Oneness vs Individuality

[Golden Dragon Shining]

What is Oneness? is it that all beings merge into one entity?

Or is it simply a greater empathetic/ psychic awareness of the individual, seeing/feeling the interconnections between many things and experience of others?

We see in our own world, all have unique finger prints, unique ear shape, unique vocal frequency... all this in the natural world... why would this complexity dissolve itself/merge into one entity... to me it appears wanting to expand, evolve, move into greater complexity/ higher order and understanding. That it is the destiny of beings to become creators, making universes etc. Smaller scale it is the desire of good parents that their children exceed them,  desiring the very best for their children, not a return or merge, but for their children to come into their own power/understanding.

I recall a person speaking of their magic mushroom experience, encountering this vast divine type being and in comparison they felt ...hm the drop of water meeting the ocean... though later being this ocean, this vastness etc as himself. I suppose this could be confused with "oneness" ... maybe this person is simply experiencing their true self, which we all have... we are all a buddha/ god ... but they aren't the same buddha or god... having our own cosmic evolutionary paths and choices.

I find the oneness idea linking up with trans-humanist singularity hive mind technology, matrix realities. I found this interesting from Zoroaster “If anyone says that there will be a single unity of all rational beings, their substances and individualities being taken away together with their bodies, and also that there will be an identity of cognition as also of persons, and that in the fabulous restitution they will only be naked even as they had existed in that pre-existence which they insanely introduced, let him be anathema.”?

[Seeker of Wisdom]

Things are individual, but acting in interaction with other things. The tree isn't one with the ground and sky, but nor is there a division in reality that allows the tree to stand isolated by itself.

Unitive experiences mean it's possible to have a unitive experience - but such an experience doesn't mean that everything really is one entity. The real truth is equally apparent in all experiences if you look closely, not something only in a particular state of consciousness.

My opinion.

Edited October 14, 2015 by Seeker of Wisdom

[Marblehead]

I found this interesting from Zoroaster ...

Nice to see this mentioned.  I did a little intro study of the belief system many years ago.

[Marblehead]

Please note the similarity between this concept and today's post in "The Father and the Son" thread.

[Bud Jetsun]

Oneness, like all words, means nothing more than the individual reader's interpretation. 

 

Trying to explain Oneness (non-dual ultimate reality) through using a dualistic set of constructs is beyond standing in a sand storm trying to calculate the new shape the dunes will take from watching the path of each grain of sand fly through the air in the desert.   That said, I enjoy the exercise of the inherently futile, so here goes. 

 

All that a human has experienced is some human perception artifacts.  When one experiences what appears to be something separate (like a pebble), this is the Oneness appearing as a separate to the limit of a human perceptions.  

 

If ones perception were referenced from 'pupils' each the size of a galaxy of galaxies, one would see the universe as a flux of energy with fleeting energy gradients in emptyness.  With a precise enough 'microscope' it might be possible to see individual stars fluttering as they condense and light off and burn out before collapsing back into black holes to get sprayed out as energy once again and repeat the cycle.  If one references reality from 'pupils' the size of sub-atomic particles, there is also only a flux of fleeting energy gradients in emptyness.   Realization sufficiently inward becomes equanimous with sufficiently 'outward' is a first step towards the word "Oneness" gaining meaning to it's reader.   What gives rise to  the illusion of non-oneness being possible is merely perception referenced artifact. 

 

From the perspective of the reader of these words, everything one believes one has experienced has inherently not existed outside the readers individual perception reference.  From this arises awareness each individuals unique reality they created is inherently Oneness, despite being entirely manufactured, inherently no aspect of the manufactured reality exists outside that manufactured reality. 

 

If one imagines the planet earth and sun and atmosphere etc removed from the Oneness that IS, what happens?  A race between ones blood boiling from low pressure while simultaneously approaching ~>0degK from radiated IR loss with nothing to reflect energy back to ones body.  What if the sun "left" the system of Oneness but left the earth?  What happens only the atmosphere departed?  What about if only things that could photosynthesize departed the Oneness?  One may rapidly discover they were not an island, but only existing as a fleeting loan of energy from the whole of a system that as a complete assembly offers the ability for one to experience 'living'. 

 

Lastly, through QM entanglement experiments, if one is into 'trusting science' (an alternative method of making faith based assumptions), then one must accept the constructs of "time", "space-time", "matter", "distance/volume/space" to all be non-real artifacts of perception that exist exclusively in an indeterminate undefined state until the act of perception by a consciousness. 

 

"Reality is merely an illusion, albeit a very persistent one." - Albert Einstein 

 

Unlimited Love,

-Bud

[Marblehead]

My chair still supports my ass when I sit on it.  That's reality.

[doc benway]

As has been mentioned, there can be direct experience of the wholeness of being, the non-separation or non-duality of being. It can be approached through meditation, although meditation is no guarantee; and it can happen spontaneously, with no preparation or training. There are those who claim to have found it through entheogens. If one has that experience, it is quite distinct and incontrovertible. If two people have had that experience, they are able to understand and communicate with each other about it quite readily, with or without words. If someone has not had that experience, I don't think there's a frame of reference for verbal communication about it, and a verbal description may seem hollow, contrived, or even egoistic.

 

There is also, of course, the daily experience of individuality that I maintain is a natural and useful consequence of our mobile sensory-intellectual apparatus "contained" within a bag of skin. This perspective is equally incontrovertible and valid - and has a very useful role in survival and the experience of our lives as individuals. The Buddhist approach is to acknowledge and respect both perspectives as absolute and relative truths, respectively. Both are equally valid and describe different aspects of the wholeness of reality/existence. 

 

The scientific community is coming to the same conclusions through a different avenue. Here is the abstract from a peer reviewed journal - Integrative Physiological and Behavioral Science. It is abstracted from the first in a multi-part series of papers about the theory of organism-environment as an inseparable phenomenon. I think it's wonderful to see when the spiritual and scientific approaches converge. 

 

The theory of the organism-environment system starts with the proposition that in any functional sense organism and environment are inseparable and form only one unitary system. The organism cannot exist without the environment, and the environment has descriptive properties only if it is connected to the organism. Although for practical purposes we do separate organism and environment, this common-sense starting point leads in psychological theory to problems which cannot be solved. Therefore, separation of organism and environment cannot be the basis of any scientific explanation of human behavior. The theory leads to a reinterpretation of basic problems in many fields of inquiry and makes possible the definition of mental phenomena without their reduction either to neural or biological activity or to separate mental functions. According to the theory, mental activity is activity of the whole organism-environment system, and the traditional psychological concepts describe only different aspects of organization of this system. Therefore, mental activity cannot be separated from the nervous system, but the nervous system is only one part of the organism-environment system. This problem will be dealt with in detail in the second part of the article.

 

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/10333975

 

Here are abstracts from the other papers:

Part II

The relation between mental processes and brain activity is studied from the point of view of the theory of the organism-environment system. It is argued that the systemic point of view leads to a new kind of definition of the primary tasks of neurophysiology and to a new understanding of the traditional neurophysiological concepts. Neurophysiology is restored to its place as a part of biology: its task is the study of neurons as living units, not as computer chips. Neurons are living units which are organised as metabolic systems in connection with other neurons; they are not units which would carry out some psychological functions or maintain states which are typical only of the whole organism-environment system. Psychological processes, on the other hand, are processes always comprising the whole organism-environment system.

 

Part III

The present article is an attempt to give - in the frame of the theory of the organism-environment system (Jarvilehto 1998a) - a new interpretation to the role of efferent influences on receptor activity and to the functions of senses in the formation of knowledge. It is argued, on the basis of experimental evidence and theoretical considerations, that the senses are not transmitters of environmental information, but they create a direct connection between the organism and the environment, which makes the development of a dynamic living system, the organism-environment system, possible. In this connection process the efferent influences on receptor activity are of particular significance, because with their help the receptors may be adjusted in relation to the parts of the environment which are most important in the achievement of behavioral results. Perception is the process of joining of new parts of the environment to the organism-environment system; thus, the formation of knowledge by perception is based on reorganization (widening and differentiation) of the organism-environment system, and not on transmission of information from the environment. With the help of the efferent influences on receptors each organism creates its own peculiar world which is simultaneously subjective and objective. The present considerations have far reaching influences as well on experimental work in neurophysiology and psychology of perception as on philosophical considerations of knowledge formation.

 

Part IV

The present article is an attempt to bring together the development of mental activity and consciousness in the framework of the organism-environment theory (Jarvilehto, 1998a, 1998b, 1999); the main question is how the development of mental activity and consciousness can be formulated if the starting point is not the separation of man and environment as in traditional congnitive psychology, but a unitary organism-environment system. According to the present formulation, mental activity is conceived as activity of the whole organism-environment system and connected to the general development of life as a specific form of an organism-environment system comprising neurons. The advent of consciousness is regarded as a result of co-operation of such organism-environment systems. Consciousness is based on cooperation for the achievement of common results, and shared by the cooperating individuals (general consciousness), although each individual also makes it concrete from the perspective of his/her own body in the act of participation in common results (personal consciousness). Language is the means of formation of the cooperative system in the achievement of common results, and it is suggested that the use of language is related more to the type of cooperative system and intended common results than to any symbolic representation of the world. It is claimed that on this basis it is possible to develop psychology which takes seriously the concepts of mental activity and consciousness in the description of human action, but does not reduce these concepts either to biological or social factors. The present formulation should be regarded more as a conceptual outline than as a full-blown theory.

Edited October 14, 2015 by steve

[Geof Nanto]

The theory of the organism-environment system starts with the proposition that in any functional sense organism and environment are inseparable and form only one unitary system. The organism cannot exist without the environment, and the environment has descriptive properties only if it is connected to the organism. Although for practical purposes we do separate organism and environment, this common-sense starting point leads in psychological theory to problems which cannot be solved. Therefore, separation of organism and environment cannot be the basis of any scientific explanation of human behavior. The theory leads to a reinterpretation of basic problems in many fields of inquiry and makes possible the definition of mental phenomena without their reduction either to neural or biological activity or to separate mental functions. According to the theory, mental activity is activity of the whole organism-environment system, and the traditional psychological concepts describe only different aspects of organization of this system. Therefore, mental activity cannot be separated from the nervous system, but the nervous system is only one part of the organism-environment system. This problem will be dealt with in detail in the second part of the article.

 

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/10333975

 

Systems-environment theory is one of my favourite areas of interest. For me, it's an extension and expansion of key aspects of classical Daoist thought into modern theory. I've previously mentioned it on this forum but seemingly aroused no interest. 

 

For an excellent introduction, I highly recommend the work of German sociologist Niklas Luhmann as interpreted by Hans-Georg Moeller in his books Luhmann Explained and The Radical Luhmann. 

[doc benway]

Systems-environment theory is one of my favourite areas of interest. For me, it's an extension and expansion of key aspects of classical Daoist thought into modern theory. I've previously mentioned it on this forum but seemingly aroused no interest. 

 

For an excellent introduction, I highly recommend the work of German sociologist Niklas Luhmann as interpreted by Hans-Georg Moeller in his books Luhmann Explained and The Radical Luhmann. 

Thank you!

Also an area of interest for me. I've actually posted this abstract before.

[noonespecial]

Oneness does not equal sameness. In fact it could be argued what makes us the same is that we are all unique. So completely respecting your fellow human's uniqueness then leads to oneness. Center everywhere, circumference nowhere, the fullness cancels out the nothingness and vice versa, it's all related. 

[leth]

What is distinction?

 

Is there an ontological demarcation between objects?

 

Is the self really a ontological object separated by any sort of ontological demarcation?

[Perceiver]

Yes it is. You cannot read my thougts or feel what i feel. You are not my self. I am my self.

[leth]

Yes it is. You cannot read my thougts or feel what i feel. You are not my self. I am my self.

 

Could you explain how this ontological demarcation works? What makes objects different from eachother on an ontological level?

[Perceiver]

Because their nature of them is known by me, not by you. There are only holons - objects that are inherently interwoven in a contextual relationship with other objects.

[leth]

Because their nature of them is known by me, not by you. There are only holons - objects that are inherently interwoven in a contextual relationship with other objects.

 

Can you in anyway transfer this knowledge of ontology through our common language?

 

You mean to say that all ontological distinctions are in fact actuall ontological demarcations and not only constructs of our mind to understand our own demarcations of objects as understood by our mind?

 

How are these ontological demarcations manifested in reality, from an objective perspective?

 

If ontological objects are holons then how is autonomy and interconnectivity ontoligcally different?

[ilumairen]

Systems-environment theory is one of my favourite areas of interest. For me, it's an extension and expansion of key aspects of classical Daoist thought into modern theory. I've previously mentioned it on this forum but seemingly aroused no interest. 

 

For an excellent introduction, I highly recommend the work of German sociologist Niklas Luhmann as interpreted by Hans-Georg Moeller in his books Luhmann Explained and The Radical Luhmann. 

 

Thank you for the recommendation Yueya.

(I've already downloaded it to my kindle.)

[Geof Nanto]

Thank you for the recommendation Yueya. (I've already downloaded it to my kindle.)

 

I’ll be interested to learn what you make of these books.  Which one have you downloaded?

 

Some general background.......

 

Luhmann’s  non-anthropocentric, systems-environment paradigm is not for everyone and can take some perseverance to assimilate.  He is radically anti-humanist.  Like classical Daoism, social systems theory describes the world in terms of unceasing impersonal process where change occurs ‘self-so’.  According to Luhmann’s metabiological theories,  society is not something created and controlled by us humans, rather it continuously reproduces  itself.

 

And Luhmann’s theory comprehensively dissolves any notion of us humans as unified selves -  as individuals with unitary identities whose thoughts, decisions and actions make society what it is – rather,  we all consist of a dynamic interplay of countless functionally separate yet interdependent systems-environment interactions.  

 

Although as far as I know Luhmann was not influenced by Daoism he would smile in recognition of sentiments such as:

 

Heaven and Earth are not kind:

The ten thousand things are straw dogs to them.

 

Sages are not kind:

People are straw dogs to them.

 

 

(BTW Although Luhmann might not have been versed in Daoism, Hans-Georg Moeller certainly is. He has written extensively on the philosophy of classical Daoism.) 

Edited October 16, 2015 by Yueya

[doc benway]

Which book would you recommend I start with, Yueya?

[Geof Nanto]

Which book would you recommend I start with, Yueya?

 

I started with his latter book The Radical Luhmann and liked it so much I wanted to know more so I then bought Luhmann Explained. So I'd say you need them both because, although Moeller is a lucid writer, Luhmann's theories are complex.  Although it's probably more logical to read Luhmann Explained first because of its more basic explanations, to my mind The Radical Luhmann is a better book. So really, suit yourself on what order you read them, (There are some good reviews on Amazon.) 

[dawei]

Yes it is. You cannot read my thougts or feel what i feel. You are not my self. I am my self.

 

I disagree.... you have not felt the pain of another.. or the thought of another... been inside someone's head or body?  Or been so united with another it simply transfers between you?    

 

If no, then you cannot say, 'cannot';. can only say, "I have not experienced it'. 

[Perceiver]

Sure. But what was i thinking yesterday at 8pm when i watched a certain youtube video? I dont think you or anyone else knows. And it goes to show that there is demarcation between you and i.

[Marblehead]

The word is empathy.  Not literal, figurative.  A non-perceptible connection.  Individual but still oneness.

[doc benway]

 

Sure. But what was i thinking yesterday at 8pm when i watched a certain youtube video? I dont think you or anyone else knows. And it goes to show that there is demarcation between you and i.

There is a demarcation between water molecules and yet there is the sea. Oneness does not preclude the experience of individuality.

[allinone]

Female and male merge, one sibling usually will born and no mystery there can be also many. In legends, there can be many mothers for a single child.

I haven't heard of having many fathers. One ruler, rawr.

[Everything]

What is Oneness? is it that all beings merge into one entity?

 

Or is it simply a greater empathetic/ psychic awareness of the individual, seeing/feeling the interconnections between many things and experience of others?

 

We see in our own world, all have unique finger prints, unique ear shape, unique vocal frequency... all this in the natural world... why would this complexity dissolve itself/merge into one entity... to me it appears wanting to expand, evolve, move into greater complexity/ higher order and understanding. That it is the destiny of beings to become creators, making universes etc. Smaller scale it is the desire of good parents that their children exceed them, desiring the very best for their children, not a return or merge, but for their children to come into their own power/understanding.

 

I recall a person speaking of their magic mushroom experience, encountering this vast divine type being and in comparison they felt ...hm the drop of water meeting the ocean... though later being this ocean, this vastness etc as himself. I suppose this could be confused with "oneness" ... maybe this person is simply experiencing their true self, which we all have... we are all a buddha/ god ... but they aren't the same buddha or god... having our own cosmic evolutionary paths and choices.

 

I find the oneness idea linking up with trans-humanist singularity hive mind technology, matrix realities. I found this interesting from Zoroaster “If anyone says that there will be a single unity of all rational beings, their substances and individualities being taken away together with their bodies, and also that there will be an identity of cognition as also of persons, and that in the fabulous restitution they will only be naked even as they had existed in that pre-existence which they insanely introduced, let him be anathema.”?

Consider it a puzzle piece. Each unique individual part is necessary for the whole picture. That's how we are all valuable in our own unique way.

 

So we'll never be left out or discarded. We can't. Because the whole picture already exists. And we're part of it. Ofcourse it's all connected and we all have a purpose. Sometimes we just gonna look for a good purpose we wanna be part of whatever pleases us the most.

 

Also, variety and oneness go hand in hand. They work together to complete the full picture and the full picture is always an eternally expanding one. As you said, the parent want best for their child. Every new generation benefits from the previous one too.

Edited October 16, 2015 by Everything