The Death Throes of Authoritarianism? Or True Enlightenment Preparation?

There's been a trend on this forum (I also see it tending in the 2012 and Gray Area forums) to reiterate the same, simple dogma that "your individuality is an illusion, or worse, a failure of spiritual mindfulness" and to tie it directly to the "impending" transition that this 2012 year has been marketed as being all about. I don't have to convince anyone who spends any time at all here of this, and if you've just dropped out of a cloud onto this forum and haven't been badgered relentlessly with threads to this effect, then I'm not concerned about whether you accept the premise of this assertion. This thread is for the regulars, and the regular lurker/readers. The fact is that a significant percentage of the threads on this forum aggressively promote the notion that "separateness" - or awareness of one's unique identity relative to all else that exists as physical and/or perceived - is the root of human failure. And it's this notion that I want to challenge with this thread. I want to make the following points, so that I won't have to feel as if I have to correct anyone's poor reading comprehension as this thread develops.

• I don't want to rehash the same old quantum theoretical mash-ups that finally drown each of these debates in useless claims that have no objective verification criteria that is possible. I want to examine the net impact of the universal acceptance of such a broadly serviceable assertion, and who might ultimately gain from such universal acceptance.
  
  
• I seriously doubt that true acceptance of "oneness" actually eliminates "separateness" in any actual sense of what "separateness" is and how it factually manifests, but that's a debate for another thread.
  
  
• I appreciate the nature of existential holon structure, and how ultimately every separate thing is a holon within the larger, inclusive holon that is true reality, but again, this is not what the claims and assertions and demands for transcendence focus on for the initiate and what he/she is supposed to be striving to achieve.

So, lets' not waste anyone's time with ignorant (willful or otherwise) misstatements or misinterpretations of what is being challenged here. My challenge is the utility of successfully eliminating any sense of individual-ness by any person, for any reason whatsoever. And I am suggesting that the "ego death" of any person, especially under the tutelage of a de facto authority figure (one who has made the claim that he/she has the truth concerning "oneness" and how to achieve it) is tantamount to surrendering one's freedom of self to that person and whatever agenda that person serves.

We are experiencing a very important shift in human consciousness, and yet, it's much more mundane and clearly definable than the "oneness" crowd would like us to believe. That shift is toward individuality, freedom of self expression, and freedom to self-actualize, and yes, this makes the traditional thinkers terrified. Not just the traditional leaders, but also the traditional followers. Without lockstep traditions - including the established "spiritual" teachings that have been repackaged and given new terminology in recent decades - these frightened people lose their visceral center, since these ancient dogmas have been the source of that center over millennia for literally the entire human race. And the war to protect and preserve these often destructive controls is being waged on many fronts - not just the jack-booted NWO cartoon front that many on this board have become obsessed with.

When the intellectually adventurous become diverted with bizarre shadings of mysticism and quantum theory, they lose their capacity for true discovery of what the human mind is truly free to discover. They become - yet again - channeled into very defined and finite areas of investigation. Even the investigation of non-investigation - which is what much of "ego death" is all about. The intellect is slandered, and yet it is the intellect of the individual that sets that individual free of all that presses in to confine it. It's the raw power of self that releases the human being from the restraints of lockstep authoritarian rule, and this has always been the case.

Putting the tyrant in a flowing robe, and sitting him cross-legged on a pillow doesn't transform the tyrant into a godly teacher. It just transforms the marketing presentation of that tyrant, as well as the tyrant that sits just up and behind that lesser tyrant, instructing him/her on what the agenda demands.

Frankly, the "oneness" agenda creeps me out. I just thought it might be good to take a look at a very plausible net impact of surrendering any of yourself (and certainly all of yourself) to anyone or any philosophy. You each are epitome expressions of physical existence. Celebrate it, and discover yourselves as the unique, inimitable and indivisible miracles that you have always been.

Oneness is the quite pool on whos surface scum rises. Unlike the moving stream, no stones are shaped, no boats are carried, no mills are driven.

Originally posted by Logarock
Oneness is the quite pool on whos surface scum rises.

Man, that's pretty good. Is that yours? It really captures the treacherous calm of the successful authoritarian state - whether spiritual or secular.

reply to post by NorEaster

While there are certainly some individuals who take the exploration of the illusion of separateness to the extreme conclusion you are trying to bring to light, it is by no means what the bulk of those exploring this concept of "oneness" have come to understand. You are creeped out because your own interpretation is missing much of the nuance of their language usage (as evidenced by prior discussions I've witnessed you engage in).

Perhaps Tim Freke can communicate it in a way that will click for you for where this "new" movement of understanding and awareness of our real nature is going:
www.lifeartsmedia.com...

The experience of ego death that so many seek is to finally break through and be able to see BOTH aspects rather than being locked into a separate individualized perspective permanently. Being able to navigate the world from both vantage points... which fundamentally alters the way people will approach and engage with "others".

EDIT: Removed some of the unintentionally inflammatory sounding expressions.

reply to post by NorEaster


I would agree with you on the right for one to be free, to develope himself to his fullest potential.

But unfortunately, we do not live alone, for no man is an island. More so in our growing world.

However, there is no need to place collars around our neck and be enchained by the social engineering masters whom prefers coformity than diversity to easily manage and control. Anyone out of line - pull that collar chain or just cut his head off.

Rather, we should incalcate a sense of responsibility to freedoms given, so that while one is free, one still do have obligations to the whole, and it is to the whole and not to one individual alone, and that can only come with sharing, discussing, debating and find solutions based upon common grounds for progress and mutal co-existance for the sake of peace if not harmony.

Unity upon shared common ground with all, not conformity upon the wiles and desires of an individual human authoritarian who is only flawed, as all are.

reply to post by NorEaster


Yea thats mine. You inspired that.

Originally posted by ErgoTheConclusion
reply to post by NorEaster


The experience of ego death that so many seek is to finally break through and be able to see BOTH aspects rather than being locked into a separate individualized perspective permanently. Being able to navigate the world from both vantage points... which fundamentally alters the way people will approach and engage with "others".

edit on 25-8-2012 by ErgoTheConclusion because: (no reason given)

I started to break on through to the other side when I relized......my god, theses people cant help themselves.

reply to post by NorEaster
For me, oneness and seperatness are the two walls of of the well in which we climb. Climbing either wall alone leaves us no purchase. Hoisting ourselves between the two, arms and legs outstretched inching ourselves upward.

I enjoy my moments of oneness. Those moments where I just vanish and the all blows through where I was. Yet I always find that I still was, all along, and rather than taking this as a failure to truly reach oneness, I just take time to smell the fragrant dissipating wisps of that mighty wind.

The gurus will have followers and vice versa, locked in a cycle of mutual need. Any way Easter, I appreciate what I think to be the gist of your sense here. That oneness can only be appreciated by individuals, so onward with me.

Originally posted by Logarock
Oneness is the quite pool on whos surface scum rises. Unlike the moving stream, no stones are shaped, no boats are carried, no mills are driven.

Oneness is the ocean, the evaporated, the cloud, the raindrop, the creek, the river, the pool, and the gulf.

Originally posted by ErgoTheConclusion
reply to post by NorEaster

 

You have consistently blamed others for your own misunderstanding of what they are trying to demonstrate.

While there are certainly some individuals who take the exploration of the illusion of separateness to the extreme conclusion you are trying to bring to light, it is by no means what the bulk of those exploring this concept have come to understand. You are creeped out because your own interpretation is missing much of the nuance (as evidenced by prior discussions I've witnessed you engage in).

Perhaps Tim Freke can communicate it in a way that will click for you for where this "new" movement of understanding and awareness of our real nature is going (Everything and the Individual at the same time):
www.lifeartsmedia.com...

The experience of ego death that so many seek is to finally break through and be able to see BOTH aspects rather than being locked into a separate individualized perspective permanently. Being able to navigate the world from both vantage points... which fundamentally alters the way people will approach and engage with "others".

edit on 25-8-2012 by ErgoTheConclusion because: (no reason given)

You can't claim that it's not this OR that, and then - in the same statement - claim that "opposites coexist". Of course opposites coexist, but for that to happen, there has to be "this OR that", as well as "this AND that". And the implication there is that unique individuality exists, persists, and is the basis of the gathered whole that collects as reality. Yes, reality is a true unique whole, but within that whole exists layers and layers of individual wholes. This may seem obvious, and while I am indulging you (this once) on the logic of it all, what underlies the demand that each individual human whole surrender to the collective ONE that supersedes all that gathers to express it as the whole that it ultimately is, is the undercurrent of coerced uniformity of thought and denial of self as being anything but an unfortunate failure of reality interpretation.

Maybe it's you that don't understand what I am challenging here?

Originally posted by NorEaster
Frankly, the "oneness" agenda creeps me out. I just thought it might be good to take a look at a very plausible net impact of surrendering any of yourself (and certainly all of yourself) to anyone or any philosophy. You each are epitome expressions of physical existence. Celebrate it, and discover yourselves as the unique, inimitable and indivisible miracles that you have always been.

Yet you seem to suggest to denying the individual their unique option to surrender themselves to someone/thing else. You become the tyrant by suggesting it isn't just as unique and viable of an option to "melt" into a pool as it is to be an individual snowflake.

While I continue to enjoy my "individuality", I would not suggest that it is "the way" to be.

Originally posted by NorEaster
Maybe it's you that don't understand what I am challenging here?

I understand perfectly well. I'm suggesting you've misunderstood the motivations of the people you rail against frequently and are projecting something that isn't quite there. I attempt to address that from a different angle in my post directly above this one.

You and I have been around this block though and I've said what is needed for those in the rafters.

Best to you.

Originally posted by SeekerofTruth101
reply to post by NorEaster

 

Rather, we should incalcate a sense of responsibility to freedoms given, so that while one is free, one still do have obligations to the whole, and it is to the whole and not to one individual alone, and that can only come with sharing, discussing, debating and find solutions based upon common grounds for progress and mutal co-existance for the sake of peace if not harmony.

Fine post. I find this wrangling for common ground to be generaly vulgar and course. Generaly it amounts to demands of surrender, of one type or another, to a vague mass. It ends up being the individual on trial from sounds behind a light.

It takes a great deal of a spritual type move to get the whole to move as a group of individuals with respect to that fact. The very real danger is that the individual will be sucked dry and cast away like an empty bottle. This is the nature of the whole. The whole seeks glory of its own and loves those that bring it glory. The whole claimes a higher purpose these days, is anti hero, anti historical and distrusts the individual.

Originally posted by SeekerofTruth101
reply to post by NorEaster

 

I would agree with you on the right for one to be free, to develope himself to his fullest potential.

But unfortunately, we do not live alone, for no man is an island. More so in our growing world.

However, there is no need to place collars around our neck and be enchained by the social engineering masters whom prefers coformity than diversity to easily manage and control. Anyone out of line - pull that collar chain or just cut his head off.

Rather, we should incalcate a sense of responsibility to freedoms given, so that while one is free, one still do have obligations to the whole, and it is to the whole and not to one individual alone, and that can only come with sharing, discussing, debating and find solutions based upon common grounds for progress and mutal co-existance for the sake of peace if not harmony.

Unity upon shared common ground with all, not conformity upon the wiles and desires of an individual human authoritarian who is only flawed, as all are.

We agree on the need for a robust social contract, with the societal whole served by all members as a means of material survival. My issue is not with social responsibility. I applaud social responsibility and honestly believe that to be the key to corporeal survival. The issue I'm working with in this thread has nothing at all to do with that. It has to do with a much deeper identity schism. In the bullet points, I even express my doubt that such "oneness" is even possible. Still, in this forum especially, there is a constant drumbeat to "kill the self" if one wants to "progress" this year along with the chosen few.

The yoke is very different than the sort of social contract "dog collar" that the Ayn Rand crowd sh*ts all over themselves about. This one does not empower the individual, as does collective social connectivity and mutual concern. This one isolates the individual inside a psychological delusion of "oneness" with whatever he/she has interpreted "oneness" to be. It should be noted that there is no definitive description of what it actually feels like or means to be "one with everything". Just vague poetic analogies and metaphors. This allows each person to invent their own interpretation of "oneness", and their own avenue away from their mind's active participation in learning and developing during this phase of its physical gestation.

Originally posted by ErgoTheConclusion

Originally posted by NorEaster
Frankly, the "oneness" agenda creeps me out. I just thought it might be good to take a look at a very plausible net impact of surrendering any of yourself (and certainly all of yourself) to anyone or any philosophy. You each are epitome expressions of physical existence. Celebrate it, and discover yourselves as the unique, inimitable and indivisible miracles that you have always been.

Yet you wish to deny the individual their unique option to surrender themselves to someone/thing else. You become the tyrant by suggesting it isn't just as unique and viable of an option to "melt" into a pool as it is to be an individual snowflake.

While I continue to enjoy my "individuality", I would not suggest that it is "the way" to be.

edit on 25-8-2012 by ErgoTheConclusion because: (no reason given)

Good good. Its been my findings in life that its those "melters" that become the judges of the holders of individuality. Like foxes that have lost their tails.

This is an interesting topic to me. I am one to speak about non-duality, or 'oneness,' and yet my interpretation of it is not what you might think when you hear 'oneness.' My understanding of non-duality is that it is an INHERENT property of reality, and as such opens up the potential for unparalleled freedom of individual expression. In my understanding, infinite potential for unique individual expression is implied in non-duality...

Originally posted by Logarock
Good good. Its been my findings in life that its those "melters" that become the judges of the holders of individuality. Like foxes that have lost their tails.

I would agree, but do we individuals lock the melters in the freezer? Is that freedom?

Love your metaphors in here.

Originally posted by ErgoTheConclusion

Originally posted by NorEaster
Frankly, the "oneness" agenda creeps me out. I just thought it might be good to take a look at a very plausible net impact of surrendering any of yourself (and certainly all of yourself) to anyone or any philosophy. You each are epitome expressions of physical existence. Celebrate it, and discover yourselves as the unique, inimitable and indivisible miracles that you have always been.

Yet you wish to deny the individual their unique option to surrender themselves to someone/thing else. You become the tyrant by suggesting it isn't just as unique and viable of an option to "melt" into a pool as it is to be an individual snowflake.

While I continue to enjoy my "individuality", I would not suggest that it is "the way" to be.

edit on 25-8-2012 by ErgoTheConclusion because: (no reason given)

I am merely pointing to what it actually is, and how it may ultimately be used by those who are a lot more aware of this sort of thing that either you or I are. The tyranny exist on both sides of the veil, and on that side, there's no death that one can take to escape it. It's here where you're given your only opportunity to become wise enough and powerful enough to manage the threats that hover just beyond the crossing over. If someone honestly feels the need to "melt into a pool" then they'll find a pool to melt into without some mahatma presenting menacing music/text/news clip videos about the desperate need for them to hurry up and melt as a means of eternal survival.

The Christians have their "melt into this pool" and the Muslims have their "melt into this pool", and the faux-physics Namaste crowd have their own "melt into our pool" edition. In this forum, it's the Namaste crew that rules the post count. Therefore, it's them and their pool that Im addressing with this thread.

reply to post by NorEaster

Except I'm a part of that Namaste crowd and I don't hold the beliefs you suggest I do.

Nor do virtually any of the others that I have discussed with through the past couple of years, nor do the discussions pursue the *destruction* of the individual entirely, only the realization of the truth of the "individual" relative to the whole. A truth which is physically and mathematically demonstrable. And for those who have experienced it... subjectively demonstrable but only to themselves, thus the plethora of "interpretations" when trying to translate it into limited words.

Have you experienced the total loss of self and knew it had happened and came back?

Namasalute!

Originally posted by ErgoTheConclusion

Originally posted by Logarock
Good good. Its been my findings in life that its those "melters" that become the judges of the holders of individuality. Like foxes that have lost their tails.

I would agree, but do we individuals lock the melters in the freezer? Is that freedom?

Love your metaphors in here.

edit on 25-8-2012 by ErgoTheConclusion because: (no reason given)

Melters are pursuers. Like folk that work for the occupation against their own. And really its the individual thats froze out more often. No body wants free thinkers around anyway.