Defining oneness

[Amorphos]

Defining oneness

‘what is one?’, even infinity is not one, it is comparative to whatever dwells within e.g. singularity/universe. We are never allowed the comfort of an absolute definition of oneness even when we expand reality to the infinite.

We could say that reality is one and everything in it is a division of that. If we attempt at any further definition I feel it will fail, so my feelings on the matter are that we simply have to leave it at the simplest level of description, it is after all ’the simplest thing’ and that is what oneness is?...

> If we tied a string from any and all points in existence, and at the end of that the string is of infinite dimension, would that be a singular object?

I am starting to think that within the oneness or more the ‘allness’ there are irresolvable differences, infinity and the particular [finite] are such. Thence you don’t ever arrive at a oneness [the multiple as the singular?] and that is why we have the universe, reality itself cannot resolve the vast chasm of difference within it and so it is forever doomed to divide.

Infinity then cannot fully exist as a whole, and it seams that nothing can be entirely itself, so we have a situation where objects and even meanings are never absolute no matter what their scale.

Divisions cannot be absolute either and so do not exist, both the one and the dual can never be fully themselves and can only compose transience, this too cannot be absolutely itself and so begins the intransient.

Reality is philosophy.

[Silver Guard]

Oneness = being one.
Being one = being singular
Being singular = being apart

At which point is something apart is essentially what you were asking. And that depends entirely on scale. An extremely large cable is apart from all similar cables. However, each cord of the cable is itself apart from all the other cords, even if attached, it is a singular object. Each thread of the cord is the same, as is each fibre of the thread and each atom of the fibres. You can keep going in either direction.

Oneness is to be apart enough that it can be identified as a coherent object of perception it itself and be names as such.

You have made this issue far too complicated. Divisions certainly can be absolute, as can wholes. You just have to concentrate on the scale you are interested in rather than trying to combine all scales into definition. It is only by attempting to combine everything that it becomes so irrelevant and abstract.

[Amorphos]

Oneness is to be apart enough that it can be identified as a coherent object of perception it itself and be names as such.

Sounds like a bit of a holistic definition, it seams more difficult to define something by an absolute boundary between it and the given other. I was more thinking about oneness on the universal scale, but if we can show there to be such a thing as an absolutely distinct object it goes some way to understanding oneness on the greater scale.

In math divisions can be absolute but I am thinking of real world objects.

[Denny Crane!]

Holy Crap it is a Silver Guard. Welcome back.

[Amorphos]

Yea its good to see SG back, he has been very influential for me.

[Silver Guard]

Real word objects are not defined by mathematics or physics but by perception and semantics.
Perception, the extend to which we can see objects as separate, is governed by resolution. Through time we have developed instruments which further our ability to view objects as distinct by resolution (resolution being quite simply the distance between objects necessary for us to see them as distinct.)
Semantics is the extent to which we name objects separately, therefore giving them an individual identity and therefore being as "one". The universe, though we can only perceive part of it, is such a "one" because it is named as a singular and has a name to itself.

And yes I'm back, figured the D&D needed a kick up the ass, it's been too long. Nice to see you both Seneca and Quetz, nice to see the middle guard are still around.

[Amorphos]

Hmm that makes a lot of sense, though I do wonder if creatures which see low resolution cannot make distinctions? They would at least see themselves as distinct even if their environment is something of a blue, that said they usually utilise other senses to distinguish e.g. what is a meal and what is not a meal.

This is all very well and good from an anthropomorphic and personal perspective, but I am trying to realise a fundamental duality at the very base level of reality. The Buddhist in me suggests a fundamental oneness, but all I am seeing is irresolvable difference ~ maybe its not as fundamental as the oneness but how can we even arrive at said oneness when it must include all. If I get what you’re inferring correctly, then it seams that the oneness is real, the duality is false or perceptive? Yet I am beginning to feel that the duality must be real and not just holistic or perceptive.

[Ludicus]

Real word objects are... defined by ...perception

We know but our sensations.
Abstraction:
Now can sensation come from the outside; can it be the effect of the presence of external objects? Or does it come from inside?

[Amorphos]

Now can sensation come from the outside; can it be the effect of the presence of external objects? Or does it come from inside?

I think it must be equally external as internal, the qualia of colour is in both ‘worlds’ so I presume there is a direct correlation between subject and object. Obviously that doesn’t always work e.g. with optical illusions, but that doesn’t mean our experience is entirely subjective when our senses are correct. Our brains interpret the world because it knows our perception and experience is limited, but mostly it accepts input from reliable sources.

[Silver Guard]

Personally I am not only an Empiricist but a Realist, as far as I am concerned there is nothing that cannot be experienced and measured, it is the cornerstone of science to proceed in such a way.

This Buddhist duality is a concept of mind, not of matter. As such it is a useful tool for some to see the world in this light and to manage their interactivity with the world and with other people, but it is not a way in which they can analyse the world. It is helpful, not absolute. This is true of most pseudo-spiritual or psychological simplified or universal concepts. The universe cannot be reduced so easily in such a way, but it can make life easier for us to believe in a "useful lie".

Remember senior chemistry lessons? The way they described atoms as little balls with electrons flying around them in rings? In reality atoms are nothing like this, but it is a useful lie to help us understand how things work at a larger scale when we are not yet able to understand the more abstract reality.

[Amorphos]

Personally I am not only an Empiricist but a Realist, as far as I am concerned there is nothing that cannot be experienced and measured*, it is the cornerstone of science to proceed in such a way.

*Infinity? I agree but surely there is a level of blending at which things become undefinable.

This is true of most pseudo-spiritual or psychological simplified or universal concepts. The universe cannot be reduced so easily in such a way

The universal principle of balance and polarity seams to explain much of the world from the atomic to the macroscopic [em], and Occam would I am sure approve of breaking things down to their fundamental principles or natures. I do think duality has to be actual and not ‘pseudo-spiritual’ [whatever that is [‘spiritual‘]] hence my questioning is in terms of describing the reality map.
Like what you say about atoms as like little balls, when they are actually relationships* of energy ~ polarities. I seam to remember learning that* from someone around here .

How do we have difference if there is not a dualistic element to reality?

May I digress;

Ok, what is most real? Is physics the science of the partially real, and does reality have to be experienced in the now in order to be fully realised. Is an un-experienced reality as real as and experienced one, does infinity exist [how can it when other things bar it do exist] and are my ponderings on the fundamental level of reality actually loosing sight of what it is.

Is ‘now’ all that actually exists, and the rest there to serve that reality?

[Silver Guard]

General points:
Infinity isn't a percievable or really a semantically sensible concept, and as such, cannot be imagined or understood at all (except as a mathematical concept, which has little do do with understanding the universe as a whole).

Duality explains much of the universe only as I said, as a "useful lie". It does not quite explain everything, nor does it explain any relationships very thoroughly, but it is useful as a general concept.

Reduction down to sub-atomic levels shows that seeing these relationships as opposite is itself just a useful lie. It does explain how they act, but it's not really true in these respects exactly. However this is entering an area where I do not feel qualified to explain further.

Difference does not require opposites, only relationships. Blue and Yellow are not opposites, they are however different. Similarly neither are Blue and Orange (though it is a useful lie to think of them in this way for art) or Yellow and Magenta (though it is a useful lie to think of them in this way for light combinations). Electrons and Protons are not opposites, they just have a relationship which is made easier to understand on a simple level by explaining them in this way.

As for your digression, you brought up so many following points that to answer them would be an essay in itself. I suggest you research Descarte's Meditations and Berkeley's Idealism, followed by Hume's Essay Concerning Human Understanding. Those three should give you a good grasp of what you're asking in a more thorough light than I possibly could. If you're stuck for time, use sparknotes, it's quite accurate on all three.

[Amorphos]

Ok thanks SG, I have read some stuff by them and should read more, though these are more in the realm of thinking where I am wondering how to explain the reality map*. I agree the everything are not opposites, though balance and polarity does works on many levels not necessarily in terms of opposites. Perhaps ‘duality’ is the wrong term to use though in Buddhism it isn’t just about opposites, it is in principle more an explanation of reality as in truth not having any absolutes, or absolute distinctions between things, which leaves us with the Buddhist ‘reality’ [or fundamental nature of] ~ emptiness.

*a better term is ‘statelessness‘, infinity probably gives it dimension where it has none [although I would say that [reference to dimension] is to misunderstand what infinity truly is][and I wouldnt agree math even touches it].

*Perhaps this gives you a better idea of what I mean by ‘reality map’, I am trying to bring the emptiness together with universe to create an allness, but can that be a oneness?

[Helm]

I'm thinking oneness would be exactly one half of twoness, one tenth of tenness and one more than nothingness.

[Amorphos]

I'm thinking oneness would be exactly one half of twoness, one tenth of tenness and one more than nothingness

No that would be one part of or in addition too, a oneness includes all.

[Helm]

No that would be one part of or in addition too, a oneness includes all.

It still doesn't nothingness though, or is that where Yin-Yang comes into play?

[Amorphos]

Louis XI
Nice reply!

The problem, here, is what you define by "analyze" - is it the rationalistic method of dissection, decomposition and reductionism, followed by further representation into an external mechanical system of opposites driven by motion, which is the heart of all Scientific method?

Analytic meditation [see link] is in practice not so different from analytic philosophy, though it is believed that one can intuit meaning from its source. This is similar to ways of thinking in many mystery traditions from the ancient greeks to the druids, personally I think there is raw and educated ‘intuition’ if we can call it that and the latter for me yields better results.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tibetan_Buddhism
“Analytic meditation and fixation meditation: Spontaneous realisation on the basis of transmission“.

It is my opinion that there is no such thing as a word "outside" consciousness. And consciousness is a tricky thing;

I initially agree but my world is outside yours and I do believe that consciousness is not in a personal bubble and that they can connect to one another [although that can be described as a 'world' if that is what you meant]. It is almost as if the material world is simply there to enhance this connection, the brain and body are perfect instruments for achieving this. There is another level where I would say this is perfect for infant souls, as if the material world is there as a training ground ~ but I digress. I done a thread called ‘beyond Pandora’ which explains my position on the subjectivity of mind, here I am accepting that we are not islands and so asking how do we thence define oneness, this in terms of the mind but also in the reality map. …e.g. can I be you and vice versa? I don’t think so, equally it seams reality as apart from mind is also necessarily dualistic.

And the big deal is... If we define "truth" in these strict lines, ie in strictly "scientific" lines, then we come to witness "truth" being reduced to the simplest and most useful notions. Now, there's a vast problem with an understanding of reality in which only this comes into play.

Indeed, but what is we do take scientific lines, does information exist? Does mind? What is that which knows? what is the colour we see? What do we truly experience in all the senses?

To me we are left with a metal body [or world if you like] where all these things are experienced, yet we cannot define them in the material! So what happens if we do apply the scientific method? It seams that when scientist speak of colour as subjective but of not being in the packets of light bobbing up and down in a wavelength, they just leave it there as if to say it is mental is enough. Well I don’t leave it there, I think we still have to ask what it then is and reduce that down to fundamentals.

Ultimately, though, what I think is fairly certain, is how a non-dualistic understanding of phenomena inevitably leads to the point where man understands nothing but himself

I agree, but I am a contemporary druid and that is universalism, hence I think in terms of the ‘all’ not the self being paramount. I don’t really think we can understand the self as without its environment do you? I think the ancients prior to the great philosophers were happy to intuit meaning alone, though as I said earlier an educated intuition is far better. Truly with modern science and philosophy we are now and only now in a reasonable position to understand the greater mysteries, I think we almost need to tear up the books and start again [not literally but in our purpose].

The key here is "seeing" - all knowledge based on the senses, ultimately, must lead to maximum separation between things. Once you take off the "seeing" part, it becomes a bit easier - again there's a way in Buddhism to "see" (without "seeing") things in a different manner of which you might well be aware of.

Indeed, there is 'second sight' [unsubstantiated ordinary sight [dreams, visions etc], then there is 'inner sight' ~ as done with the inner mind, this is where in meditation one intuits meaning as spoke of before.

[Marie Louise von Preussen]

This Buddhist duality is a concept of mind, not of matter. As such it is a useful tool for some to see the world in this light and to manage their interactivity with the world and with other people, but it is not a way in which they can analyse the world. It is helpful, not absolute. This is true of most pseudo-spiritual or psychological simplified or universal concepts. The universe cannot be reduced so easily in such a way, but it can make life easier for us to believe in a "useful lie".

The problem, here, is what you define by "analyze" - is it the rationalistic method of dissection, decomposition and reductionism, followed by further representation into an external mechanical system of opposites driven by motion, which is the heart of all Scientific method?

Your list is certainly good, and I certainly appreciate Berkeley - but let me add the Phenomenologists, eg. Husserl, into the list. And also Leibniz.

It is my opinion that there is no such thing as a word "outside" consciousness. And consciousness is a tricky thing; while you might argue that this leads to solipsism, psychologism and to "pseudo-spiritualistic" panderings (I am well aware of that)... Well the problem comes how to define the truth. If we set this in opposition to empirical understanding and materialism, we need to analyze both in light of what they offer. And to me, it seems materialism is by far the most flawed: it sets up an useful lie, just as you told, which is well nigh contraverted even outside the mere philosophical realm (ie, by Quantum Physics), BUT it allows us a mathematical understanding of phenomena which not only manages to penetrate its least parts, but also to harness it through experimental procedures into doing what we want of it.

And the big deal is... If we define "truth" in these strict lines, ie in strictly "scientific" lines, then we come to witness "truth" being reduced to the simplest and most useful notions. Now, there's a vast problem with an understanding of reality in which only this comes into play.

Ultimately, though, what I think is fairly certain, is how a non-dualistic understanding of phenomena inevitably leads to the point where man understands nothing but himself - and that's exactly where the spiritual practices of metaphysical doctrines like Buddhism, Taoism, Vedanta, and so on have their impact - purely and simply on the Self, and the Self alone. And there's an echo of this in every religion, where purely external and physical phenomena in nature are quite rapidly and crudely dismissed away in favour of inner noesis, and not, as we commonly understand, because the ancients ever tried to devise a method of investigation which sough to represent them in a manner that Modern Science does.

It is indeed a very complicated debate, and I have always covered it insufficiently whenever I tried to express it, but it is something which never fails me to make me think.

The Buddhist in me suggests a fundamental oneness, but all I am seeing is irresolvable difference

The key here is "seeing" - all knowledge based on the senses, ultimately, must lead to maximum separation between things. Once you take off the "seeing" part, it becomes a bit easier - again there's a way in Buddhism to "see" (without "seeing") things in a different manner of which you might well be aware of.

[Marie Louise von Preussen]

Analytic meditation [see link] is in practice not so different from analytic philosophy, though it is believed that one can intuit meaning from its source. This is similar to ways of thinking in many mystery traditions from the ancient greeks to the druids, personally I think there is raw and educated ‘intuition’ if we can call it that and the latter for me yields better results.

Though intuition is present in many such cases, there's a whole world of difference between noesis and raw intuitionism, understood here in a feminine and sentimental sense. Not everything that can be known in such a way is the fruit of mere intuition or "feel", though intuition is always the best way to describe it - hence the need for abstruse symbology.

I guess the best way to name it - following a certain train of thought - is intellectual intuition.

I initially agree but my world is outside yours and I do believe that consciousness is not in a personal bubble and that they can connect to one another [although that can be described as a 'world' if that is what you meant].

Who said that my consciousness was limited by my ego?

In fact, the "individual" is nothing but an empty shell. There's no such thing as an individual, and not far away from the sort of thought in this discussion, anyone who seeks what he really is should break the petty bonds of conditioned egotism.

It is almost as if the material world is simply there to enhance this connection, the brain and body are perfect instruments for achieving this.

The material world is not there to enhance any connection, but to divide. It's not badly that Buddhists consider Mara to be the source of samsara and the material world; it is an illusion. And in many ways, because it is subject to conditioning, and since everything subject to conditioning is marked by inconsistency and a lack of constancy, there really is no way of intuiting anything from the world in this manner other than a brutal meaninglesness. Purely material understanding is just a fancy word for abject nihilism.

I done a thread called ‘beyond Pandora’ which explains my position on the subjectivity of mind, here I am accepting that we are not islands and so asking how do we thence define oneness, this in terms of the mind but also in the reality map. …e.g. can I be you and vice versa? I don’t think so, equally it seams reality as apart from mind is also necessarily dualistic.

Good point... Well, this would delve into the extremely abstruse meaning of Brahman, Atman, as well as the assorted lot which is treated differently in Eastern philosophy.

I would be tempted to say, not without a certain dosis of amateurism, that we can indeed be each other. Or nothing at all. It's not only the most subjective barriers of the ego that are broken with extinction, it is all conditioning and limitation.

What do we truly experience in all the senses?

Hallucinations conducive to desire. Notice how fragile is the psychologist's argument for insanity: eg. "anti-social" and "unnatural behaviour". The mere fact that the greatest quantity of people are insane or liars does not make insanity sane or a lie the truth.

It could be that we are insane - but the schizophrenic is not. Really, I haven't found a way to contradict this line of thinking. In the same way, what really guarantees our state of "normal consciousness" is "normal", as opposed to being just akin to drug hallucination without drugs?

To me we are left with a metal body [or world if you like] where all these things are experienced, yet we cannot define them in the material! So what happens if we do apply the scientific method? It seams that when scientist speak of colour as subjective but of not being in the packets of light bobbing up and down in a wavelength, they just leave it there as if to say it is mental is enough. Well I don’t leave it there, I think we still have to ask what it then is and reduce that down to fundamentals.

The problem with defining things such as colour as a meaningless mathematically cohese bundle of shapeless atoms, which is the goal of modern science, is the fact that quantitative methods of treatment are really and definitely missing in many aspects.

Suffice to say, that when venturing into the mind, the physicist can do nothing but to assert it's the same clash of atoms in action all the time, without taking any solid conclusion of having any slightest bit of discernment. There are certain things which are not to be treated as inanimate things, or are not really explainable in terms of immutable and fundamental mathematical laws - indeed I would go as far as explaining that in this highly chaotic universe, natural laws are superficial things, and do not even exist! What makes a natural "law" a "law"? There are really no natural "laws", but only natural habits, passive to change, conditionings and limitations just like anything else physical. To speak of "natural laws" is a reminiscence of a highly theistic view of the Universe, and not really a surprise since most of the inventors of Science were devouted theists.

Can we attest that something exists through the senses? Well... Probably. But fact is, we also have very precise hallucinations, where the same things take entirely different shapes. And also it is good to say that we don't really see matter as it "is", but as it reflects on us, thus acting like a mirror; if we take this in consideration, we will probably know the extent of our capacity of knowledge based on the senses.

I agree, but I am a contemporary druid and that is universalism, hence I think in terms of the ‘all’ not the self being paramount.

Funnily, you remind me very vaguely of certain Sufist notions.

I don’t really think we can understand the self as without its environment do you? I think the ancients prior to the great philosophers were happy to intuit meaning alone, though as I said earlier an educated intuition is far better.

Well, the problem is whether you come to define yourself as the complement of your extension or as something different. For all that I know, Buddhism, Taoism and all really denies that there is something essential for the Self outside the Self, and that's why they emphasize on highly ascetic practices of detachment.

As for modern philosophy in the mix... Well, there's indeed a world of difference. Pure dialectics is mere conjecture.

[Amorphos]

Though intuition is present in many such cases, there's a whole world of difference between noesis and raw intuitionism, understood here in a feminine and sentimental sense. Not everything that can be known in such a way is the fruit of mere intuition or "feel", though intuition is always the best way to describe it - hence the need for abstruse symbology.

I guess the best way to name it - following a certain train of thought - is intellectual intuition

.

I agree there is a cognitive element to intuition and inspiration, though I don’t see why it is thought of as feminine and sentimental? The ‘abstruse symbology’ becomes easier to understand over time and according to method, I use archetypal meaning to map it out ~ hence I think it is a learned thing. Equally, I am not sure how to explain this but my ‘visions’ of the void place it in my heart [an epicentre of consciousness] and hence in amongst my thoughts, so it literally is something I draw from ~ a bit like fishing lols. it’s a bit like sir paul McCartney said when writing his song ‘yesterday’ he was thinking about it one night then he woke up in the morning with the song in his head. it’s a way of utilising the subconscious mind to yield effective results and a practice I use daily. …not trying to shout off or anything, just saying it’s a process many if not all of us use in some way.

Who said that my consciousness was limited by my ego?

quite true! as it is not physical it must surely be unlimited in essence [infinite].

The material world is not there to enhance any connection, but to divide. It's not badly that Buddhists consider Mara to be the source of samsara and the material world; it is an illusion. And in many ways, because it is subject to conditioning, and since everything subject to conditioning is marked by inconsistency and a lack of constancy, there really is no way of intuiting anything from the world in this manner other than a brutal meaninglesness. Purely material understanding is just a fancy word for abject nihilism.

Wow that’s a whole threads worth to debate right there. I am not so sure that we can describe things as illusory or not, can we name something that isn’t real in some way? Even a hallucination has a reality to it. The material world is dualistic to some degree [because souls can communicate directly without it], but it provides a world or medium relative to itself I.e. the world we live in, so in that sense it is not a division but a communication of environment and subject.

Good point... Well, this would delve into the extremely abstruse meaning of Brahman, Atman, as well as the assorted lot which is treated differently in Eastern philosophy.

I would be tempted to say, not without a certain dosis of amateurism, that we can indeed be each other

.

I try to explain things by pure meaning rather than e.g. hindu or Buddhist cultural nuances etc [though I fail mostly lols]. you bring up a poignant argument there and I would agree that initially there is a universal value of ‘0’, that you could have been born as me or I you and we possibly would be exactly the same as we are and hence completely different [as we have exchanged shoes - so to say]. In terms of rebirth there would I agree be ‘0’ between one candles flame [incarnation] and the next, as opposed to reincarnation where things from one life are taken over to the next.

…Or nothing at all. It's not only the most subjective barriers of the ego that are broken with extinction, it is all conditioning and limitation.

Does that notion not negate karma and the usefulness of dharma? I am inclined to agree - good point.

Hallucinations conducive to desire. Notice how fragile is the psychologist's argument for insanity: eg. "anti-social" and "unnatural behaviour". The mere fact that the greatest quantity of people are insane or liars does not make insanity sane or a lie the truth.
It could be that we are insane - but the schizophrenic is not. Really, I haven't found a way to contradict this line of thinking. In the same way, what really guarantees our state of "normal consciousness" is "normal", as opposed to being just akin to drug hallucination without drugs?

Again that’s a whole threads worth of debate there, I would say that ‘normal’ is when the brain works properly to correlate input from the senses [e.g. normal vision and not colour blindness], or when it recognises a real threat rather than e.g. a paranoid one.
What I was referring to is that our experience of the human form and condition is a mental one, hence refers to the mental body of the soul rather than the material body itself.

What makes a natural "law" a "law"? There are really no natural "laws",

Well scientific formulas as like math generally are metaphoric constructions, aliens would explain the same universe with a completely different set of metaphor ~ if you’ll excuse the abstraction. I think you are right and we have some way to go in explaining metaphysical qualia like colour even though its an everyday experience. I do think it can be explained but not by our usual methods, colour is relative to the world and the subject and hence is an environmental quality rather than a purely subjective one. You see once we can make agreements on the simplest of facts we can progress and it kinda annoys me that science wont go there.
If I get you right you are explaining an holistic and equally real world out there?
Good point about the reflective nature of our experience!

Funnily, you remind me very vaguely of certain Sufist notions

.

I have a book of poems by their main writer [ I think] but I didn’t realise it had such a strong effect, perhaps like these and e.g. the baha’I, some religions are universal and some exclusive, which are probably very basic human traits and ways of thinking. Similar to in politics you get socialists and conservatives probably.

Well, the problem is whether you come to define yourself as the complement of your extension or as something different. For all that I know, Buddhism, Taoism and all really denies that there is something essential for the Self outside the Self, and that's why they emphasize on highly ascetic practices of detachment.

This is indeed my main inquiry; if reality cannot be defined as a oneness this suggests polarity in both principle and actuality, if this is so then self and difference may be a feature of this just as much as union [the non-duel] is?