Reductionism And Materialism Are Not Scientific Givens

[Guest Davka]

I have come to suspect that our understanding of even the smallest complex natural systems will always be incomplete. I think there will always be room for improvement.

 

That seems very likely. Complexity may even contain an infinite number of variables, because we can keep looking at smaller and smaller levels of both matter and influence. I'm not saying this very well, but I have the brain-farts today.

[Open_Minded]

Second - and this is a much more difficult thing to express - WTF do you mean when you say "all is one"? I've heard this phrase my whole life, going back to Baba Rum Raisin's Be Here Now, through Maharishi and Rajneesh and all the New Age blather and the Beatles I Am The Walrus . . .

 

But what does it mean? Everything is part of the same big thing? Well, yeah, by definition that would be the Universe, the sum total of all that exists. Or I am he as you are he and we are all together? OK, so we're all god - so who's going to do the dishes? Or does it mean that everything is interconnected like the cells of my body, so that everything affects everything else?

 

Or . . .?

 

Seriously, this is bugging me. Please define this seemingly mushy phrase.

 

Hmmmm.... what do I mean when I say "All is one"

 

Well a few things....

 

When I first used this phrase it was in a conversation with Shyone. He responded as follows:

 

And there is a third option.... All is ONE.

The more I contemplate this, the better it sounds and more likely it seems.

 

I remain flabbergasted by the idea that life counts on the same tools on this planet no matter how disparate the forms of life are. It goes way beyond coincidence and becomes a question of what may be the only way to do things, but I think it shows rather that all life is interconnected and has been since the first cell.

 

Beyond that, life and inorganic matter are clearly linked. The minerals we need and the salts in our body show that we are from the earth and need the earth.

 

The very chemicals we have to work with on this planet are from the destruction of ancient suns that created these chemicals from fusion. We are stardust. (not my line - comes from The Age of Aquarius)

 

And, as I noted before, the same physical, chemical, atomic and subatomic principles apply universally across all matter, and the forces that see gravity, time and space are all tied together in some weird way.

 

So, yes, All

are

one.

 

What I'm about to write is an observation, nothing more. But when Shyone repeated my phrase instead of writing, "All is ONE" he wrote "All are one". The difference is subtle - but it is worth discussing.

 

I use "IS" because it is singular. It is placing emphasis on the "ONE". For me ONE includes all that is - including the subjective realm. Our consciousness is NOT just emergent from brain activity - it is an integral part of the ONE in its own right. If anything (in my mind) material is emergent from ONE consciousness.

 

The use of "all are one" is a subtle difference, but it is going from the all TO the one. "Are" is plural, so the phrase takes on more of a connotation that the ONE is a summation of the all - rather than the all being parts of the whole.

 

Now - as I've said before - there is not much that really separates us. I acknowledge that my position can not be proven. It can't be proven that ONE consciousness gives rise to the all. But, neither does it make sense that the ONE is merely a summation of the many. And bottom line - I don't think Shyone (you'd have to ask him) and I were being that literal when we used the terms "All is one" and "All are one". I think we were both finding a place of pragmatism openness regarding these things. We were honoring what we have in common instead of picking apart the details and dwelling on where we differ. So... I don't bring any of this up to start a debate. It's simply an observation.

 

Where we are finding common ground here, and what is worth honoring, is that however this "universe" came to be it is increasingly revealing itself as an interconnected whole (and that whole includes an honorable place for consciousness - as quantum physics does not work without consciousness).

[Guest Davka]

OM, Let me see if I understand you correctly - when you say "all is One," you are using "One" as a metaphor for what others might call "god" or "collective consciousness" as well as the material universe. When Shy says "all are one," he is agreeing about the interconnectedness of everything and the interwoven aspect of the material and the existential, without necessarily saying that there is a universal mind or "god."

 

Am I close?

[Open_Minded]

OM, Let me see if I understand you correctly - when you say "all is One," you are using "One" as a metaphor for what others might call "god" or "collective consciousness" as well as the material universe. When Shy says "all are one," he is agreeing about the interconnectedness of everything and the interwoven aspect of the material and the existential, without necessarily saying that there is a universal mind or "god."

 

Am I close?

That's a pretty good summation. You'd have to ask Shy about where he's at with it.

 

The only thing that I'd add here, is that I try very hard NOT to define God. I think defining God causes too many problems (minor little things like wars and such...). I use the word God because my experience of reality is ONEness, that all that is emerges from this ONEness.... to me it is a living presence and consciousness is not just a footnote, but a central player.

 

We are part of a great unity, whether it is living and where consciousness plays into it cannot be proven. But the ultimate Unity of our universe is becoming increasingly apparent. And - it gives all of us common ground to stand on, that is a good thing.

[Guest Davka]

OM, Let me see if I understand you correctly - when you say "all is One," you are using "One" as a metaphor for what others might call "god" or "collective consciousness" as well as the material universe. When Shy says "all are one," he is agreeing about the interconnectedness of everything and the interwoven aspect of the material and the existential, without necessarily saying that there is a universal mind or "god."

 

Am I close?

That's a pretty good summation. You'd have to ask Shy about where he's at with it.

 

The only thing that I'd add here, is that I try very hard NOT to define God. I think defining God causes too many problems (minor little things like wars and such...). I use the word God because my experience of reality is ONEness, that all that is emerges from this ONEness.... to me it is a living presence and consciousness is not just a footnote, but a central player.

 

We are part of a great unity, whether it is living and where consciousness plays into it cannot be proven. But the ultimate Unity of our universe is becoming increasingly apparent. And - it gives all of us common ground to stand on, that is a good thing.

 

Sorry for the side-track, but - what do you think of the Tao? Have you read the Tao Te Ching?

[Open_Minded]

Sorry for the side-track, but - what do you think of the Tao? Have you read the Tao Te Ching?

No... I've not read the Tao Te Ching.

 

I'm not sure what I think of the Tao... I'm not as studied in as I am in other world philosophies/religions.

 

But... you're one of many who have asked me... so maybe I aught to study up on it more.

[NotBlinded]

...but I have the brain-farts today.

Man! I had those yesterday and the day before. They must be going around.

[Guest Davka]

Sorry for the side-track, but - what do you think of the Tao? Have you read the Tao Te Ching?

No... I've not read the Tao Te Ching.

 

I'm not sure what I think of the Tao... I'm not as studied in as I am in other world philosophies/religions.

 

But... you're one of many who have asked me... so maybe I aught to study up on it more.

 

You absolutely should. It sounds a lot like what you are calling "the One." A common translation of the word "Tao" is "Way," but it doesn't translate perfectly.

 

Tao Te Ching, chapter one:

 

The tao that can be told

is not the eternal Tao

The name that can be named

is not the eternal Name.

 

The unnamable is the eternally real.

Naming is the origin

of all particular things.

 

Free from desire, you realize the mystery.

Caught in desire, you see only the manifestations.

 

Yet mystery and manifestations

arise from the same source.

This source is called darkness.

 

Darkness within darkness.

The gateway to all understanding.

[Legion]

Open Minded that may not be the best excerpt from the Tao te Ching for you. But I do highly recommend that you read it. It’s a very short book. And it’s even online.

 

Let me see if I can find a link.

 

Here's one... http://academic.brooklyn.cuny.edu/core9/phalsall/texts/taote-v3.html

 

I think we're officially off topic.

[NotBlinded]

Sorry for the side-track, but - what do you think of the Tao? Have you read the Tao Te Ching?

No... I've not read the Tao Te Ching.

 

I'm not sure what I think of the Tao... I'm not as studied in as I am in other world philosophies/religions.

 

But... you're one of many who have asked me... so maybe I aught to study up on it more.

 

You absolutely should. It sounds a lot like what you are calling "the One." A common translation of the word "Tao" is "Way," but it doesn't translate perfectly.

 

Tao Te Ching, chapter one:

 

The tao that can be told

is not the eternal Tao

The name that can be named

is not the eternal Name.

 

The unnamable is the eternally real.

Naming is the origin

of all particular things.

 

Free from desire, you realize the mystery.

Caught in desire, you see only the manifestations.

 

Yet mystery and manifestations

arise from the same source.

This source is called darkness.

 

Darkness within darkness.

The gateway to all understanding.

God, I love the Tao Te Ching! It never fails to give me goosebumps.

 

Contemplative Christians might call this darkness The Luminous or Divine Darkness.

 

Thus the blessed Bartholomew asserts that the divine science is both vast and minute, and that the Gospel is great and broad, yet concise and short; signifying by this, that the beneficent Cause of all is most eloquent, yet utters few words, or rather is altogether silent, as having neither (human) speech nor (human) understanding, because it is super-essentially exalted above created things, and reveals itself in Its naked Truth to those alone who pass beyond all that is pure or impure, and ascend above the topmost altitudes of holy things, and who, leaving behind them all divine light and sound and heavenly utterances, plunge into the Darkness where truly dwells, as the Oracles declare, that ONE who is beyond all.(3)

Dionysius the Areopagite Mystical Theology

[NotBlinded]

Open Minded that may not be the best excerpt from the Tao te Ching for you. But I do highly recommend that you read it. It’s a very short book. And it’s even online.

 

Let me see if I can find a link.

 

Here's one... http://academic.brooklyn.cuny.edu/core9/phalsall/texts/taote-v3.html

 

I think we're officially off topic.

You know, I think this is really starting to get to the heart of the topic myself.

[Open_Minded]

Oh... you guys... NotBlinded and Legion you know me too well.... you know I could dive into the mystic traditions in a heart-beat. You are teasing me and if we're not careful we are going to get caught up in another branch of the river.

 

Davka - thank you for the verses. You don't know me as well as NotBlinded, Legion, Antlerman, HanSolo and Alice .... but you've obviously discovered a great interest of mine. I appreciate all of your input on the mystic traditions (I really do and I will read the Tao). But we have to be careful here, or this branch of the river is going to carry us all the way to the ocean.

 

Thanks though you guys - for touching me where it counts. Now I have to get back to my database work.

[NotBlinded]

Oh... you guys... NotBlinded and Legion you know me too well.... you know I could dive into the mystic traditions in a heart-beat. You are teasing me and if we're not careful we are going to get caught up in another branch of the river.

 

Davka - thank you for the verses. You don't know me as well as NotBlinded, Legion, Antlerman, HanSolo and Alice .... but you've obviously discovered a great interest of mine. I appreciate all of your input on the mystic traditions (I really do and I will read the Tao). But we have to be careful here, or this branch of the river is going to carry us all the way to the ocean.

 

Thanks though you guys - for touching me where it counts. Now I have to get back to my database work.

But I wanna go to the ocean!

 

 

 

 

 

[Open_Minded]

Oh... you guys... NotBlinded and Legion you know me too well.... you know I could dive into the mystic traditions in a heart-beat. You are teasing me and if we're not careful we are going to get caught up in another branch of the river.

 

Davka - thank you for the verses. You don't know me as well as NotBlinded, Legion, Antlerman, HanSolo and Alice .... but you've obviously discovered a great interest of mine. I appreciate all of your input on the mystic traditions (I really do and I will read the Tao). But we have to be careful here, or this branch of the river is going to carry us all the way to the ocean.

 

Thanks though you guys - for touching me where it counts. Now I have to get back to my database work.

But I wanna go to the ocean!

 

 

 

 

 

 

I do too, NotBlinded, I do too......

 

But, let's see if we can get there by way of our first stream of conversation. Once we get to the ocean, the waters of both streams will meet up again, I feel sure of that.

[NotBlinded]

 

I do too, NotBlinded, I do too......

 

But, let's see if we can get there by way of our first stream of conversation. Once we get to the ocean, the waters of both streams will meet up again, I feel sure of that.

Ahhhhhhsome.

[Open_Minded]

You know, I think this is really starting to get to the heart of the topic myself.

 

In many ways it is the heart of the topic. That is why I find myself saying that the more science discovers the more we humans will see the truth in "All is one".

 

But... here's the thing ... for me what is astounding isn't that science is discovering an interconnected universe. That doesn't surprise me at all. What is astounding is that I (all of us) live in this time and place. That this is happening during our life time. This is a very unique time - if science continues on this trajectory, then the western world view of the last 300 years is going to change dramatically.

 

And - finally - finally - in human history humanity will have a holistic understanding of the universe, one that is agreed on objectively as well as intuitively. What a wonderful time to live in. (sigh)

[Shyone]

OM, Let me see if I understand you correctly - when you say "all is One," you are using "One" as a metaphor for what others might call "god" or "collective consciousness" as well as the material universe. When Shy says "all are one," he is agreeing about the interconnectedness of everything and the interwoven aspect of the material and the existential, without necessarily saying that there is a universal mind or "god."

 

Am I close?

I can only speak for myself. And the answer is 42.

 

 

(synonym for yes).

 

This stuff is really open to interpretation. When you get down to specifics, it can get contentious. I don't think, for example, that consciousness exists outside of mind (e.g.outside of brain) unless it is another independent consciousness (e.g. intelligent galaxy which uses resources including mass, gravity, energy, etc which may also include us in a tiny way).

 

My use of the verb "are" was not a concious effort to disagree. I was getting my grammar screwed up. I are not always do it right.

[Shyone]

 

I do too, NotBlinded, I do too......

 

But, let's see if we can get there by way of our first stream of conversation. Once we get to the ocean, the waters of both streams will meet up again, I feel sure of that.

There can be magic in metaphor.

[Legion]

There can be magic in metaphor.

I’ve heard, from one whom I think has a better mind than myself, that a good metaphor is like a crystal ball. It may also be likely that bad metaphor is a disaster.

[Shyone]

There can be magic in metaphor.

I’ve heard, from one whom I think has a better mind than myself, that a good metaphor is like a crystal ball. It may also be likely that bad metaphor is a disaster.

Very true.

[Legion]

There can be magic in metaphor.

I’ve heard, from one whom I think has a better mind than myself, that a good metaphor is like a crystal ball. It may also be likely that bad metaphor is a disaster.

Very true.

Well maybe, just maybe, the machine metaphor in biology is a disaster.

 

How’s that for a segue way back to the topic?

[Ouroboros]

I like metaphors. Just wanted to throw that out there.

 

And I agree with the "All is One." That has been my mindset for quite some time, but I don't think the label "God" is accurate for what All That Is. God is an overused cliche, with too many meanings, and too few right ones. It's better to not use it at all.

[NotBlinded]

I like metaphors. Just wanted to throw that out there.

 

And I agree with the "All is One." That has been my mindset for quite some time, but I don't think the label "God" is accurate for what All That Is. God is an overused cliche, with too many meanings, and too few right ones. It's better to not use it at all.

I can see that but the mystery of God was raped by fundamentalists...metaphorically speaking.

[Guest Davka]

I’ve heard, from one whom I think has a better mind than myself, that a good metaphor is like a crystal ball.

 

I heard that a good metaphor is like a chocolate-covered swan in a raincoat at Grand Central Station on a sunny Tuesday afternoon.

[Antlerman]

I like metaphors. Just wanted to throw that out there.

 

And I agree with the "All is One." That has been my mindset for quite some time, but I don't think the label "God" is accurate for what All That Is. God is an overused cliche, with too many meanings, and too few right ones. It's better to not use it at all.

I can see that but the mystery of God was raped by fundamentalists...metaphorically speaking.

The answer is very simple. The ONE.

 

or.. God's God. Godhead. Self. Ocean. Source. Summit. Ground. I-I.

 

"God" would work for the manifestation of the ONE. Of course that what John's Logos was, before the Church turned it into some baby pablum, that was more a pray to some god-on-a-stick figure than anything inspiring. But the essential concept, borrowed from the Greeks, was that of manifesting godhead. I'm actually surprised they kept John in the Bible... but I'm sidetracking now.