There's something that has always bothered me about all this "Oneness" talk. It's not the idea itself, so let's even just assume that it's true... Ok, so we're all One.What bothers me is that it's always portrayed as the ONLY solution to the problems we face, as if reality literally cannot create separate entities that can coexist without domination and survival... It's practically an INSULT to existence to believe that.But it's as if most people think something like this:>Even if we're all free, that would just mean someone else is free to hurt me, therefore the only possible way to avoid being controlled/dominated by others is for us all to merge into a single OneBut I think that's complete bullshit. It IS possible to be separate individuals who are totally sovereign without the possibility of being harmed by others.The concept of "harm" implies NON-freedom and therefore this is literally asking "what if non-freedom within freedom?"You just can't imagine it because the context we currently dwell in (this world) is inherently non-free. The very nature of this world implies survival and consumption. That's the nature of THIS system, not the nature of all systems.The problem is not that we are experiencing separation. The problem is that we are experiencing a non-free form of separation, where your individual nature is BOUND to others.This "oneness" clearly splits itself for a reason. Are we to really believe that the ONLY reason it splits itself is just so it can say "wow, this fucking sucks, I'm going back to Oneness again"...What if, just maybe, it's actually supposed to be enjoyable?What if some negative entity just wants to absorb you, and is brainwashing you to think that "oneness" is the only possible solution to your problems so that you agree to being absorbed by it? Even if that's what we are in the end, it doesn't mean you have to be absorbed by some dipshit parasitic entity that exists in an even deeper realm of ignorance than we do.
maybe its literal, like all our and everything's matter collapsing upon itself, right before another big bang.but yeah i never really liked that concept of a true hive mind.i think its about realizing that you could had been the things around you, it was simply a dice roll, one that you might take again. so we are all equal.
>>42224732To recognize how we relate is to disarm the forces that divide us and lead to violence. That is the purpose of finding unity, not "merging."> It IS possible to be separate individuals who are totally sovereign without the possibility of being harmed by others.Then those others do not have the sovereign right to harm you, even on accident. That's both inherently not free, and also dealing with an opaque reality that restricts our ability to make informed choices, those infinitely limiting our freedom beyond.Absolute freedom is a paradox. It stems from the failure to realize that the source of all freedom is constraint.>Are we to really believe that the ONLY reason it splits itself is just so it can say "wow, this fucking sucks, I'm going back to Oneness again"...Personally, I believe we're helping build Heaven here in the physical.
pretty much everything I was pointing out 20 years agothe NPC dolt I was talking to at the time couldn't even imagine a world where individuals exist without having the ability to force themselves on each other>something that has always bothered me about all this "Oneness" talk. It's not the idea itselfthe idea is shit, tooas are the people promoting itit's basically "psst! hey, didja know you're really the same person as epstein and netanyahu?"yeah I don't think so...fuck you and oneness
>>42224732>What bothers me is that it's always portrayed as the ONLY solution to the problems we faceI've wondered about this too, same with the enemy of the ego revelation that people have.I do believe that the illusion of separation and selfishness have bred some of the worst traits and incidents in the history of humanity. The dampening of psychic and collective conscious phenomena amongst society isn't really helpful either.But at the same time, there has to be a reason for why this life is designed like this? To be separate individuals, having psychic ignorance, having an ego, etc. (I know some of this doesn't apply to all, i'm just generalizing it)It's strange that entities treat it like humanity has brought it upon themselves to be this way, to be naturally "low conscious" beings with ego when none of us were ever human to begin with. It's a temporary condition, not our core being.I think we all had to come from somewhere, which would be what we know as "source" energy, but how we've split off into these fine fragments and developed individuality is something to make note of.I just think that this life and everything we know about the spiritual and astral realms is more complex than the knowledge and information that we're lucky to remember or had been given to us.>>42224777>Personally, I believe we're helping build Heaven here in the physical.>holy tripsHmmm....
>>42224777>To recognize how we relate is to disarm the forces that divide us and lead to violence.The forces that lead to violence is your belief that you need to change something about me in order for you to live how you want to live.That means it's actually a LACK of separation (i.e. your perception of being bound to other forces that you have to conquer) which lead you to violence.If you were truly free then you would not need violence for anything (and if I were truly unbound from you then even if you wanted violence you could not bring it upon me against my will).So where is the problem?
>>42224806>The forces that lead to violence is your belief that you need to change something about meNo, I think being hungry is enough to make someone violent. What you are describing is what makes people upset with each other. Ultimately it's a matter of expectations. If you do not act how I expect you to there will be frustration. Whether or not it's warranted is another matter entirely.>That means it's actually a LACK of separationIf I was a hungry man, a loose cannon, willing to do anything for a bite of food, do you think I'd still hurt you if I felt the same pain? Or is there perhaps something about being hungry that might block empathy, which allows us to share those things?>If you were truly free then you would not need violence for anythingIf you were truly free needs wouldn't exist in the first place. If you wanted to experience them, how would you do that without violence?
i wish my balls were separated, the fact that they hang around in that lil sack together, is pretty gay.
>>42224843>No, I think being hungry is enough to make someone violent.But being hungry IS a force that you are bound to. That's exactly my point. You are NOT free from some rules of this system you call "hunger".And yes, I agree with you, that LACK of freedom is causing some to become violent, because they struggle against something which is binding them. They struggle to be free from it.
>>42224889I never claimed we were totally. In fact, I said that absolute freedom is a paradox, a misrepresentation of what is possible, because all freedom arises from constraint. There is no absolute freedom. If you construct a reality that has it, then it necessarily does not. That's probably the biggest issue with your argument, you never actually try to work out what freedom would look like given specific or no constraints.Also, I should point out, the reason hunger leads to violence is not "we are bound to a force." Instead, hunger is a matter of self preservation. We are simply bound to life processes as long as we wish to live.
>>42224732For interaction with others I've always believed its a matter of consent.As you said this world is not a free world, but you are free outside of it. But the kind of freedom powers you have are balanced by with consent. Yeah your free but you can't just say everything else out there does what you want. I don't think its just magical rule, its more of this kind of self perpetuated thing that you emit. You equally don't allow or believe people can do it to you, so you can't to them. Believing otherwise is detrimental.Its difficult for us to fully grasp this consent as again we aren't in a world where its real. I can say you can't touch me but if you run at me ready to swing your fist at me I'll recoil and react. Even if you don't hit me I still reacted to it out of belief that you could hit me. These thoughts are huge and crucial to existence outside of this world. If you once out of this world you think that this worlds anything goes rules apply, and anyone and anything can do what they want with you as you're weak then it'll happen. We do attract what we think especially outside of this world and having a negative mindset will fuck you up without help. Its why believing the whole "Its a prison with demons that hate you!!" is so awful as you are convincing yourself that you are already powerless and don't have any freedom, you are being tricked into thinking you don't have consent at all, or that consent is just a flimsily statement with no merit. Its why trickery is such a big part of the evil systems, they can't affect you until they can trick you into thinking they can. A kind of way of getting consent from your subconscious not your choices. Its why many other positive spiritual things try to get you to think "only those with good intentions can help me". Its to promote the mindset that you CAN get attract good hearted individuals you don't need to stress over. Individuals like you can give consent without any real fears.
>>42224909>you never actually try to work out what freedom would look like given specific or no constraints.The only constraint is the individuation itself. I.e. your inability to "know" me.Consider that you can manifest anything that you can know. Then realize that in an individuated state (being an individual) you cannot know my pain. Therefore you cannot manifest my pain. Not because of an additional restriction, but only the initial restriction of individuality itself which prevents you from knowing me. I am an other, an unknown, to you.Then the idea of someone "causing pain" for another is an impossibility.Either we are in a system that is somehow fundamentally different from what I described above, or what I described above is actually how it all works and the notion of someone harming another is nothing more than an illusion brought about by ignorance.Dissolving that initial restriction (individuality itself) is one possible solution. I'm not saying it isn't. I'm only saying that there can be others. There can be modes of individuated existence that does not imply the possibility of one individual to impose anything on another.
>>42224732I don't think language can fully convey the essence of concepts like the "oneness" people reference. If someone can't agree to that, then perhaps any conversation on the topic should conclude swiftly.
>>42224732>normies: exist>OP: surely reality could create an instance where separate entities can coexist without domination and survival
>>42225026>I don't think language can fully convey the essence of concepts like the "oneness" people reference. If someone can't agree to thatBut then surely you would agree that most people who talk about "oneness" DON'T actually mean what you do.When was the last time you heard a single person talking about "oneness" attempt to resolve the obvious paradoxes, like why I don't experience what you do? They make no attempt because they don't actually have any understanding of the concept beyond the 1-word which makes them sound "deep" on youtube videos for clicks, or to sell their book.There's a reason people who have psychedelic experiences which are similarly beyond language, come back with 1000 words to try and explain it, and if you ask them to explain it again tomorrow they will give you another 1000 words and will never explain it the same way twice. Because no 1 description (and certainly no 1 word) is enough.I know on paper it sounds so profound to say "they only use 1 word because they're all so fucking wise they know no other words will suffice", but that smells like bullshit. If you experienced something beyond words you would be raving about it. You would write essays and poetry about it, and paint pictures about it. 1 million words would not be enough.You would not avoid explaining the paradoxes you would dive into them headfirst trying to teach people how to resolve them.Almost NONE of the people who talk about "oneness" exhibit any of those traits... They all literally just have 1 fucking word to say: "oneness". Because the word is all they have. I am actually implying that I think 99.9% of them are flat out liars and con artists who may even be lying and conning themselves.
>>42225010>Then the idea of someone "causing pain" for another is an impossibility.If that's the case, then there is another hidden constrain you aren't making explicit, implied by the assumption you can manifest anything you can know. That is, it must not be possible to cause effects upon others without foreknowledge of the outcome. In such a reality things like gambling, artistic exploration, scientific exploration, etc. cannot exist. Also, if every action has a knowable and fully foreseeable effect on others, then there is no action that escapes moral evaluation; every choice is simultaneously a fully informed ethical choice, which eliminates the category of innocent or neutral action entirely. genuine moral agency arguably requires the possibility of acting under uncertainty. If every outcome is foreknown, choice becomes something closer to performance than decision. There's no risk, no genuine deliberation, and therefore arguably no real freedom in any meaningful sense, just the execution of what was already fully known.The second problem is that the argument proves too much. If I cannot cause pain in another because I cannot know them, I also cannot cause pleasure, help, healing, or any positive effect either. The epistemic barrier cuts both ways. A reality where individuals are causally sealed from one another isn't a utopia of sovereign coexistence; it's something closer to total solipsistic isolation. Whether that counts as "existence" in any meaningful sense is questionable.
>>42225147What about having control over the constraints themselvesIf someone is connecting with me in a way I don't like I can sever it.
>>42225174>If someone is connecting with me in a way I don't like I can sever it.Only if you know they are the one doing it. Why couldn't someone manifest a hidden way to connect with you? Or an encrypted means of influence? Or simply pay someone?Your only assumed mutual constrain is the ability to know each other, not influence each other.
True freedom is what becomes possible when the structure you inhabit is well-formed enough to support genuine agency, genuine otherness, and genuine relationship. Each of this things is fundamentally rooted in constraints, but what matters most is what we make of them. We do have that freedom after all.
>>42224732You start as one cell. That cell splits into many cells with different forms, properties and functions. When you are grown you are ultimately one being composed of 40 trillion cells plus the emergent properties of their structure and physical interaction. Why would it be impossible to imagine a universe and a structured in a similar way? Or if you prefer, why wouldn’t we the creators on Earth be made in god’s image?I’m not in any particular spiritual camp, but every mythological story is based on everyday phenomena we take for granted. As above so below and all that.
>>42225270Change is the nature of all things and the metaphysical nature of change is expressed in one way as the fundamental theorem of calculus. The dynamic between integration and differentiation described is mirrored by a philosophical romance between being and becoming.
bump
>>42225452The OP's entire struggle was between differentiation, the sovereign individual as irreducible particular, and integration, the pull toward Oneness. The fundamental theorem of calculus says those two operations are inverses of each other, not opposites. You can't fully separate them. They define each other.All signs point to no absolute freedom, no individuation without suffering, and no knowledge without a cost.
>>42224732I think the whole point of not being "oneness" is because oneness is not capable of giving you what you want.How could an all powerful all prevalent thing that knew and understood it was this surprise itself? It already knows everything, and it'd know what would happen from the thing it was trying to do to itself already. So it has to become more limited. It has to be lesser and disconnect from that feeling of all powerfulness for things to work.It depends on the idea of "auto correct" kind of thinking. Something is filling in the blanks. Manifesting vague things like "a nice day" still needs specific input as an all knowing thing, and the only way for it to work is to NOT be the all knowing thing and allow someone else to fill it in. Its like LOA stuff, you think of the outcome, and let who knows what do the rest. Even if we are all apart of this one thing already and solipsism is true, the only way things feel "not apart of us" is for them to be out of our control. Meaning there must be something that manages them, that can take desires, decipher what they could mean and makes them for us. Without that extra managing thing, it has to be done by usSo no, I don't think its possible to have total sovereignty and interact with someone that feels separate too us without also us pre creating the interaction.>If I preplan and create the interaction in its entirety, then its not separate as I made it>If I don't plan it, then someone did or structure was in place that allowed the interaction to occur. If I'm not aware of who or what it was then I can't be totally sovereign.The whole point of us is to NOT be entirely everything. As its what allows interaction in the first place. Its not to say you can't have hopefully one day have god like powers to control your reality like a dream. BUT there is still something or someone taking your intentions and actualizing them, allowing you to experience new things without already knowing/planning them.
>>42224732there is enough you to you that is completely unalienablewe are molded from the same clay is pretty much what the whole oneness thing is about>on a soul level the flesh is just the flesh
>>42224909>>42225147>>42225753What about a system that exists in the space of intention, or "frequency" as some would call it?So it's not so much about what someone does, but the frequency it comes from. It's about the motive, the intent, or the why, behind it.It can still be possible for something to hurt you, but at least it won't be coming from an actual malicious intent. You would only have the intent of positive coexistence.Also I think this >>42225206 is kind of a weak argument. It doesn't matter if you know who it's coming from. If an interaction is enslaving you for 30yrs why can't you just cut it off regardless of who or where it comes from. Having your existence just be stuck under someone else's will is stupid.
>>42224732>It's practically an INSULT to existence to believe that.No, it's an insult to believe otherwise. You don't want existence, you want gay oneness.
>>42225755>I think the whole point of not being "oneness" is because oneness is not capable of giving you what you want.That makes no sense.There is no you to want things, no things for you to want, and no desire in you for things.All of those need there to be dualism first.So if there is oneness, it would never "want" to be dual.And if there is "want" to be dualistic, then it must have been there from the very very beginning.Otherwise, you have to explain how oneness itself changed such that it went from not wanting to wanting.
Lots of repressed homos projecting their faggotry itt. Lacking the hability to observe the aberration of same sex behaviours in creation is a feat in itself. Some seem to believe in reincarnation and want to become the outcasts of animal social groups, or worse, hermaphrodites like slugs.Many such cases.
>>42225770So nothing really matters is what you're saying.
>>42226762What would be the mechanism by which souls "reproduce" according to you?
>>42226704You could argue that by us not losing our sense of totality, we desire to experience and learn more as an attempt to go back to being everything again, but then why bother in the first place? For the idea of a true oneness to make sense there has to be a snarky nuh uh like response or it all fails. As you said a giant eternal something that's comprised of everything that could ever be and was has no reason to do anything else, its already finished, its got everything. It would need to decide it wants to enjoy itself, to reexperience it's own everything. But it has no reason to do that because its everything already. But it must have done it anyway ;^)I think in the end true totality and omnipotence is just such a foreign concept to our limited minds that its not something to easily comprehend and discuss. Could we even be considered the same selfs posting in this thread whilst also being truly all knowing and omnipotent?
>>42226794>we desire to experience and learn moreMore than everything?And again - this can only be true if you are ALREADY separate from the oness. Otherwise there is no "we" no "desire" and no "experience" to be had.
>>42226398>why can't you just cut it off regardlessYou'd have to know it is happening and how, which requires knowing the person and what they are doing, which was the one thing assumed to be impossible.>What about a system that exists in the space of intentionYou no longer have freedom of intent in such a system. Most would say that is denying a prerequisite to the development of free will and moral accountability.
If shared laughter is the biological origin of unified understanding, then alienating laughter might be the biological marker of irreducible individuation: the moment the self recognizes it cannot fully dissolve into another frame, and cannot fully invite another into its own. It is the thorn that cannot be removed. The self that remains itself even in the presence of God.
>>42225077>If you experienced something beyond words you would be raving about it. You would write essays and poetry about it, and paint pictures about it. 1 million words would not be enough.I can agree to that.I recall through my experiences that other living things interface with reality differently, and from vastly different contexts. While you or I may expect to be strongly compelled to describe that, others might feel compelled to introspect in silence or seek expression through other forms of action.I've been so stupid in my past and made so many mistakes - it's difficult to judge others harshly. This interface that I use to interact with you is unable to comprehend its nature. We're going to be surrounded by a spectrum of understanding. I'm probably closer to a 50% than a 0.1%.
>>42224732You did the thing! You put it words! When I try to describe why I'm teacher's pet in every [[[school]]] I get my grubby little syncretizing paws on but also the more I learn the more I have to go, "How convenient. LIE. Oh, that seems nice. LIE. Wow I'd be so mature if I accepted reality is really that boring and scary simultaneously... LLLLIIIIEEEE! Omg hey bestie. You're the bestie who's got me above all besties and to prove I'm YOUR bestie I just have to forsake my inner bestie? IMITATION IS THE SINCEREST FORM OF FLATTERRYYYYY *sparkle glint shine*"
>>42229684I disagree with that statement. My experience gave me with a lot of answers but even more questions. It took me years to syncretise them into a single question. >how does one explain color to someone born blind? Good luck making art from there or keep introspecting forever over rhetorical questions with no conceptually sound answers without turning insane. Seems like a waste of time. Once you know, you know, and that's alright to leave it at that.
>>42224732>we are either one or separate but can’t be bothLeft brain thinkers will never understand. It’s not one or the other it’s two different worldviews on the same spectrum. The truth is we are all parts of 1 universe and both perspectives are true depending on how you’re looking at things. The oneness message isn’t meant to say we’re not different it’s saying we are all connected through this universe we share. You’re overthinking it and trying to reduce everything to a binary that doesn’t exist except as a construct that can be useful or flawed depending on the situation
>>42224732I think it's all bullshit. I realized I could be a lazy bastard and never do anything I don't want to do. It's just the system is in place to make you do things you don't want to do.. that you shouldn't have to do either. I realized that it was all an illusion. When I was 13 I gave the school the wrong address and started skipping. I was never caught. They didn't really care to investigate further.I realized stuff the system makes you pay for could be attained for free. Like women or having children. These days you have to have a decent paying job in order to keep a woman around, let alone having a child.So I said fuck that. I'm just going to get it for free. Do it how the negros do it. Because in my eyes, people 'playing the game' got scammed out of their entire lives lol like imagine wage cucking your whole life and going through the cucked marriage system. It's like being a goy dog. A domesticated animal. Women subconsciously hate that shit. They love primal, savage men. Masonic golden boys, system pedigree modern slaves make women's pussies drier than the Sahara desert. All women are being programmed by the NWO to be braindead whores anyways and it's obvious. So might as well take what you can out of this shithole.It's like reading an instruction manual. How to be human. The world is a shithole where you eat, shit and die. Simple as. Just take a fucking dump on it.
That is a very long effort blogpost just to deny reality.
>>42231077>It’s not one or the other>The truth is we are all parts of 1So it is "we are one" and not "we are separate".That you allow for others to have a different perspective doesnt mean you dont see "the truth" as we are all one.Stop being so wishy washy.
>>42229684>>42230965>>how does one explain color to someone born blind?This is a good exampleNow imagine a blind person is seeking understanding of what color is, and they watch a youtube video, where the entire purpose of the video IS to TEACH them what color is.Imagine the guy in the video leans forward and says in a quiet, slow, soft, profound sounding voice:>The answer you seek........... is "color"And now the blind man says "wow, now I understand! EUREKA! Of course! It's "COLOR"Does the blind man now understand shit about what color actually is? Would you say that youtuber is wise because he knows color is beyond words, so he only uses 1 word to explain it?If you're going to make that argument then just don't even fucking bother making a youtube video claiming to TEACH what color is, because your ONE FUCKING WORD is completely WORTHLESS.This is not wisdom. This is someone grifting for clicks, exploiting blind people to make them think his 1-word explanation has someone enlightened them to the deeper meaning of "color".The only way to actually TRY to teach a blind person what color is would require LOTS of words. Yes, even thought it's beyond words. Precisely BECAUSE it's beyond words. Nothing is going to do the trick, so either don't waste your time making claims that you're going to TEACH a blind person what color is in the first place, or make a real attempt to do so.Giving 1 single word to them is a fucking joke. Not wisdom.This is literally how stupid it is when people say "The answer is "Oneness". Like I said earlier, they have no other way to attempt reaching you beyond 1 single word because that 1 word is all they really have.They are liars and fools.
Would you rather be a perfectly free and separate human or a perfectly free and separate ant? Maybe the oneness split itself away from a very simple form of oneness so it could recombine as a more complex and capable oneness. Maybe we remain bound to each other because our collective destiny is to become a perfectly free god, not a bunch of perfectly free separate humans.
>>42231186this board proves that image wrong.
