I have more nuts for Boro Nut to play with. There is a situation I see where contemplating oneness could have an objective that leads to more compassion to the point that one cannot be president of the US or any other acquisitive organization. It works like John Donne said "no man is an island".

Oneness means everyone else is one's brother with the same and common origins. How can one take something that a brother does not want to give? We will end up eliminating war, robbery, graft and rape. I'm not ready for that yet.

However , is it plausible to propose that one possible destiny of humans lies basically inside his brain's chemistry? I'm not talking about an unprovable divine will but simply an evolutionary process where people eventually realize the Golden Rule to be the best way to live. Of all people, I owe this idea to John Lennon since I love to play the melody of "Imagine". I read the lyrics much later.

Aside from the above, are there other more mundane objectives of contemplating oneness?

victorialis · 05-26-2002, 04:54 AM

heya, demon-sword:

Lennon's ideal is something far up the road from here. From this distance, its shape is oversimplified and therefore indistinct. I think it was probably indistinct to him as well. From a few steps closer, some of its features may be alarming because they aren't what we expected.

Since you mentioned authority and power: One detail we can't see from here is the changed form authority would take on a global scale, if this oneness were to be realized politically.
A world government both wise and benevolent is nearly impossible to imagine without closing both eyes to history.

To us, authority and power still appear chiefly as functions of forcible acquisition. That's the working consensus. The further removed we believe ourselves to be from the locus of power, the more it appears this way to us. The key word here is appears.

Look for the large in the small. Profitable objectives for a contemplative practice lie close at hand: a personal matter, a professional matter, or a nagging philosophical point (why exactly does it nag?). Any of these could be examined profitably from the "oneness" assumption. How "oneness" is not being expressed is at least as interesting as how it is being expressed.

victorialis · 05-27-2002, 02:01 PM

I had a further thought as a result of the desire/suffering thread.

Maybe the "oneness" model is not to be taken as a substitute for anything, but an enhancement.

It's just an aspect of reality we've neglected.

Ruy Lopez · 05-28-2002, 06:51 AM

vic:
Look for the large in the small. Profitable objectives for a contemplative practice lie close at hand: a personal matter, a professional matter, or a nagging philosophical point (why exactly does it nag?). Any of these could be examined profitably from the "oneness" assumption. How "oneness" is not being expressed is at least as interesting as how it is being expressed.
--------

Never took Lennon's ideas seriously for societal application. I just never thought of him as a profound thinker till I read his lyrics in "GOD", Imagine and Beautiful Boy.

I am quite utilitarian and result oriented though and in the past fancied that I could reach a special person I lost track of over 20 yrs ago using the principle of oneness. I reasoned but never seriously believed that since we are one and at the same time millions of "individuated" (saw you used this word before) consciousness, there must be a way to reach a particular consciousness. What a loco no?
Have you ever heard of other locos who claim to have reached some success?

ds

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

05-22-2002, 01:14 PM	#21
victorialis Regular Member Join Date: Apr 2002 Location: Midlands, UK Posts: 195	Maybe this "we are one" idea is sufficient simply as an idea, and all we're supposed to do is look at it -- like art.

05-23-2002, 05:35 AM	#23
victorialis Regular Member Join Date: Apr 2002 Location: Midlands, UK Posts: 195	demon-sword -- I don't think what you attempted was silly at all. In your OP you've described human consciousness as penetrating but limited. Why not test the limits, as long as one avoids unnecessary risks and keeps the ego in check? The master and the blue light are devices of imagery; they're only imaginative supports, although mystical "furniture" can be enjoyable for its own sake. Astral travel? I have no idea of that, although I've heard of it. Much of the result of such practice is determined by expectations. Did you engage "the universal consciousness" with questions? A contemplative practice needs an objective -- the more specific the objective, the better. Most of us function now in a state of chronic sensory overload. It seems reasonable to me that if a completely calm state can be induced at will, regular ol' cognition ought to work at least as well then as it does outside a completely calm state. It needs to be directed thinking, though -- a gentle steady focus, not freefall. While intuition can't be forced, it can be nurtured. The value of any insights gained should then be tested in an acid bath of skepticism, just like we'd test ideas acquired in any other context. Pursue this regimen for a while, and the resulting insights tend to improve rapidly in quality -- as does one's overall outlook. There's nothing mystical, religious or dangerous about this; it is no more than the focused, deliberate use of consciousness. I recognize it is fashionable now to say that we don't (and can't) know anything. That's a handy-dandy self-refuting disclaimer. We all know more than we think we do. It matters very little, from day to day, whether or not this knowledge is absolute. Most of us are moving too fast ever to find out how much we do know, much less how we know it -- hence the popularity of disclaiming knowledge altogether. I think that's reckless. Quite sensibly, nobody who fully enjoys the use of consciousness wants to risk their wits with dubious practices. But these consensual limits upon the scope and capability of individual consciousness may have no reality of their own beyond the consensus. There's always more to know, and anyone can know it.

05-23-2002, 09:18 AM	#25
victorialis Regular Member Join Date: Apr 2002 Location: Midlands, UK Posts: 195	It takes one to know one.

05-24-2002, 03:28 AM	#26
Boro Nut Veteran Member Join Date: Nov 2000 Location: Middlesbrough, England Posts: 3,909	Only in the biblical sense.

05-25-2002, 06:21 AM	#27
Ruy Lopez Veteran Member Join Date: Mar 2002 Location: Manila Posts: 5,516	from Victorialis: need for an objective... I have more nuts for Boro Nut to play with. There is a situation I see where contemplating oneness could have an objective that leads to more compassion to the point that one cannot be president of the US or any other acquisitive organization. It works like John Donne said "no man is an island". Oneness means everyone else is one's brother with the same and common origins. How can one take something that a brother does not want to give? We will end up eliminating war, robbery, graft and rape. I'm not ready for that yet. However , is it plausible to propose that one possible destiny of humans lies basically inside his brain's chemistry? I'm not talking about an unprovable divine will but simply an evolutionary process where people eventually realize the Golden Rule to be the best way to live. Of all people, I owe this idea to John Lennon since I love to play the melody of "Imagine". I read the lyrics much later. Aside from the above, are there other more mundane objectives of contemplating oneness?

05-26-2002, 04:54 AM	#28
victorialis Regular Member Join Date: Apr 2002 Location: Midlands, UK Posts: 195	heya, demon-sword: Lennon's ideal is something far up the road from here. From this distance, its shape is oversimplified and therefore indistinct. I think it was probably indistinct to him as well. From a few steps closer, some of its features may be alarming because they aren't what we expected. Since you mentioned authority and power: One detail we can't see from here is the changed form authority would take on a global scale, if this oneness were to be realized politically. A world government both wise and benevolent is nearly impossible to imagine without closing both eyes to history. To us, authority and power still appear chiefly as functions of forcible acquisition. That's the working consensus. The further removed we believe ourselves to be from the locus of power, the more it appears this way to us. The key word here is appears. Look for the large in the small. Profitable objectives for a contemplative practice lie close at hand: a personal matter, a professional matter, or a nagging philosophical point (why exactly does it nag?). Any of these could be examined profitably from the "oneness" assumption. How "oneness" is not being expressed is at least as interesting as how it is being expressed.

05-27-2002, 02:01 PM	#29
victorialis Regular Member Join Date: Apr 2002 Location: Midlands, UK Posts: 195	I had a further thought as a result of the desire/suffering thread. Maybe the "oneness" model is not to be taken as a substitute for anything, but an enhancement. It's just an aspect of reality we've neglected.

05-28-2002, 06:51 AM	#30
Ruy Lopez Veteran Member Join Date: Mar 2002 Location: Manila Posts: 5,516	vic: Look for the large in the small. Profitable objectives for a contemplative practice lie close at hand: a personal matter, a professional matter, or a nagging philosophical point (why exactly does it nag?). Any of these could be examined profitably from the "oneness" assumption. How "oneness" is not being expressed is at least as interesting as how it is being expressed. -------- Never took Lennon's ideas seriously for societal application. I just never thought of him as a profound thinker till I read his lyrics in "GOD", Imagine and Beautiful Boy. I am quite utilitarian and result oriented though and in the past fancied that I could reach a special person I lost track of over 20 yrs ago using the principle of oneness. I reasoned but never seriously believed that since we are one and at the same time millions of "individuated" (saw you used this word before) consciousness, there must be a way to reach a particular consciousness. What a loco no? Have you ever heard of other locos who claim to have reached some success? ds

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.