Originally posted by NorEaster

Originally posted by grizzle2

Originally posted by CythraulPerhaps a part of me is disgusted by the proposition that, ultimately, I am Tony Blair and he is me; I am Joseph Stalin and he is me; I am Jack the Ripper and he is me; I am the rapist and he is me. I work towards self-betterment whilst others don’t, and yet all that work goes not to the betterment of my eternal consciousness but merely contributes towards the neutral consciousness of the ‘I’ that is all of us. You can’t even call us a ‘combination’ of souls because that again implies the presence of more than one.

My BS detector goes off big time with regard to this idea. It's an excuse for not doing anything. Icke has said "I love you, George Bush." I don't. And neither am I George Bush. Everything is not everything.
I'm sure the bad guys would love for everyone to believe in this.

Y'know, you make a good point here. If everything was everything, then it would literally be everything all the time.

Now, some people can work up a philosophical argument to defend it to their own satisfaction, but then they're stuck trying to figure out why there are polarity responses, why a person's atoms don't simply join with the atoms in a chair they just sat down in, and why the concept of Identity exists at all. So, this is when they start in on the whole "it's part of a universal effort to experience identity by delineating the whole into infinite bits, for each to have their own illusionary identity, with the purpose of juxtaposition for the sake of juxtaposition, and the experience of it." But then they insist that the ultimate goal is to reunite all of this once again and to feel the unity of "oneness" - almost as if the experiment got out of hand and the big challenge is to gather up everything and make it one again.

But, they never actually explain the core notion of why fragmentation (separated into definable and identifiable units) was ever a desirable state of being for this One in the first place. Oh sure, they suggest that it wanted to be fragmented to experience fragmentation, but if it was always this unified One, and if fragmentation is not a natural or even desirable state of existence, then why did it invent the notion of fragmentation, and when it did (keep in mind that it would've had to absolutely invent it out of whole cloth) why did it suddenly desire to become fragmented? What would've been the impetus for such a bizarre need? They will claim - "It can want what it wants, who am I to say why". But in the same breath they will tell you that they know that it wants to reunite with itself as One, so apparently they do believe that they can say "why" for this One, and that they have the authority to do exactly that.

The more you challenge this notion, the more it begins to stagger around the room and assert that "you'd know why if you were enlightened", and "those who can't sense it, know it, be it, will always lash out at it in ignorance and anger, and you're no different than they are". As if each question is like a wound that it resents and you are just another enemy of what is true and right. But all you're trying to do is have them explain why this has such a problem connecting with what you know to be true about the world and about your own life, as soon as you stop listening to them or reading their texts, and step back out into that world.

Of course, they simply insist that your world is a lie. That you've accepted this lie as truth, so it is all you are able to experience. The way I see it, if a premise has to declare everything else to be a lie for it to survive, then it's more than likely a lie itself. It's like the guy who gets caught naked and in bed with a woman by his wife and says to her "Who are you going to believe? Me or your lying eyes?" A factual premise must have a point where it dovetails with that which is universally undeniable. As a premise, it can be initially counterintuitive to a person - depending on that person's life experiences - but the connections between it and what is commonly perceived reality must exist and be provable with a minimum-to-reasonable amount of exposure for it to be viable.

To accept that the whole of everything is actually indivisible, there's just too much that needs to be debunked. I have never seen the case made for this notion. Community of purpose is one thing, and I can defend that notion all day long, but declaring that there is no unique and permanent identity for the human being is something completely indefensible. It just doesn't survive a full logical challenge. In fact, it fails such a challenge almost immediately.

edit on 2/18/2011 by NorEaster because: (no reason given)

Originally posted by RRokkyy

The concept of separateness is even harder to defend or explain. Each separate thing or even idea would have to
exist in its own universe completely alone. Separateness is literally insanity. If things interact then they are not separate.

Separateness is just the Religion of Narcissus,gazing at himself in his pond.
How do you explain Jesus saying,"I and the Father are One"?