Should P2P Metaphysics adhere to the spiritual concept of Manifoldness instead of Oneness/Wholeness ?

= should a P2P metaphysics move away from conceptions of oneness/wholeness and instead opt for a manifoldness?

This contribution by Mushin shows how conversation by social media, including Twitter, can lead to collective insights into complex philosophical matters.

So his contribution is of interest both regarding content and form.

See also the comments for an elaboration of a discussion relating this poly-theistic worldview to Rupert Sheldrake’s concept of the morphic fields.

More reactions here on Facebook as well.

Mushin:

“Here is the thing: A great many people on the front of the new social movements are ‚spiritually’ – and by that I mean the way they are making sense of (their) life, reality and everything – influenced by ideas that center around wholeness, Oneness, unity, a fundamental truth and similar notions or ‘philosopies’ or ‘myths’.

Some of them we’ll be encountering as we look at people’s responses on Twitter and elsewhere to a tweet I sent one evening after contemplating reality as it presents itself to me:

What if there is no unity connecting all and everyone but “polithy”? What if it’s not Wholeness but Manifoldness? What if fantasy is more fundamental than reality? What if we aren’t here to grow but to bloom? What if we’re not here to learn but to deepen?

The word “polithy” I’m using in that tweet derives from the Greek ‘poly’, as in Polytheism – the belief in many gods, which stands over against monotheism, the belief in one supreme deity – or ‘Polyverse’, which in my mind stands over against universe, the one or singular cosmos that is thought to be our basic reality.

A first response came from my friend Matej Forman:

To grow brings the question where to, to what extend. To bloom brings the answer: to full beauty. That’s what makes sense to me.

And then Christy brought up this:

What if it’s both, always and inseparably? The One manifesting as the Many, the Many rooted always in the One?

This required a longer answer than Twitter allows so I answered using Posterous:

I’m saying that the One without an outside is an egoic or heroic invention that dominates our culture. I’m saying that this One is not fact but an imagination, a repressing image or concept or – and I’ve experienced it’s reality first hand often – a dominating myth. It is positioning itself as the One beneath it all that everything and everyone is rooted in. This is the conviction that it comes with. And I am saying that, really, we live in a Polyverse that does NOT require or have an underlying unity. And that I feel that this is good, beautiful and true.

I was happy that Christy didn’t let me get away with this so easy, and she responded:

I think I still don’t quite understand – it seems to me that the gorgeous Polyverse, where we all live, is composed of parts that must remain separate parts – though in some kind of relationship perhaps – if their belonging together, arising from singularity, is denied. Is this not the reductionist perspective? The viewpoint of current conventional science that says that the universe is composed of parts? My experience is shaped by working for years within the Taoist perspective, beholding each arising phenomenon (the 10,000 things) as a unique expression of a single whole.

Again, happy that Chrissy gave me the opportunity to delve in deeper along the lines she indicated I came up with this response:

Well, I think this ‘gorgeous Polyverse’ is full of beings, entities, situations etc. Full of what we might call ‘parts’, as long as we don’t fall into the trap of believing them to be parts of some pre-existent whole. Some of them might or might not be part of some greater whole. This we don’t know – so it becomes a matter of belief. And since the belief in the One, as it I also perceive it coming from you, always seems to carry the dominator-spirit (the one being the source and ‘end’ of the manifold etc.; thus taking into its ‘territory’ everything else) I’m opposed to this unnecessary move and say, lets respect the phenomena as they unfold in their uniqueness; and instead of telling them that they fit into this overarching unity let’s speak with them and take them ‘serious’ just the way they present themselves to us. … This is not reductionist at all – I would rather say that the Oneness-view is reductionist as it already positively answers the question, “Are you a part of something bigger, and do you come from something bigger?” instead of listening what the ‘part’ has to say. … Of course you can experience each part, each phenomenon as a unique expression of a single whole – but why do so? Can you not respect, cherish and honor each unique phenomenon without that move? … And one final thought, I do think that everything is directly and/or indirectly connected to everything else, maybe even so much as a single bird is connected to a whole flock, but that doesn’t make the flock the source of a bird nor does it make the flock the goal of a bird; it simply shows that sometimes it’s the delight of birds to flock….

Now another friend, Eostar Kamala entered the exploration this way, highlighting some of the modern convictions that are connected to the Oneness motif:

If everything is separate and there’s no underlying whole then what is LOVE about? Why do people care for each other (if they do)? Why are all spiritual traditions teaching us to love one another as their central theme? What is this urge to come together and touch one another in love with all species, all beings, all dimensions….? What’s his urge to unite and feel connected?

Which gave me an opportunity to relate my polytheistic, non-fundamental musing on this matter in connection to my main theme:

I would say that Love is about… well, love. It is something that sometimes happens between people – in different ways. And also between people and other beings and even between people and things or situations. And yes, love can lead to union with the beloved. We also know, though, that the union that potentially comes through Love (with or without capital L) is always temporary. Which is a very important part of it’s beauty. And also that love can last longer much longer than the union – in some cases even a lifetime (and maybe longer, who knows). … But you’re mistaken when you state that all spiritual traditions have loving one another as their central theme. With Zen, to just name an instance that I know very well, you can bring in the topic of love, but really, it is not part of the tradition at all. And as far as I know neither does Buddhism nor, for instance, Islam or Jainism place much emphasis on it. In Taoism it doesn’t play a big role either… It’s a very Christian theme – in modern theology and not so much in religious practice the last, say, 1000 years… … So, you ask, “What is this urge to unite and come together?” I like to call this urge or ‘power’ Eros. It seems to be a very pervasive power in the polyverse. But there is also the power of tanathos, for instance, death, that creates separation and falling apart; a power that seems to be equally pervasive to me. … In all this it is important to me is that we do not NEED to think of the aspiration to unite, or become part of a fundamental unity as the basis for the Polyverse – actually I do not see the need for a basis at all. The thought of something fundamental to the Polyverse comes from the art of building something on a planet that has lots of gravity. If you build something there you better have some fundament in place! But the polyverse wasn’t built or created by some mono-theos, some one god. … Matter of fact is that I have multiple identities and regard myself as a polytheistic being, honoring the ‘local’ gods where I happen to be… I cherish the richness of plurality and have no need for some transcendent or overarching unity, some “all-embracing wholeness” that keeps things together for me or any of us, thank you very much! … The wholeness/Oneness myth is a tool in monotheistic hands and expresses the need for some supreme or ultimate principle. I love the idea of multiple attractors sometimes harmonious, sometimes dissonant, sometimes destruction bent, but always multiple, always interdependent, and mostly not dominated by some supreme godhead, non-duality, principle, final cause, divine source of everything or whatever name you wish to give it. … And, by the way, just because all is not one, it doesn’t mean it is separate, as in the myth of scientific separation where it’s all atomic billiard balls bumping into each other according to natural laws. My perspective shows me interdependent entities and beings that can be distinguished, respected as unique, and that are having definite boundaries, semi-permeable membranes, often, that distinguish and connect at the same time.

There are many things I could add here, but what stands out for me is that for many, most or even all beings and ‘things’ to be directly or indirectly connected – like in the famous 6 degrees of separation that allows me to connect to anybody else on the planet by going through a maximum of 6 others – no oneness or unity or similar needs to be invoked: having a semi-permeable membrane is enough, even if there are many other ways of connecting as well. The very idea that a Grand Unifying Whatever is superior to, foundational to or the ordering principle is founded on the monotheistic conviction of the One God to rule them all, by whichever name it goes, and – which is why I’m getting passionate about this at times – it takes away from the respect of the many gods, beliefs, convictions, practices as it comes to all of them with a basic ‘knowing’ and not the unknowing that is required in any true meeting with another being or thing or situation.

The most recent comment comes from Thomas who says:

Mushin, thanks for exploring these ideas. I’m reminded of a bit here of James Hilllman in his writings on polytheism and the many gods of our being. I too cherish the richness of plurality and yet do not feel that this interferes with an intuition of Wholeness. You write: “The wholeness/Oneness myth is a tool in monotheistic hands and expresses the need for some supreme or ultimate principle.” Perhaps that is true in certain fundamentalist perspectives, but I don’t believe that most non-dual teachings are monotheistic. What I am most curious about is this: Within a Polyverse that does NOT require or have an underlying unity, is non-dual consciousness possible? I look forward to watching you move your thoughts and perspectives into the great Multiplicity.

To which I answered:

Yes, I love the wonderful James Hillman; wrestling with some of his ideas many things became much clearer to me… You’re might be right about the non-monotheistic origin of non-dual teachings, but in our culture they definitely mix with such positioning of ideas, placing the non-dual awareness, for instance, as the pinnacle of human endeavor… or as the Ultimate, the Highest etc. This, at least, is the impression one gets from both the primary and secondary literature – and the personal conversations – with followers of a non-dual teaching. .. Why would it require an underlying unity to have a non-dual awareness? The non-dual awareness says nothing about the ‘factual’ nature of the polyverse – if there is such facticity at all. It says something about the possibilities of consciousness and awareness. It doesn’t say anything about the unconscious and non-conscious aspects of ‘reality’. Just that consciousness is unfolding in a non-dual manner; which doesn’t say anything about the unconscious, does it? In my life there have been several times that were spent within “oneness-consciousness”, as I’d rather call it, as within the non-dual there is the whole dualistic ideation. When within that ‘dimension’ of being with reality the ‘Oneness’ itself suggests to be both eternal and foundational. Obviously, as in my case, one is able to leave that state again which makes it temporary and probably not foundational (and I’ve already said what I think about the need for foundations). I’ve hung out with a few enlightened masters and non of them where in such a state continually. Even Ken Wilber, who says of himself that he’s more in that state than anybody else – the enlightened superman 😉 – is not in that state or on that level all the time, which, again makes it temporary. .. In Jungian (or Hillmanian) terms I would say that there is indeed a non-dual archetype that sometimes lives through/in a person. It seems or is indeed divine or beyond-divine, if you like. But it is ‘just’ another godhead among the many even if it claims to be the One without a Second…”

3 Comments Should P2P Metaphysics adhere to the spiritual concept of Manifoldness instead of Oneness/Wholeness ?

  1. AvatarMichel Bauwens

    A comment on the morphic fields, from a Facebook/email discussion with Fernanda Ibarra:

    Mushin:

    Recently I have been contemplating monotheism and polytheism a lot, and how many – if not most of us – are still very strongly influenced by the monotheistic stance (Oneness, consciousness as the highest principle, devaluation of ambivalence ((polyvalence)), Theory of Everything, all-encompassing truth, Light as supreme ((versus twilight, darkness, shadow)), non-duality as pinnacle of human achievement, and so on). Looking at our situation with a more polytheistic ‘understanding’ it’s become clearer what anyone taking diversity, poly-polar politics, participatory design and implementation, multi-logue etc. as “the way things are developing towards” is ‘up against’. I have, for instance, been amazed at the kinds of responses I got once I started to tweet a critical look at, for instance, the Oneness-assumption as unessecary…

    So this is what influences my views presently on morphogenetic fields, archetypes, gods, coherent regions of the living field and their constellation within the the (shared) inscape we all inhabit.
    To make myself a bit clearer: What is called morphogenetic field, archetype, god and similar is – in my understanding – a very similar psychophysical pattern. I imagine these patterns to be nourished by our individual and collective psyche or soul, if you prefer that term, as it is equally nourished by matter or manifestation in the world of tangible things. Maybe akin to a tree that is fed above ground by sun and wind and insects and all the other interactions, receiving CO2, for instance and giving of O2, and it is being fed below ground by the products of fungi and so on and feeding them as well.

    An archetype, in Jungian psychology, is showing up in an individual’s psyche (imagination) as, for instance, the Wise Old Woman or the Cursing Witch or the Blessing Virgin or as Venus; these are all different imaginal faces of the same archetype or, maybe more proper, goddess. Her physical face can be found in the Beauty Parlor, Chapel for Mary, tantric earth ritual, or in the Chair for Feminist Studies, to name a few. I would also say that She can be found in some social networks, organisations etc.
    Ever since Jung and others have delved deep into what he called Synchronicity – meaningful coincidences assembling around certain patterns – we also can know that archetypes can be thought of as ‘psychoid’, which enables on to do what is called magic in some quarters or parapsychology in other quarters that care a lot about the empirical, scientific archetype (Saturn in disguise, maybe). As an aside, this way of influencing archetypal patterns is by its very nature ambivalent and ‘twilighted’, wanting to pull it into the light of consciousness is an heroic effort (in service of the reoic archetype) and mostly doomed as would be wanting to make trees root above ground: some matters simply need darkness to be possible; the light of consciousness ‘destroys’ them.

    Having had quite a few discussions with Rupert Sheldrake at the end of the 80ies in private (he was a guest at a festival called “Bewusstsein 88” that i co-organized) on what his findings mean I feel confident when I say that what he calls morphogenetic fields are the regions ‘inside’ archetypes that turn nourishment/energy gathered, for instance, in the psychic part of the archetype into form in the physical part of an archetype. It’s kind of difficult to imagine when we’re using the monothesitic/dualistic storyline or pattern because it always insists on a separation between subject and object, mind and matter, etc. That storyline has omitted the third, the soul, to such an extent that we almost need to train ourselves in the pattern that says, “Images, archetypes, gods are presences, not re-presentations of something else, something more essential, something higher.” It took me quite a while before I saw that there is no spirit ‘in’ matter, or essence ‘in’ things, etc. but that the very presence of matter when one is in awe IS what we call spirit. And again, one almost immediately abstracts ‘presence’ from what is present as if it was something else, some essence or transcendent inhabiting what’s present.

    What this implies, I think, is that whatever is present allows us to dialog with it. So instead of interpreting an image, a person, a situation – abstracting parts of it into some transcendental realm, which is fine as an activity, but doesn’t give us a more real connection or a more true one at all; instead of that we can also ask, “What do you wish to tell me?” or “Do you have a message for me?” or “Can I serve you?” etc. The meeting and dialog is the basic pattern of interaction in a polytheistic world, I presume.

    So my view on your open question, Fernanda, is that with our intentions – active imaginations – and our doings we nourish certain archetypes. I wouldn’t say we create new ones, but that is a matter I haven’t reflected on much, so I can’t say. Certain types of psychic activities, I’m sure, greatly strengthen these form-generating regions in the archetypes we care to feed.

    Gaiaspace, the company I work with and for, created what we call a meshwork at http://www.2020climatesolutions.org for Copenhagen. So I had a very personal thread into the happening there. And I do agree with you that it was a great occasion for what we might call the the emerging archetype – collaboration, we-fulness, commonality, community, co-evolution, diversity, polymorphic living field, polytheism, etc – to show its manifest, physical and communicational part, the part that can be seen by people under the influence of other major archetypes/gods. And since the morphic field is always part of the ‘digestive tract’ of any archetype there is no way that it could NOT contribute to its influence.

    I do not think that we can consciously influence the morphic field if you mean by consciously “with a will”. I think it is influenced by what each of us who serves a certain archetype/god does from day to day (and again we cannot NOT serve an archetype, we’re always under the influence and therefor in the service of one archetype or another). I think we can, willfully, turn to this god or that, to this archetype or that and offer our service; we can ask, “How can I best serve you right now?” for instance. Similarly we can stop in any situation and ask ourselves, “Whom am I serving now and how?” – not in a critical sense unless we serve that god right now, but in the way we would turn to a friend and ask, “Is there something I can do for you?” or, “I’m all ears…”

  2. AvatarMushin

    Amazingly enough – or maybe not so amazing – another thread developed just a day after the first one shown above that started of with Margrit B. almost in fan-mode saying …

    Oh..Mushin you blow me away! All I want to say is yes…yes..yes…yes.. and what if…what if…what if…fantasy and why not fantasy…is not all that we tend to grasp fantasy…is not fantasy a living mural of Manifoldness…within which we are unfolding into blossoming…oh you inspire me!!! <3

    To which I could only reply: Thank you Margrit, this is blowing me away also 🙂 … the old me that was still stuck in the ‘monotheistic delusion’ even in it’s non-theistic, buddhistically informed variety 😉

    And then it got down to the real serious question by my dear friend Helen, asking “What if it’s both?”

    This got me going in a passionate mode:

    It’s rather tempting, right, to want it to be both… sounding so inclusive 🙂
    Yet I’m saying that the One without an outside, the all-inclusive one, is an egoic or heroic invention that dominates our culture. I’m saying that this One is repressive imagination or concept or – and I’ve experienced it’s reality first hand often enough – a dominating myth. This I say because whenever it is present and active the One is positioning itself as the One beneath it all that everything and everyone is rooted in. This is the indubitable conviction it comes with. And I am saying that, really, we live in a Polyverse that does NOT require or have an underlying unity. And that I feel that this is good, beautiful and true. And that this idea of “it is both” is just the One ‘in disguise’ trying to, again, dominate the polyversal landscape.

    The Polyverse is full of beings, entities, situations etc. Full of what we might call ‘parts’, as long as we don’t fall into the trap of believing them to be parts of some pre-existent whole. Some might or might not be part of some more encompassing whole. This we don’t know – so it becomes a matter of belief. And since the belief in the One is always also a carrier of the dominator-spirit (the One as source and ‘end’ of the manifold etc.; taking into its being or ‘territory’ everything else) I feel the need to point out that making it a “both” is not only an unnecessary move but a dominating embrace, an embrace that does not respect the embraced. I’d rather say, Lets respect phenomena as they unfold with their ‘own’ uniqueness; and instead of telling them that they fit into this overarching unity – the Oneness drawer, function or ‘reality’ – let’s commune/icate with them and take them ‘serious’ just the way they present themselves to us.

    Instead of already putting Oneness in place, or a overarching non-dual transcendence or similar, we could be asking of situations, phenomena and beings asking, “Are you a part of something bigger? Do you originate in something bigger?” And we could than actually and seriously listen to what the ‘part’ has to say.

    Of course we can, and I have occasionally, experience or regard beings, parts, phenomena as a unique expression of a single underlying whole – but why do so? Why recur to that? What good is that perspectival move? In my heart, soul and mind I increasingly can move out from under that montheistic stance, that dominator wholeness field, and emerge into a polytheistic field of respect, cherishing and honoring of each being, moment or phenomenon.

    I do think that everything is directly and/or indirectly connected to everything else, maybe even so much as a single bird is connected to a whole flock, but that doesn’t make the flock the source of a bird nor does it make the flock the goal of a bird; it simply shows that sometimes it’s the delight of birds to flock….

    And my brother in law Wouter, a wonderful Buddhist, picked up on the passion:

    Is an egoic or heroic invention that dominates our culture”, ” a dominating myth”, ” is just the One ‘in disguise’ trying to, again, dominate the polyversal landscape “. Wow, what strong words.

    And dear Helen did so as well:

    “I do think that everything is directly and/or indirectly connected to everything else” – It’s what my eyes and my mind tell me. My soul tells me that I separate from ‘everything else’ at my peril, and that I am unique and exist to be so. I am nevertheless suspicious of this ‘dominator’ discourse. Of course, we need only look at history to see how abusive monotheism can be. But your language suggests an emotional reaction that covers something else.

    This opened up an interesting window and teased this out:

    Interesting that you pick up on my passion in dismantling – I hope – of the dominant spiritual ‘meme’ of Oneness. A meme that it is part of a more encompassing ‘archetype’ of Light, Oneness, Consciousness and the peaks of spiritual attainment. And yes, it’s indeed the dominator aspect of that archetype that I have in sight and that my comments are directed at undermining, passionately.
    This can be perceived as emotional reaction, as you say, and I have no quarrels with that, as it truly is in opposition to it, and sometimes might be under the influence of Mars – even though I’d think it is predominantly Hermes that is my guide in delivering this message that comes from a multitude of Gods that do feel excluded or disrespectfully made part of some greater God…

    The ‘smothering embrace’ by Oneness that comes so incredibly fast as I embark on a slightly different path than the oneness-way… the immediate reaction of wanting it to be “both” (you are the third person feeling the need to point that option out to me)… the rush to include, embrace, make part of, take back into the ‘one fold’ is truly astonishing. Before I started to go down this road it wasn’t really clear how strong a response this polytheistic perspective brings to the front.

    This perspective, of course, on reflection, is bound to bring this up as it says in a way, “Hey One, you are just one among many, you are not supreme and you do NOT include us nor are you able to. Matter of fact, if you want to meet us than please in a non-inclusionary way and only as respected Other on equal footing.”
    And I can understand that not wanting to be embraced seems to be an affront to the declaring-you-to-be-one-with-me stance.

    —-

    Also I do not see how saying that I’m not part of the mono-theos or any other Oneness philosophy or understanding that therefor we are separate, or that therefor the soul is separate. The experience of separation won’t be undone by saying that “underneath it all we are one” or alternatively “we can transcend it all and then we are one” or even “in reality we are all one.” Sure, this conviction stemming from either having had the experience of all-oneness (as I’ve had; and talked about elsewhere) or from believing what others believe from having had this experience or from having the faith that “this is so”, is comforting at times when the sense of separation hurts us.

    A question belonging here is, “How come we understand or talk about our suffering/hurting as ‘separation'”. Separation, after all, is not really a feeling, it’s an explanation!
    Just because I sometimes feel lonely – a feeling I can and do sometimes have – does not mean I’m separate. It means I long for all kinds of intimacy, for a ‘flow-with’. So I would say that “feeling separation” is actually “longing for union” of one kind or another.

    —–

    Oneness and separation are not opposites in the way that, “If not Oneness than Separation.” Oneness is just one position/meme among many as is the sense of separation. So I maintain – Oneness is presently a dominant mythologem or meme or archetype with “spiritually sensitive people”, whose shadow aspects are big enough to be able to clearly point them out (which is what I’m doing), and I believe that we are much closer to our heart, mind, spirit and soul if we take a polytheistic, polyvalent, polymorphous perspective.

    Thank you for teasing this out…

    Helen responded:

    “the immediate reaction of wanting it to be “both” (you are the third person feeling the need to point that option out to me)”
    Ah, Mushin, my brother – I love what you’re doing, and I don’t have any particularly strong need for it to be both. I just smell a paradox, and I wanted to ask you what you thought.

    In my recent deconstruction of my own pain, I stumbled across the old primal need to ‘belong’, and the trauma of exclusion. And my realisation that there is a uniquely “helen-shaped hole in the kosmos” that I can only fit if I reclaim my uniqueness and unkink myself from all the ways in which I have done myself violence in order to ‘belong’, suggests to me that you are spot on in your championing of the polymorphous aspect of things.

    It also seems, from that perspective, though, that there is something singular into which I fit. And my innate quest for meaning feels soothed at the idea of a greater whole that I can serve.

    So just as, looking through a microscope, we see chaos alternating with patterns as we zoom in ever smaller (or the reverse, with a telescope), so it is, perhaps with the many and the one.

    And it got really personal, which I think is where it’s at – once we leave the wonderful certainty of oneness and wholeness for the polyvalent, ambiguous and co-creative conscious/unconscious perspective of multiple lights, twilights and darknesses, all of a sudden the many persons we are get caught up in the life and death… it gets pretty personal:

    Ah my dear one, I know this need so well – too well, I’d say. And also the pain of not receiving the kind of messages that I can decipher as a, “Yes, you do belong to us!”
    And just as you I do think there is a unique place or way to be that will give us that feeling/knowing of ‘snugly fitting in’ – like hand in glove.

    Actually I follow along the lines of thinking of the Ancient Greeks by mouth of Plato in this matter: There is a daimon by our side that makes sure we move in the direction of the fate we’ve chosen before we came to this incarnation; and whenever we do move thus we feel ‘fit’; if we don’t we feel somehow disconnected and ‘do ourselves violence’, as you say.

    When I was writing what I wrote above, and today when I was walking, there was a keen sense of being part of (belonging to) an epochal struggle. Like in this amazing poem that has a line in it somewhat like this, “stumbling towards Jerusalem to be born…”
    There is a very real sense of being persecuted for genuine diversion from “onenesses”, a deep sense of disquieting, as we start to move perpendicular to the clear cut, conscious, willful, understandable, progressive ways and insist on ambivalence, twilight, hands invisible in soil, gut-feelings, and much non-reasonable ‘stuff’.

    We are emptying the exhibition rooms and don’t even have a plan we can show to our contemporaries! In a very real sense we are making it up as we go; and surely most of the difficulties awaiting us on that path and the pain and loneliness there, sometimes, call on everything we’ve learnt so far, and more. All the systems-think and integral models can’t help us here – except in ‘faking’ reasonable explanations if they are required from us (and it’s quite Ok in my eyes to produce meaningful stories for our friends and acquaintances). It’s the real chaos, the unknown abyss that we walk alongside of. And, mind you, I think these are the whereabouts where the “helen-hole” is waiting, to use your metaphor.

    At this moment in time, after being blessed with heart- and soul-intelligent people looking at these perspectives and its critique of the dominant spiritual meme, and moving the polylogue further, hopefully helping us all to look where we stand and what we hold on to, and what the kind of stories are we tell others and ourselves about the nature of what we are and become… at this moment in precious presence we seem to be making feeble first steps towards a true 21st Century Meaning-Making.

    Thank you for reading this far. And we’re interested to hear from you…

  3. AvatarA. Noone

    what is it that separates? what would everything (not calling it a universe or multiverse or anything else) what would everything look like, or be like, without separation? Do less evolved animals, insects… for example, experience a separated (universe)? Is there an experiencer? …a self-aware I that experiences. The experiencer experiences time and space. Is there time and space without an experiencer? That which there is (or isn’t) without separation, is named and formulated into an idea only by an experiencer. Whether we name unseparation as wholeness, either monotheistic or polytheistic, it is an interpretation of unseparation. Without separation there is unseparation. If there is unseparation, can this unseparation be felt or intuited through the body ‘outside’ the experiencer?

Leave A Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.