This conversation thread continues from Magic 6:

Rod MacKinnon
“We are always connected, but don't always feel that way.”…. Absolutely

“What prevents connection is contraction.
What causes contraction is resistance.
What underlies resistance is often anxiety.
What generates anxiety, some say, is the primitive brain.”

The first three lines are very clear… actually, all four statements make a lot of sense….I think you’ve put it very succinctly… What do you think about the possibility of a sense of anxiety occurring as an indication of dissonance between the more intuitive primitive/ancestral brain and the newer reasoning cerebral cortex?… Given as I am to speculation … The primitive brain might interpret unfamiliar/unknown situations as risky or even dangerous while the cerebral cortex sees them as opportunities for learning…?

“The deeper emotion may be the fear of annihilation, vulnerability or disconnection, for example. It may be judgment, guilt, or any contracting emotion.

However, another 'contracting' influence in my experience is thought. When I let my thoughts drift, when my attention leaves the present moment and goes to the past or future, to speculation or projection, my body/mind contracts and my felt connection with the whole diminishes until it is gone. Intellectualising, philosophising, analysing, all kill the felt connection.” 

…. I get this….my experience also…I realize I’m replaying events or rehearsing scenarios which haven’t (and probably won’t) eventuate…and have left the present…

Someone once said to me…”If you’re experiencing an emotion you don’t enjoy, you’re focused on an event or outcome you don’t want”…. I’ve found that pretty close to the mark and I made it a bit of a mantra for a few years…It’s been of tremendous benefit as an “anchor thought” pulling my awareness back to now… I’ve become habituated to the idea that, most of my mental negative scenarios are imaginary and unfounded and even in real-life situations when things have gone a bit awry, I don’t “catastrophise”… I’m more easily able to accept the reality of the situation which frees me… (however, don’t get the idea that I’m buddha-calm) to look around for some options…

Another pragmatic idea has been…”Whatever we focus on grows stronger in our lives.” which, I appreciate, may well be a statement of the obvious…Nevertheless, conversations like the one we are having right now, contribute daily to growing my inner resonance…

Michael F
Can someone please explain what consciousness means to me in such a way that an electron can be described as "conscious"?

Is this like subatomic particles having "charm" or "color"?

To me, consciousness implies awareness, which implies a certain degree of complexity that an electron does not have.

But why stop at consciousness?

Does a rock have courage? Does it love? Is it greedy or obscene? Can a rock be a thief? a poet? A philanderer?

Rod MacKinnon
"....To me, consciousness implies awareness, which implies a certain degree of complexity that an electron does not have....."...."To me, ....consciousness ......implies awareness, ........which ........implies a certain degree of complexity........"

....You're referencing your own internal representation of 'consciousness'..... Every single word you use is a conceptual construct running through your cerebral cortex trying to discuss something that exists beyond language...

There's a Zen saying..."The words are a finger pointing at the moon, they're not the moon"....... Not all states of awareness are localised the way our everyday, industry-standard state....but the only way to verify that statement is experientially, which requires one to be prepared to relinquish one's firmly held ideas....

The concept of "giving up all one has" is usually misinterpreted in various circles as giving up ones material wealth when in fact what is being suggested is the divesting of one's firmly-held beliefs...(you can always go back to them if things don't work out)... no-one can satisfactorily explain the taste of a strawberry...just as no-one can explain the experience of other-awareness...so... it looks like it's all up to you to....or not...your call...

Gary R Smith
R. - What do you think about the possibility of a sense of anxiety occurring as an indication of dissonance between the more intuitive primitive/ancestral brain and the newer reasoning cerebral cortex?… Given as I am to speculation … The primitive brain might interpret unfamiliar/unknown situations as risky or even dangerous while the cerebral cortex sees them as opportunities for learning…?

G. - I inserted the portion about the primitive brain from the response by the author of 'Emotional Connection' to my asking if a sense of anxiety could be an indication of dissonance. He was unfamiliar with the terminology I used and wrote:

'I think of anxiety as fear of feeling, stemming from the primitive brain, a way to distract from an underlying emotion that seems more dangerous. Being with anxiety takes us through it to that deeper emotion which then can let go of us.' - Raphael Cushnir

Yes, my original thought was around dissonance rather than brain function. I went further out on the limb to speculate that the dissonance could also be between a sensitive person's frequencies and the frequencies of the world, using the word frequencies loosely. Dissonance and mechanical brain function probably work together.

R. - Nevertheless, conversations like the one we are having right now, contribute daily to growing my inner resonance…

G. - The same here. This conversation has given me new ways of looking, and expanded the toolkit for growing my felt connection with the whole.

Michael F
Can someone please explain what consciousness means to me in such a way that an electron can be described as "conscious"?

Is this like subatomic particles having "charm" or "color"?

To me, consciousness implies awareness, which implies a certain degree of complexity that an electron does not have.

G. - Michael, I feel in your questions a mix of sincere inquiry and cynicism. I am not a scientist but hold the opinion that science is good at what it can do, which is measure that which is measurable. Beyond that, it is lost, like we all tend to be when we leave our familiar territory of mindset, world view, or experience.

To you, consciousness implies ... a certain degree of complexity, which an electron does not have. I suppose this comes from scientific observation and analysis, perhaps by determining where consciousness appears to emerge, which you first wrote is in the domain of thinkers. Then, if I remember correctly, you allowed that a whale is conscious whereas a stone is not. As far as I know, there is no evidence that whales think.

'Consciousness, not matter, is the ground of all existence, declares University of Oregon physicist Goswami, echoing the mystic sages of his native India. He holds that the universe is self-aware, and that consciousness creates the physical world.' - The Self-Aware Universe' 

If you were to call this more psycho-babble, I could not argue with you. I haven't read the book, just found the description on Amazon. Even if I read it, I could not discern how it holds up to sound scientific principles. But, I feel agreement with calling consciousness the ground of all existence. What can science say definitively about the empty space within an electron? I ask sincerely, because I do not know.

Rod, I sent Heart Breathing to you as a link and PDF file over Messenger. Thank you, from the heart.

This conversation thread continues from Magic 5:

Rod MacKinnon
One of the scenarios is that our localized awareness operates similarly to the way a torchlight works in a dark room...as we move it around, we see objects one after the other, though, in reality, they all exist simultaneously... meanwhile... there is an entire building which, due to the limitations of our torchlight, remains entirely unknown to us...except, unlike a building which is an artifact, it is "alive and conscious" in ways we can't even begin to comprehend.... just a thought...

Gary R Smith
If the torchlight is our localized awareness, operating through the intellect, perhaps we need to look at using another tool... 

R. -
Picking up on the 'torchlight' illustration.... My instincts are that, as I relax into(?) trust(?) the process that is 'All that is' I experience a kind of reciprocal, intuitive response(?) ... I feel that expanding/extending our "conscious" communication can't be achieved intellectually...

It's a natural, organic relationship...similar to that which I experience with my localized body...I frequently don't know what's happening within my body on an intellectual level but I know intuitively when certain foods/actions/activities are needed.... 

Western education has, unfortunately developed a heavy intellectual bias which, while being spectacularly successful in some areas, has left us with a sense of 'separateness' from, what is, in effect, our external body... 

This may sound a little ridiculous but, when I finish working, particularly on some challenging aspect of a project, I feel a sense of gratitude toward the individual tools which have enabled me... I'm not above quietly thanking them in my heart... 

Reading your thoughts on unconditional love...I'm aware that both I, and the tool I hold in my hand were fabricated through will and idea, formed from infinite particles of stardust... not by some "creator" standing off to one side but by the primordial essence of consciousness in all that is.... How can I not be connected?..... OK....Your turn.....

G. -
Rod, you have expressed eloquently the same that is my experience. 

We are always connected, but don't always feel that way.

Earlier, I often used 'illusion of separation' to describe an aspect of the human condition, but that term no longer serves. It is more useful to see it rather as 'disconnection.'

From connection with ourselves, such as feeling our emotions, to connecting with others, to a longing for connection with 'something greater,' something whole, I'd say we all feel disconnected in some way — or are so disconnected, so numb, we don't even feel that. This is the thread I've followed so far:

What prevents connection is contraction.
What causes contraction is resistance.
What underlies resistance is often anxiety.
What generates anxiety, some say, is the primitive brain.

Raphael Cushnir, a respected author and facilitator, says,

'I think of anxiety as fear of feeling, stemming from the primitive brain, a way to distract from an underlying emotion that seems more dangerous. Being with anxiety takes us through it to that deeper emotion which then can let go of us.'

The deeper emotion may be the fear of annihilation, vulnerability or disconnection, for example. It may be judgment, fear of being judged, guilt, or any contracting emotion.

However, another 'contracting' influence  in my experience is thought. When I let my thoughts drift, when my attention leaves the present moment and goes to the past or future, to speculation or projection, my body/mind contracts and my felt connection with the whole diminishes until it is gone. Intellectualizing, philosophizing, analyzing, all kill the felt connection. 

The actual connection is always there, but my experience of it disappears. And that is enough to set me on a down-spin where at the least I am numb to myself and my surroundings. Earlier, the numbness was so prevalent it just seemed a normal condition. But now, when I wear the hat I designed with your help, it turns around. I recover faster from the down-spin and feel more often alive and connected. What you wrote is key:

Relax into
Trust the process
Reciprocal, intuitive response
Expanding/extending
Natural, organic relationship

Some of the tools hidden under the hat are awareness, the breath, affirmative thought with specific words, feeling the heart space, emotional connection and toning. I have written the design of this hat into a 'How to' of what I call Heart Breathing. 

If you have interest, Rod, I would message the Heart Breathing PDF file to you. While it would be sent without expectation (as that also contracts) you can know I would value any  comments, suggestions, insights.... which come up organically. I continue to re-write the 'How to' as it and I evolve together.

As you wrote, 'expanding/extending our "conscious" communication can't be achieved intellectually...' and my sense is that intuitive feeling, a vastly under-developed and under-appreciated human capacity, is the primary higher powered torchlight.

This conversation thread continues from Magic 4:

Gary R. Smith
M. - 'You say you don't care whether consciousness existed before consciousness emerged - whether it preceded the big bang, for example. If that were true, then why prefer it to be so?' -- 

G. - What difference does it make in anyone's daily life if consciousness preceded the big bang or not, Michael?

M. - 'I believe that before the creation of consciousness, the world was purely mechanical.'

G. - Why prefer to believe the world was purely mechanical before consciousness became? It is interesting you chose the word 'creation' of consciousness rather than 'emergence'. With creation is there not always a creator? Can mechanical action create? Then do we not have to define creation?

M. - The idea that a rock is conscious flies in the face of the meaning of the word. To say that a rock has consciousness is to say that consciousness is the property of being like a rock.

G. - I do not 'say that consciousness is the property of being like a rock.' But if I have pre-determined that a rock cannot have consciousness, I would never even attempt to talk with a rock, a flower, a tree. Other non-new agers and I have talked with rocks, flowers and trees. I do not say with certainty that my conversations with 'unconscious' objects were anything but in my head. I enjoyed them and do not delude myself because it is not a held belief. I just allow the possibility and am therefore not bound to the concept of a mechanical world only.

One of my conversations with an inanimate object was with a motor-home, which, when I asked if it could make it up a steep and winding jeep trail, said, 'Gary, don't be so mechanical. It's all atoms.' It made it to the top of the mountain, something not done by a motor-home before.

Michael F
'Not in the normal meaning of consciousness anyway - which would be that which differentiates our conscious state from our unconscious state.'

'On the face of it, everything up until the creation of consciousness was a fairly mechanical unfolding.'

Carl Johan Calleman
'Frankly I am confused about the meaning of consciousness even if the word is in the title of one of my books. I saw someone identifying 63 different meanings of consciousness and with such a variation it is hard to know what someone means. For this reason I am mostly looking at the evolution of the mind which is much easier to deal with as it is more tangible. A question I am asking however is why the word consciousness has become such a buzz word that generally speaking holds a very positive meaning for those that use it.    Completely apart from philosophical discourse and scientific analysis I may wonder what is the attraction.'

Gary R Smith
Michael and Carl, my interest is no longer in philosophical discourse and never was in scientific analysis as both are so partial, so incomplete. Neither will ever comprehend much less experience the Whole, which is one of my definitions of consciousness.

Whether consciousness, however one defines it, existed before or not until after 'everything unfolded' — what does that have to do with the way I live my life? I can easily let go of any former preferences regarding the nature of existence and do, since they no longer serve. It just is unimportant, and thank you for helping me see that.

Carl, what is your attraction to your favorite foods? It comes from the physical senses, yes? And is based on an individualized appetite? Did you choose to have that particular appetite, or is it just a part of who you are? I am attracted to communion with the Whole, to living from the Whole, because it is who I am. I will never satisfy that appetite over philosophical discourse or scientific analysis.

Beyond satisfying an inner urge which needs no explanation, I am attracted to the Whole because I have caught a glimpse of another way of living which is flowing, effortless and efficient. Humankind to this time has not grown beyond the consciousness of fear and survival. I am attracted to live from the consciousness of unconditional love.  I am interested in mastering 'alignment with wholeness' by my definition of it, while individuated. I need no more evidence that this is real than to observe the quality of my life, measured by the quality of my attention, actions and responses. If I experience emotions of irritation, agitation or frustration, or feel contraction, resistance, or reactivity, I am missing something and  more inner work is required until I feel authentic equanimity and boundless love. It is highly subjective and all that matters.

Michael F
(From the book description he referred to:)
Can thought arise out of matter? Can self, soul, consciousness, “I” arise out of mere matter? If it cannot, then how can you or I be here?

I Am a Strange Loop argues that the key to understanding selves and consciousness is the “strange loop”—a special kind of abstract feedback loop inhabiting our brains. The most central and complex symbol in your brain is the one called “I.” The “I” is the nexus in our brain, one of many symbols seeming to have free will and to have gained the paradoxical ability to push particles around, rather than the reverse.

How can a mysterious abstraction be real—or is our “I” merely a convenient fiction? Does an “I” exert genuine power over the particles in our brain, or is it helplessly pushed around by the laws of physics?

These are the mysteries tackled in I Am a Strange Loop, Douglas Hofstadter's first book-length journey into philosophy since Gödel, Escher, Bach. Compulsively readable and endlessly thought-provoking, this is a moving and profound inquiry into the nature of mind.

Carl Johan Calleman
Interesting thoughts. If the I is convenient fiction, who is the reader of the fiction?

Michael F
Everything can be explained by multiple universes and the anthropic principle. The sentient observer does not CREATE the universe, but becomes aware of the only universes in which the sentient observer exists.

Ultimately, I need a universe where I don't have to take anything on faith or wishful thinking.

I have found a way to give the universe meaning without faith or wishful thinking. A way that allows for things many people refer to as "magic", but which are commonsense extrapolations of scientific thought. A way that avoids talking about intelligent, self-aware fields of energy, or an intelligent being creating chimpanzees and giraffes in a laboratory, ...

The difference between us is not in facts - you agree to most facts - and its not in poetry, because we both agree on the need to look at it as sacred. It is simply this: I have found a way to achieve meaning and sacredness and all the rest of it without relying on imprecision and wishful thinking. I know that its difficult to get one's meaning across fully in discussions such as this, which is why these conversations are long, but every word I use I try to use it in a precise fashion.

Consciousness is a property of thinking beings, and accordingly, according to the known history of the universe, it was not around at the big bang and came into being as the first thinking beings evolved. Likewise, evolution is a process that created the complexity of life on earth - it is not some magickal leprachaun that "guides" reality, no more than combustion decides where the car goes. Evolution is very similar TO combustion, in fact. As combustion turns wood to ash, Evolution turns algae into people. It is a process, and it proceeds without sentience.

So I'm using these words in a hard-headed way.. But just as we can choose to poetically refer to the moon as a goddess (or a god, if you are German), we can refer to combustion as a god (vulcan) or to evolution as a goddess (Eris?).

Anyway, I don't know if I got across half of what I meant to say. And it doesnt matter anyway. I'm halfway between the new age camp and the science camp, and I get frustrated by both sides.

When I watch Dawkins debating Deepak Chopra, Dawkins is right - Chopra is trading on word-salad psychobabble that means nothing - but at the same time, Dawkins fails to see why people want such psychobabble so very desperately - so he doesn't see the need to replace it with something that DOES work.

I do. And I have. Or at least the beginnings of such.

Gary R Smith
M. - 'Consciousness is a property of thinking beings, and accordingly, according to the known history of the universe, it was not around at the big bang and came into being as the first thinking beings evolved.'

G. - We do have different definitions of consciousness. 

You could look a whale into the eye and say, 'You are not conscious because you don't think.' 

I could not.

Michael, you spurred me to look up the term pan animism to see if that is where my orientation aligns. What came up was panpsychism.

From Wikipedia:

'In philosophy, panpsychism is the view that consciousness, mind or soul (psyche) is a universal and primordial feature of all things. Panpsychists see themselves as minds in a world of mind.

'Panpsychism is one of the oldest philosophical theories, and has been ascribed to philosophers like Thales, Parmenides, Plato, Averroes, Spinoza, Leibniz and William James. Panpsychism can also be seen in ancient philosophies such as Stoicism, Taoism, Vedanta and Mahayana Buddhism. During the 19th century, panpsychism was the default theory in philosophy of mind, but it saw a decline during the middle years of the 20th century with the rise of logical positivism. The recent interest in the hard problem of consciousness has revived interest in panpsychism.'

G. - I do not see myself as mind in a world of mind, but have the view that consciousness is a universal and primordial feature of all things. Some say mind is a process, so mind in Mind would be process in processes. That is true, too. Primarily, I see humans as units of individuated consciousness within the inherently conscious Whole of tangible and intangible existence.

Now, having this specific viewpoint may seem contradictory to my claim of embracing all views, but I would call it a 'soft view'. It is not concrete, but more like pliable clay. It is my primary way of relating to the world, yet I stay open to all other possibilities and always respect how others perceive and interpret. I am not easily blown about to accept other views as my own, but sometimes adopt aspects of other views and ultimately go with what feels real, right and well inside me in the moment. From Wikipedia:

"The term 'panpsychism' has its origins with the Greek term pan (πᾶν : 'all, everything, whole') and psyche (ψυχή: 'soul, mind') as the unifying center of the mental life of us humans and other living creatures.[3] Psyche comes from the Greek word ψύχω (psukhō, 'I blow') and can mean life, soul, mind, spirit, heart and 'life-breath'. The use of psyche is controversial due to it being synonymous with soul, a term usually taken to have some sort of supernatural quality; more common terms now found in the literature include mind, mental properties, mental aspect, and experience."

This definition limits consciousness to 'humans and other living creatures.' I sense consciousness within all matter and energy.

...

M. - 'Think of all possible universes like an infinite multiplex movie theater. At any point, we can walk out of one theater and into another. We cannot change any of the movies - they all continue to play even when we are not watching them. But we can watch the movie that interests us the most.'

G. - In your cinema multiplex with an infinite number of theatres playing all possibilities of movies, there surely must be ones which enact the story lines of all possible explanations of the origin of all that is -- such as, 

1) Processes precede consciousness. 'All that is' is the outcome of random events and mechanical processes, which created consciousness. 

2) Consciousness precedes processes. 'All that is' always was, a being of conscious matter, which in one of its infinite expressions exploded itself into the multiverse we earth humans currently experience.

You've chosen one of your infinite number of movies, which enables you to move from one to the other. I have chosen the multiplex.

Gary R Smith
R. - One of the scenarios is that our localized awareness operates similarly to the way a torchlight works in a dark room...as we move it around, we see objects one after the other, though, in reality, they all exist simultaneously... meanwhile... there is an entire building which, due to the limitations of our torchlight, remains entirely unknown to us...except, unlike a building which is an artifact, it is "alive and conscious" in ways we can't even begin to comprehend.... just a thought...

G. - If the torchlight is our localized awareness, operating through the intellect, perhaps we need to look at using another tool... such as intuitive feeling.

This conversation thread is a continuation from Magic Continued 3:

Michael F
"G. - If I interpret you rightly, you are saying that 'all that is,' the multi-universe that is seen and unseen, all intricate patterns and delicate balances, all folding and unfolding of the particle kaleidoscope as it dissolves and re-creates endlessly, is nothing more than a cave being carved as it washes to the sea."

You interpret me rightly.

But the phrase "nothing more than" is a bit misleading.. For me, the REAL magic is to truly see this for the wonder that it is. One does not need the supernatural - a god - to find immense wonder in what is unfolding all around us - and indeed, which we are ourselves part of the unfolding. To know that we are the unfolding of an immense explosion, and to know that everything around is is part of that same explosion... it is amazing beyond comprehension.

It is as if the fractal edge of a fireball became complex enough to develop self-consciousness. it is utterly fantastic, beyond the wildest creation myth. To say that a god "did it" is the greatest theft of wonder possible. What was an amazing journey becomes a mere parlor trick.

To me, the idea that the universe is nothing more than the snap of the fingers by a bored deity is an appalling idea. It is so, so, so much more than that.

Carl Sagan remains the high priest of my religion.

Michael F
"To find the truth, we need imagination and skepticism both"

"The Cosmos is within us; we are starstuff; we are a way for the Cosmos to know itself"

This short, 4-minute scene, shot directly south of where I sit (within a few hundred meters), stuns me every time I see it. He understands it perfectly. The rest of the series fleshes out these 4 minutes.

The problem is that Carl was limited to the knowledge of his day, kept largely to mainstream science, especially fields related to physics, and avoided topics related to the workings of the human mind, which are where most "religious phenomena" occur. So his scope is limited in "Cosmos" - but his understanding of how much greater, how much more SACRED the reality is compared to religious conceptions, is amazing.

Every atom within us was born in a star!

But there really are so many levels here... On one hand, I insist on accepting the facts we know. But there is so much wierdness going on WITHIN those facts, as Adam the Quantum Physicist can tell you, that there is plenty of room for "spooky" stuff (Einstein's word, not mine). And that's all before we get involved with human consciousness, and all the possibilities that that opens up.

Again, the truth is infinitely far more wonderful than most books on "magick" would have it. Which is more amazing? That we have within our brains, several more individuals whom we are barely aware of? Or that there are things called demons and angels that live somewhere else but can be called up like trained monkeys if we recite a few words?

Please note one thing here - I have absolutely nothing against waving wands around and chanting incantations. I do it myself. But I personally need to have as its basis a thorough grounding in the actual mechanics of how it all works, before I apply the bat wing ointment.

Michael F
'However, the fact that all possibilities occur is attested to by modern science in the concept of waves of probability....'

There are those who argue that most of these possibilities are only "virtual" and do not exist in reality. However, I do incline towards the idea that all possibilities actually eventuate in separate universes.

And this provides a mechanism for the most outlandish magic to operate by.

In my theory, magic is not the ability to change the universe, it is the magician's ability to choose which universe of all the possible universes that he/she currently wishes to focus on/experience.

Think of all possible universes like an infinite multiplex movie theater. At any point, we can walk out of one theater and into another. We cannot change any of the movies - they all continue to play even when we are not watching them. But we can watch the movie that interests us the most.

This is a perfectly valid, non-supernatural explanation of why waving a magic wand can cause an almost infinitely unlikely event to occur.

This is a hypothesis of mine - I cannot prove it. But it is consistent with the known empirical observations.

Once again - everything hinges on the balance between the subjective and the objective. And on so many levels. As above so below, to rework a tired old phrase.

Michael F
'Since all varieties of intelligence and consciousness are inevitable, the source must contain and be greater than the greatest of the possible manifestations of consciousness.'

I'm not sure what you are saying here, but if it is that the source must be greater than everything that follows from it, then that would imply that my great-great-great grandparents must have been greater than all the subsequent generations included together.

What I'm saying is that very immense and wonderful things can come from very simple things.

And this insight is crucial to the wonder and awe mentioned.

Z2 <- Z2 +1 (if I remember it rightly) gives rise to the Mandelbrot set - which is literally an infinitely complex image - greater than the physical universe and all it contains - that is not just infinitely complex, but also immensely fascinating and beautiful.

Whats amazing is that very simple materials, linked to very simple rules, can lead to amazingly complex and beautiful end-products.

Or take Conways game of "Life" - 3 or 4 very simple rules, and a GO board and pieces, and you can make machines that breed, reproduce, and even more wierd stuff.

You don't need a complicated source to create a complicated end product.

Gary R Smith
M. - Please note one thing here - I have absolutely nothing against waving wands around and chanting incantations. I do it myself. But I personally need to have as its basis a thorough grounding in the actual mechanics of how it all works, before I apply the bat wing ointment.

G. - Noted. Would you please tell me more about your 'waving wands around and chanting incantations'?

M. - In my theory, magic is not the ability to change the universe, it is the magician's ability to choose which universe of all the possible universes that he/she currently wishes to focus on/experience.

Think of all possible universes like an infinite multiplex movie theater. At any point, we can walk out of one theater and into another. We cannot change any of the movies - they all continue to play even when we are not watching them. But we can watch the movie that interests us the most.

This is a perfectly valid, non-supernatural explanation of why waving a magic wand can cause an almost infinitely unlikely event to occur.

This is a hypothesis of mine - I cannot prove it. But it is consistent with the known empirical observations.

G. - I like it! How can I consciously move from one movie to another?

Rod MacKinnon 
Michael... your description of the evolution of "the universe" strikes me as very linear.... events occurring one after the other.... That's a natural enough view, given the hard, soft and wetware we've evolved as...our "localized conscious awareness" permits us to experience the universe sequentially... however, "...it ain't necessarily so..." 

The very little reading I've done regarding quantum physics has been sufficient to indicate that, regarding questions of "consciousness," the jury is, very much, still out ...

​One of the scenarios is that our localized awareness operates similarly to the way a torchlight works in a dark room...as we move it around, we see objects one after the other, though, in reality, they all exist simultaneously... meanwhile... there is an entire building which, due to the limitations of our torchlight, remains entirely unknown to us...except, unlike a building which is an artifact, it is "alive and conscious" in ways we can't even begin to comprehend.... just a thought...

This conversation thread is a continuation from Magic Continued 2, which ended with this comment:

Rod MacKinnon 
Hi Gary R. Smith...Michael F. …. I’ve been thinking about one of your conversations wherein you, Michael, talked about two comparative examples, one of intentional design…a house being built to a planned blueprint and another of accidental outcomes, that of a cave being formed by a river flowing to the sea.

Thinking about the nature of IT (Intangible /Tangible-All-That-Is), from observation, IT appears to have a passion for constant, spontaneous, innovation within defined parameters. This description can also be applied to artists, musicians, performers…. anyone who creates within their art form, purely for the sake of doing it. In the creation of an artwork there’s a relationship occurring between the artist and the artwork. An accomplished jazz player, improvising, plays as a spontaneous response to the sound as it is being created… art, artwork and artist are a gestalt, a unified integrated entity……self-creating….there’s no separation… and the “design” isn’t rigid…it’s a conscious, intelligent, spontaneous response to itself…. Perhaps IT is of a similar nature…

Michael F.
Which is more magical? A painting created by a person, or a painting that created itself, containing us?

Rod MacKinnon 
Both...

Michael F.
I don't quite understand your concept of IT, but going by context, you seem to be discussing a creator working to develop his creation.

While I can't prove that such a creator does not exist, there is nothing I see that tells me that one is necessary. On the face of it, everything up until the creation of consciousness was a fairly mechanical unfolding.

While some galaxies my LOOK beautiful in Hubble photos, they are no more designed than the sheen on a gasoline-streaked puddle or a spectacular sunset. There is no painter in the sky arranging the clouds and choosing the colors of a sunset. They are "accidents" to do largely with the amount of dirt in the atmosphere.

Even consciousness emerged from accident. (like colony or swarm behavior emerges from a bunch of ants and bees)

However, once consciousness DID eventually emerge - after 14 billion years - the ability for self-reflection emerged.

And now there ARE painters - US - who can create art in the way that you describe. And because we ARE part of the universe - the universe is now creating itself. First, it understands itself (through us), and then it creates, consciously, through us.

"And God saw that it was good"

- We are that God. We are the ones who add meaning to the accident - we are the ones who see that it is good. A dirty atmosphere that absorbs high-frequency photons is just that - until a human looks at it and goes "WOW!". THERE is the magic.

When people walk past a bed of flowers on their way to work and don't notice it - then there is no meaning. When they get struck by the sheer implausible wonder of it all - then there is meaning.

Rod MacKinnon
No... Language is such a blunt instrument.... I was really just making an observation that the "universe" appears to demonstrate characteristics of innovation, structure, spontaneity,.... etc...There isn't a separate "creator"...

The universe appears to me, a self-creating "intelligent/conscious" organism... to quote..."A painting creating itself"...not with any defined intention... simply responding to/with itself...because it can... as with any event..."it is what it is, then we add meaning"....

Gary R Smith
Michael wrote, 'On the face of it, everything up until the creation of consciousness was a fairly mechanical unfolding.'

What is the significance of whether 'everything was a fairly mechanical unfolding up until the creation of consciousness'  or consciousness 'was' before everything unfolded?

Either way, I experience consciousness as inherent within energy/matter Now.

M. - 'Even consciousness emerged from accident. (like colony or swarm behavior emerges from a bunch of ants and bees)'

G. - Do you know that it was by accident that colony or swarm behavior emerged from a bunch of ants and bees? How do you come to that certainty? Are there possibilities other than accident which could explain the emergence of the behavior?

M. - 'However, once consciousness DID eventually emerge - after 14 billion years - the ability for self-reflection emerged.'

G. - I can allow for the emergence of consciousness from random events as one possibility and for the self-existence of consciousness before the beginning of the material multi-verse as another. I like the concept of the Unmoved Mover moving, while recognizing it is a concept.

So also is the emergence of consciousness from random events a concept, and it does not make a difference to me which is a more accurate representation. Whether or not there was a grand designer before the beginning, there is one now, and it is 'us' when we include ourselves in the 'all that is.' The grand designer is what I am within.

M. - We are that God. We are the ones who add meaning to the accident - we are the ones who see that it is good. A dirty atmosphere that absorbs high-frequency photons is just that - until a human looks at it and goes "WOW!". THERE is the magic.

G. - Yes, we are sentient observers interacting with waves of probability. We are that God, just as the ants and the bees are that God. Human beings have some particular characteristics and capabilities which seem to set us apart, such as individuated consciousness, self awareness and self will, and I feel that whether this is by design or accident, it is to be explored with humility and reverence.

As Rod wrote, 'The universe appears to me, a self-creating "intelligent/conscious" organism... not with any defined intention... simply responding to/with itself...because it can... as with any event..."it is what it is, then we add meaning".... which you, Michael, interpreted as 'discussing a creator working to develop his creation.'

I have no difficulty adjusting my ideas to be compatible with those of both of you, which seem compatible with each other. Whatever was, consciousness is Now, and inherent in energy/matter. The grand designer and the grand design cannot be separated. Earlier on my spiritual journey, I often wrote and said, 'We are One Being,' and although this was met with little enthusiasm from others, it still has meaning to me. Aware of this, I have a greater responsibility to myself and the 'other' to live in cooperation and harmony with the whole of existence.

​Adam Apollo Amorastreya
Wow, thanks Gary and Michael... Both of you gentlemen are quite prolific. I wish I had the time this evening to spend a few more hours writing on Facebook and engaging more deeply in this conversation, but I have enjoyed reading your responses immensely. 

Michael, I am 100% with you on needing to refine our systems of subjective self-study, and develop better experimental tests for metaphysical and existential phenomenon, and improve our philosophical proofs. Personally, I'm deeply engaged in this process, and have been since I was a teenager. While I couldn't share much of my work in this short video, or even my semi-brief text response, I do my best to dive as deeply as possible into the thought experiments, questions, and logic to approach these phenomena with my students and other faculty. 

I find the level of presence and dedication to real quality conversation improves dramatically when someone commits to learning or studying something, especially when they are willing to pay to participate in a workshop with a community of peers. Compared to the results of a blog post or video on YouTube, it's generally like a college symposium VS a spit-ball fight in a cafeteria. 

That being said, I've been pleasantly surprised by the level of depth you gentlemen bring to the flash mob comment format FB is famous for. 

Without backtracking too far tonight, I did read much of your conversation on "black and white magic." My contribution to that would simply be:

Black Magic is any act of conscious will intended to occlude the conscious will of another being or the self.

White Magic is any act of conscious will that honors the conscious will of other beings, and either seeks to improve the clarity, awareness, and capacity of others to enact that will, or to improve the clarity, awareness, and capacity of the self to enact conscious will.

Gary R. Smith 
Adam Apollo Amorastreya,

"Black Magic is any act of conscious will intended to occlude the conscious will of another being or the self. White Magic is any act of conscious will that honors the conscious will of other beings, and either seeks to improve the clarity, awareness, and capacity of others to enact that will, or to improve the clarity, awareness, and capacity of the self to enact conscious will."

We are in alignment on that one. I enjoy and appreciate the definition and your response.

Rod MacKinnon 
Hi Gary R. Smith...Michael F. …. I’ve been thinking about one of your conversations wherein you, Michael, talked about two comparative examples, one of intentional design…a house being built to a planned blueprint and another of accidental outcomes, that of a cave being formed by a river flowing to the sea.

Thinking about the nature of IT (Intangible /Tangible-All-That-Is), from observation, IT appears to have a passion for constant, spontaneous, innovation within defined parameters. This description can also be applied to artists, musicians, performers…. anyone who creates within their art form, purely for the sake of doing it. In the creation of an artwork there’s a relationship occurring between the artist and the artwork. An accomplished jazz player, improvising, plays as a spontaneous response to the sound as it is being created… art, artwork and artist are a gestalt, a unified integrated entity……self-creating….there’s no separation… and the “design” isn’t rigid…it’s a conscious, intelligent, spontaneous response to itself…. Perhaps IT is of a similar nature…

This conversation thread is a continuation from Applied Magic, which ended with my comment:

When it comes to Intelligent Design and how to live in this world (including personal ethics), I am in a stage of letting go of personal wanting and living for the connection.

It is not getting what I want, but the quality of attention I give into every moment that matters.

That would seem at odds with your 'having a clear mental idea of what we want to create, strong feelings for what we want to create, and the physical capacity to take actions that implement the creation,' which is ruled by the persona -- but then you add, 'and getting out of our own way'.

The difference is that, because the deepest longing of my heart requires it,  I get out of my own way before the 'wanting for things' beyond my current means begins.

There is also a distinction between the wanting of the persona or conditioned mind and the longing of the heart, the yearning of the soul.

Michael F. -
Talking to Gary, I was reminded of one of my favorite quotes, worth repeating here:

'Just because it's in your head, why would that make it any less real?'

That's the message I'm trying to get across. But its hard, because if you tell someone its in their head, they think that means you believe its not real.

Gary R. Smith -
I understand your "just because its in your head, why would that make it any less real"?' -- and see that there are countless realities. In my reality, there is also one actuality, which I accept as unknowable. I sense the Absolute intuitively with the awareness my sense is still a reality, not the fullness of actuality. We all wear the sunglasses of our filtered perceptions. I like the model I have chosen, it is always subject to enhancements or modifications, and I always remember that I am seeing through sunglasses.

Michael F. -

G. - "We all wear the sunglasses of our filtered perceptions. I like the model I have chosen."

M. - My comment is that it is important that you know that you have chosen this as a model, that we all have our own preconceptions. This is astute of you.

That is the key to all of this.

Far too many people believe that their model (or worse, someone else's model) is reality, indeed, the only reality.

And when two people, each believing that their model is the only model that one can have, meet up, the result is usually a religious war.

My approach is to see what they both have in common, test whether the model achieves anything useful (finding a parking space), and then to see what all the models (using a rabbits foot, cursing the universe, reciting a mantra) have in common.

One then tries to work out if this commonality has any rational explanation for opening up the parking space.

The real test is then making up a new method that uses the same principle, but not the "accidents" in the Aristotelian sense, and see if that works also.

As Blake put it, 

"I must create my own system or be enslaved by another's".

Knowing WHY something works is infinitely more valuable than all the rote-learning of empty formulae combined.

Unfortunately, knowing WHY religion/prayer/magic works is very difficult indeed, because the phenomenon, such as it is, is very difficult to study. It works best when its accepted uncritically and vanishes entirely when you examine it closely.

Its like trying to look at the floaters in your eye, or examining why you trust someone. Or picking up mercury with your fingers.

Incidentally, breathing mercury vapors was an important component of Alchemy - make of that what you will.

Gary R. Smith
 
M. - As Blake put it, 

"I must create my own system or be enslaved by another's".

G. - To paraphrase a Kiwi poet quoted by Rod MacKinnon, a member of the Collective Evolution discussion group, 'Don't let yourself be fitted by another man's version of a hat.'

Gary R. Smith 
The Wikipedia article on Design begins with, 'Design is the creation of a plan or convention for the construction of an object, system or measurable human interaction (as in architectural blueprints, engineering drawings, business processes, circuit diagrams, and sewing patterns)...'

A plan or convention - laws?

Here is one scenario. When the Unmoved Mover moved, it created both motion and stillness as those exist only relative to each other, and what followed was the creation or evolution of natural laws to provide for the efficient expansion, diversification, and homeostasis of energy/matter to interact with sentient observers. That is my crude version. It is more elegantly expressed here, with the addition of an underlying 'Idea':

'Practical Psychology: The Use of Li to Change Qi

'The practical Chinese Taoist method of attaining enlightenment is to aid the mind to evolve deeper and more powerful li. Li is the underlying aspect of Qi, energy/matter. Without li, there is no Qi. The nature of li defines the nature of Qi. The way the idea is, is the way the world is.

'.... Li is the intermediary, that which lies between nothingness and the material universe. Li is the conception of the material universe. The primary li manifests on a level of reality far removed from the phenomenal world. 

Wu Chi is the ultimate Real, Qi is the phenomenal real — that which is made to appear by the interaction of waves of probability with sentient observers. Li is that which forms the 'laws' that underlie the possible manifestation of the phenomenal world. 

Qi is not real because it passes in and out of existence. Li, which is all ideas that ever can be manifest, in itself is real. It is the principle of ideal consciousness that exists inherent in Wu Chi. This li is expressed in the teachings of the Fourth Way as the Eternal Unchanging, the being state that lies between the un-manifest Absolute and the World of Three, the T'ai Chi. - pages 20 - 22

Excerpts from 'Tao and T'ai Chi Kung' by Robert C. Sohn

Michael F.

'Design is the creation of a plan'

Exactly. It implies a planner, and it implies that someone visualizes the outcome and attempts to put it into practice. As distinct from letting things play out by themselves.

A house is designed; a cave is carved out by water in the course of its trip to the sea.

Gary R. Smith 

M. - 'Design is the creation of a plan" - Exactly. It implies a planner, and it implies that someone visualizes the outcome and attempts to put it into practice. As distinct from letting things play out by themselves. A house is designed; a cave is carved out by water in the course of its trip to the sea.

G. - If I interpret you rightly, Michael, you are saying that 'all that is,' the multi-universe that is seen and unseen, all intricate patterns and delicate balances, all folding and unfolding of the particle kaleidoscope as it dissolves and re-creates endlessly, is nothing more than a cave being carved as it washes to the sea.

I am more inclined to the sunglasses which give me this picture:

'The particular manifestation of events in the material universe could be considered the result of the random interaction of the three constituents of the primary creation.

'However, the fact that all possibilities occur is attested to by modern science in the concept of waves of probability....

'Since all varieties of intelligence and consciousness are inevitable, the source must contain and be greater than the greatest of the possible manifestations of consciousness.

'This then brings us to the conclusion that there is fundamentally an intention, a purposefulness, in the very fact of the motion — that consciousness is inherent in the primary condition....

Excerpts from 'Tao and T'ai Chi Kung' by Robert C. Sohn.

Rod MacKinnon 
"...Since all varieties of intelligence and consciousness are inevitable, the source must contain and be greater than the greatest of the possible manifestations of consciousness...."

....While I agree that the statement is self-evident... it doesn't necessarily indicate only two generative options ("accident" and/or "intention"). Our human perspective habitually defaults to ascribing human perspectives to non-human situations....(an either/or setting.).. 

Being aware that my thinking is purely speculative, there could be other options possible... what would they look like I wonder?

Gary R. Smith

R. - '....While I agree that the statement is self-evident... it doesn't necessarily indicate only two generative options ("accident" and/or "intention"). Our human perspective habitually defaults to ascribing human perspectives to non-human situations....(an either/or setting.)'

G. - Awareness of the human habit of ascribing our limited human perspectives to non-human topics, especially those which are so mysterious and boundless as the origins and actualities of existence, expands my approach to the subject and helps prevent me from getting stuck in a narrow view which could be confused with an absolute truth.

R. - 'Being aware that my thinking is purely speculative, there could be other options possible... what would they look like I wonder?'

G. - Options other than accident or intention... the origin of life which I enjoy calling the grand designer without any tight definition, simply is. And the grand design is simply an expression of the grand designer. Now what intrigues me is, 'How intimately can I know the grand designer while still in the body?' (without deceiving myself) and 'Am I also the grand designer within?' and 'Can the seemingly unbridgeable distance between the sentient observer and the grand designer be bridged?' Honestly, the idea that there is not a grand designer is not an option for me. It is too much fun to play with other possibilities.

Rod MacKinnon 

I'm acutely aware that, when I "think" about consciousness, my internal representations are very circumscribed by the limited nature of the information, experience and technology (wetware) that I have to work with...nevertheless, I'm able to entertain the possibility of an infinite self-creating entity of innumerable levels of subtlety and creativity with the ability to imagine itself into existence just because that's what it does....maybe(?)

G. - Yes, it seems your maybe is similar to my play.

Rod MacKinnon 
Speculation... Given that every form of "consciousness" that I consistently experience in myself and identify in others, always appears to be associated with and expressed by, a physical form, a body, I'm unable to imagine a form of consciousness that isn't.....

"...How intimately can I know the grand designer while still in the body?' (without deceiving myself) and 'Am I also the grand designer within?' and 'Can the seemingly unbridgeable distance between the sentient observer and the grand designer be bridged?..."

I'm fortunate enough to spend most of my days working in gardens, actively participating in the 'natural' (as opposed to 'artificial') processes of life. Sometimes, when a bee flies close to me, I sense that we are aligned in our purposes and feel a sense of kinship...in those moments, I "know"(?)who/what I am as both the design and the designer...I feel very "real"... the situation feels authentic.... I don't experience an intellectual understanding... just a rightness and reassurance of "being ok"., being in harmony....

​It's a purely subjective experience however, as you and Michael F. commented,... "just because its in your head, why would that make it any less real"?' I truly enjoyed reading that discussion... what a steady, balanced approach Michael brings....😎

Joshua Faust
​
... from my vantage, magic: to transform our circumstance by applied means is best done through the alchemy of the self, and the holiest of magic is that of alignment with the divinity. 

Thus, what I found, it is of utmost importance to clear away the detritus within so the gift that lay within us may come forth. Synchronicity is the reflections in our manifestation, or the quantum field, which is immediately responding and intelligent. These reflection are neutral signs of the realms of consciousness we are passing through, reminders of the territory of our manifestation....

The following conversation began with the above post by Dakota Kaiser. 

​I asked, 'What makes magic black or white?' and Michael F. responded:

M. -
What makes anything good or bad? Answer; how we look at it. Often this is culturally conditioned into us.

What is "good fire" and "bad fire"? Good fire is a BBQ; Bad fire is one that burns down our house. Unless of course we wanted it to burn down, in which case its a good fire.

Black magic is any magic we feel uncomfortable with, White magic is magic we feel comfortable with.

Next question; when is a religion a cult? When is following a flag blind nationalism and when is it patriotism? Why is alcohol acceptable and cannabis not?

"Youre going to find that a great deal of truths depend greatly on our point of view" - Ben Kenobi.

G. -
Yes, but.

How does the magician's perspective apply to the person who is the subject of his or her intentions?

In a video about Aleister Crowley, the actor playing him and his friend were walking along on a sidewalk. Aleister was about to demonstrate his ability to influence a person against their will. He projected his thought to the man ahead of them, and the man stumbled.

Would the one who was influenced to stumble say it was good or bad? Let's assume bad.

Would Crowley say it was good or bad? Let's assume good.

Which perspective is true? If it is all perspective, does that mean anything is allowed? There is no need to consider others? No need to apply the brakes when I see I am crossing the line? It is okay to justify my actions by telling myself it is all a matter of perspective?

M. -
First, you are assuming that that sort of magic is possible - making someone stumble indirectly. But lets skip to a type of magic that we know is possible - manipulating the minds of others using signs, symbols and incantations to purchase something that they really don't need - a piece of exercise equipment perhaps that stows easily under a bed and is promptly stowed under a bed and never used again until its finally given away at 10% of the purchase price in a garage sale.

Was that manipulation white magic? black magic? 

If "spooky magic" (apparently counter-scientific magic) is possible, according to my theory of how it works, you affect ultimately only yourself.

That is, according to the multiple universe explanation of quantum theory, there are universes containing all possibilities. My theory is that an advanced magician can place his or her attention in any one of them. The magician, and the stumbler, are in all universes. In some of which the stumbler stumbles and in many of which he or she does not. What the magician does is choose to experience the universe in which the stumbler stumbles. The magician does not affect the multiple universes in any way - he or she simply chooses to view one or the other universe like choosing movie A over movie B.

So it is a very long conversation ranging from what magic is, to whether a tool can be considered good or evil, to whether the person using the tool can be considered good or evil, to whether any given action can be considered good or evil.

Good or evil, more often than not, are a matter of perspective - of how a thing is being framed. Is it good or evil to spit on a crucifix? To deny the resurrection? (If so, the archbishop of canterbury is in trouble) To smoke cannabis? To make love to a person of a different race or the same gender?

There are many people in even a modern culture like America who would consider killing a person convicted on death row (rightly or wrongly) to be a good and for someone expressing love to a person of the same gender to be a heinous evil.

It is all about framing. Who is doing the framing, and how it is being framed.

Here is my favorite question. Is terminating the life of an embryo evil? How about a chicken? An Egg? A turnip?

So when people start talking to me about black or white magic, my eyes roll in many different directions. To me, the question is on a level with "I feel so awful, I have these dreadful urges that I cant tell my husband" "If only people knew the evil thoughts I think"....

It boils down to this: Dont do stuff that you feel you shouldnt do. Do continually re-examine what is your standard of should/shouldnt do. You can take others advisement, but they have no edge over you in knowing what is right or wrong. There is no god handing out instructions. There are no golden standards. We are all making it up as we go along. No matter what you decide, in 200 years, people will look back at us and consider that 90% of the things that we take for granted today - as evil. 

So, develop your own standards, things you can live with, and apply them in your life. Thats the best that anyone can do.

If a doctor cured Adolf Hitler of a fatal wound in WWI, was that act evil because it resulted in WWII (actually, another Hitler would have been found, but lets go with the trope).?

M. -
"Which perspective is true? "

I'm not going to get the details correct, but the essence will be. So bear with me... Men on spaceships travelling in different directions. meet over a planet where they see a woman frying an egg. One sees the egg hit the pan before the spaceships meet, the other sees the egg hit the pan after the spaceships meet. (theory of relativity craziness)

Which is true? 

Ultimately, perspective is everything. You cannot say, taking all your assumptions for granted, that the "magic of making the man stumble" was good or evil. It was good from one persons perspective and bad from the others perspective. That is all that one can say.

There is nobody in the sky with an ethical measuring stick.

Fortunately we dont need one to make our own ethical standards and abide by them. But they are purely our own standards. Others have different standards.Should I worry about the perspectives of others? Suppose I wanted to make love to a person of my own gender, and I knew that someone else (a third party) thought that to be evil. Shoujld I abstain? Even if my perspective is that it is not evil? Should I consult the old testament for guidance?

Its not that there is no good and evil. There is good an evil in all of us. -literally, it exists in our minds. There is nothing that is good or evil but our minds make it so, to misquote ?Shakespeare?.

As a matter of practicality, we are free to extend our own perspective until it infringes upon the perspective of another. But even that is a very fuzzy concept. Can a parent block a child from playing with the fire or an electrical socket? So is restricting the freedom of others acceptable? How about a 60-yr-old senator deciding that a 25-yr-old can't smoke cannabis? A 16-yr-old smoking cannabis? A 15.5 year-old....?

The problem is that there are too many people out there who know what is right and wrong, what is allowable and what is not allowable, and what is good for other people.

G. -
I see. Well, perhaps you are right that I was assuming the type of influence depicted in the video is possible. Or, I was simply telling what the video depicted -- and not saying whether I believe it or not.

My point was about the level of self responsibility in so-called magicians. Would you agree that Neuro-Linguistic Programming can be used successfully to manipulate? It is in another realm than incantations and spells. The same principle applies, from my perspective.

I am not sure I would leave this type of self-responsibility up to the individual to decide their own standard of what should or shouldn't be done. At least there can be a majority voice known as to what standards are considered socially acceptable or attractive.

Yes, I agree, the person who is influenced or manipulated has some degree of responsibility. Accepting that reduces victim-hood. You make some sound points and I appreciate your level of thinking. Some of the questions you ask are unanswerable. I do not adhere to the doctrine of good and evil. But it feels worthwhile to sometimes express the voice that would like to see people take a stand more often for what the majority feel is 'right' - not in a moral sense but in a way of serving the whole of life.

M. -
I was assuming for the purpose of discussion that the influence was possible - I make no statement about your assumptions. If this came across, it was an error in my writing. Sorry.

"But it feels worthwhile to sometimes express the voice that would like to see people take a stand more often for what the majority feel is 'right' "

The majority until quite recently thought that gay marriage should be outlawed, and think currently that abortion is wrong. The majority 50 years ago thought that all sorts of racial discrimination were OK.

So forgive me if I dont pay much attention to majority ethical thinking.

M. - 
"the person who is influenced or manipulated has some degree of responsibility."

Actually, I was being somewhat tongue-in-cheek in raising the issue of marketing. But it does exemplify the issue at hand. I'll spell it out this time. Causing someone to stumble by suggestion you imply is bad for the stumbler. But most people accept the right of advertisers to manipulate their audience into buying products that waste their money. Its a form of theft in a way. While the person influenced has SOME responsibility, the fact that $1000 is being spent on advertising per person means that the advertisers know that it will get you to spend AT LEAST $1000 more than you otherwise would have. That's the scale of the problem. And these people use up-to-date cognitive psychological techniques that are very difficult for the ordinary person to resist. A fair fight?

But yet MOST people would see advertising as perfectly OK.

Questions like this show that the water is very muddy indeed, and discovering a perfect standard of good and evil is next to impossible.

Popularity is not the same as ethical, as any cursory glance at politics will show. Trump's supremacist message was popular enough to win him the election, but moral? hardly. Same with Adolf Hitler. Very popular.

So if popularity doesnt determine the gold standard for ethics, what does? A stone-age middle eastern scroll? A fairy in the sky?

My answer is that I decide for me what my ethics are.

G. -
You are giving me lots of food for feeling-thought.

A feast, actually. 

It may take a while to digest.

But I see it as a worthwhile endeavor, to process what you are saying.It feels to me to contain plenty of substance and I have not yet experienced heartburn from it.

In the end, we all decide what our own ethics are, whether a person gives it any thought or not, whether they allow 'others' to determine their ethics for them or make clear, conscious choices from within.

I totally agree, popularity is not the same as ethical, and after writing my earlier comment I realized it was short of being well expressed due to overall tiredness and just wanting to make a reply rather than think and feel it through before responding.

With your last comment, it seems that individual clarity and strength are the key to a different type of world. Perhaps you are of the mind that the world just is what it is and doesn't need to change. I no longer have a 'save the world' complex, but feel urged to put energy into what I can to support a shift to 'higher consciousness.' And that starts with my own inner work.

I do not see manipulative advertising as okay. But it is what it is and I cannot change it. There may always be people who refuse to live cooperatively and for the betterment of all. Perhaps I can in some way contribute to my version of a more enlightened world by living in a more enlightened way. And that is it.

Thank you again for your writing.

M. -
" it seems that individual clarity and strength are the key to a different type of world."

Exactly.

" Perhaps you are of the mind that the world just is what it is and doesn't need to change."

The world just is what it is, but not only does it need to change, it can do no otherwise than to change. Change is its nature.

" I no longer have a 'save the world' complex, but feel urged to put energy into what I can to support a shift to 'higher consciousness.' And that starts with my own inner work."

I am compelled to try and "save the world", but my nature is to first analyze the situation so that I can work out how things are, what needs to change, how it can be changed, and so on and so on.

My comments that there are no objective "rights and wrongs" has nothing to do with my desire to see things change in a way in which I would like them to change. I get very passionate about the change I would like to see, even argue for it, but it boils down in some ways to the fact that I prefer flavor A to flavor B. Not that flavor A is preferred by a deity, a dispassionate, uninvolved mathematical law, to flavor B.

I think that many people's lives would be enriched if, for example, progressive values were embodied. We are likely to agree in a great many ways about the way in which we would like to see the world change. We might even be able to argue a case for this. The only thing I am denying is that there is a right and a wrong.

When you watch a David Attenborough nature film, you see animal A hunting animal B. Sometimes it is narrated from the perspective of animal B dying at the hands of animal A; other times it is narrated from the point of view of animal A being close to starvation, or feeding its young, and needing to find a kill soon. Ultimately, the chase is just the interplay of atoms through the process of life. As are all our struggles. All the intense love-struggles of our youth - all just so much wasted energy in some ways. It's all a game. A game we get so involved in we forget its just a game. From that perspective, there is no right, no wrong. It is simply life playing it out.

But then there is the continual unfolding, and, as far as we know, the present state of humanity is the most evolved, the most developed, the most complex and self-reflective point that the universe has reached thus far. And mostly, this has been achieved by the random processes of life.

We are finally at the point where we can decide where life, the universe, even our genome, goes from here. You, me, and the other 8-billion-odd other humans get to play our part in deciding where this great cosmic experiment ends up.

So play this game. It's fun, it has meaning (a meaning we supply, not a god), and its worth doing. But it is a game.

Some people dive in and change things right away, and more power to them; the world needs changers. But the more I find out about the world, the more I realize that I need another few lifetimes to analyze the changes in order to know how I want it to change.

There are some principles I have reached - for example, the more diversity that exists, the better. Because it gives the future more options to explore.

But then there are questions like "should we solve world hunger", and my thoughts there bear in mind the fact that all animals multiply to the limits of their food supply. Always. So we will not solve world hunger by producing more food.. we will simply breed more people to absorb it, and so on, until we live in one vast green plain of artificially engineered grain, and STILL we will be hungry. So we have first to learn how to (a) control our numbers or (b) leave the planet.

"I do not see manipulative advertising as okay. But it is what it is and I cannot change it. "

I don't like it either, my point was sardonically made. many people think that capitalism is a "good"; I simply drew attention to how one could view it in a different way. It is just a different kind of coercion. No matter how we twist and turn, there will always be coercion - all that changes is who is pulling the strings, and how much misery they cause. I dont see an escape from coercion - whether thats being a slave to the drive to breed and eat, or to a feudal lord, a cultural imperative, our parental conditioning, an oligarch, a governmental directive... People rail against the govt. controlling their lives without questioning the fact that corporations control almost every aspect of their lives, from what they eat to when they get up and what they do most of their days.

We do have some power though; we can wake up, we can see things as they are, and in that way, remove their power from us. And we can possibly share that clarity with others, so that they also can wake up from our collective brainwashing. 

The problem is that even when we wake up from one level of brainwashing, we are still subject to another. It is easy to think that OUR way of thinking is the RIGHT way - but how do we know that?

What is the objective standard? Is there one?

To take an extreme example, some cultures would view the extermination of all life in the universe to be the ultimate good. I'm thinking the Cathars and Buddhists, very nice people, who view existence as a cycle of suffering, the creation of an evil God to prevent us from being re-absorbed into the true Godhead. Thankfully, they didnt convert that concept into an imperative to change the universe in conformity with their conclusions.

M. -
Where I'm coming from - I believe that humans form larger groups that act as larger organisms, just as neurons form brains and ants form semi-intelligent colonies. Ultimately, the human race resembles a giant brain, with multiple personalities (just as we all have). These are warring among each other in the same way that bees for collective decisions by battling each other or the way our neurons suppress and activate various thought patterns to reach a decision.

We are currently, as a species, undergoing a massive shift in external inputs - scientific knowledge, globalization, increased communication, resource overuse, and all the rest of it - and this is forcing a change in our collective consciousness. We are all playing our part in shaping the future collective consciousness, but we are at a tipping point before a massive change - or in the middle of such a change. Like the change as we developed self-consciousness, or as we developed tools, or as we developed language. Its that big.

Our old language will not work anymore. The monotheist paradigm, the capitalist paradigm; the tribal paradigm, the growth is good paradigm - none of these suit us anymore.

The emergent new collective consciousness will develop its own new memes sooner or later - every culture does. But I believe it would be better if we can consciously create the underpinnings of the new society, the new collective consciousness to come.

"to create a new religion" is one way of looking at it, but its really far beyond that; its developing a new way of looking at the universe, a new way of responding to it, a new philosophy.

So to that end, I'm analyzing the way the current system works, and trying to figure out what we need to keep and what we need to throw away.

From an deep analysis of the underlying memes to the details of for example ritualism.

I don't know if I can complete this project - likely not - I'm quite lazy, and it is a huge undertaking. And to some extent, you have to be lazy - unfocused - to see the big picture.

The thing that disturbs me the most is that the people who are most aligned to my cause are the first to swallow any new-age garbage they are given more gullibly than the monotheists take their water-walking deities in the sky. And it frustrates me probably because I cant reconcile my attraction to it with my knowledge that it is "fake news"

How can one extract the nugget of wonder at the heart of Crystal therapy (to take an example) without falling into the pit of snake-oil salesmen who sell falsehoods? There is SOMETHING there. But to take the face value at face value is to fall back a few steps, not progress.

One needs to extract what can be extracted (and there IS something to be extracted) without checking in one's brain at the door.

And here is one key to the occult that is useful (one of many). The use of ritual to bracket off necessary nonsense from our daily rational lives.

"necessary nonsense". Sometimes my unconscious throws me such great concepts!

M. - But if it is some sort of self-reflective self-creating intelligence in a universe where it is possible that the matrix underlying the universe is itself conscious in some ill-defined way - then I'm not opposed to that idea as such. The universe as presently constituted is unfolding according to some pretty basic principles, and there is ample evidence for that. If the process is defined as "intelligent", then it is intelligent. Designed? Not really. Not in any meaning of the word "design" that I know. It follows laws.

G. - The Wikipedia article on Design begins with, 'Design is the creation of a plan or convention for the construction of an object, system or measurable human interaction (as in architectural blueprints, engineering drawings, business processes, circuit diagrams, and sewing patterns)...'

A plan or convention - laws?

Here is one scenario. When the Unmoved Mover moved, it created both motion and stillness as those exist only relative to each other, and what followed was the creation or evolution of natural laws to provide for the efficient expansion, diversification, and homeostasis of energy/matter to interact with sentient observers. That is my crude version. It is more elegantly expressed here, with the addition of an underlying Idea:

'Practical Psychology: The Use of Li to Change Qi

'The practical Chinese Taoist method of attaining enlightenment is to aid the mind to evolve deeper and more powerful li. Li is the underlying aspect of Qi, energy/matter. Without li, there is no Qi. The nature of li defines the nature of Qi. The way the idea is, is the way the world is.

'.... Li is the intermediary, that which lies between nothingness and the material universe. Li is the conception of the material universe. The primary li manifests on a level of reality far removed from the phenomenal world. 

Wu Chi is the ultimate Real, Qi is the phenomenal real — that which is made to appear by the interaction of waves of probability with sentient observers. Li is that which forms the 'laws' that underlie the possible manifestation of the phenomenal world. 

Qi is not real because it passes in and out of existence. Li, which is all ideas that ever can be manifest, in itself is real. It is the principle of ideal consciousness that exists inherent in Wu Chi. This li is expressed in the teachings of the Fourth Way as the Eternal Unchanging, the being state that lies between the un-manifest Absolute and the World of Three, the T'ai Chi. - pages  20 - 22

Excerpts from 'Tao and T'ai Chi Kung' by Robert C. Sohn, used by permission.

G. -
{I am compelled to try and "save the world", but my nature is to first analyze the situation so that I can work out how things are, what needs to change, how it can be changed, and so on and so on.

Some people dive in and change things right away, and more power to them; the world needs changers. But the more I find out about the world, the more I realize that I need another few lifetimes to analyze the changes in order to know how I want it to change.}

Most of my life was lived in my head, analyzing.

Then, in 2000, I made a major life change and began the journey of living not in the head but from the heart. No analyzing there. I am loving every Moment of it and this is truly a 'new paradigm' way of living. As I wrote to Adam, 

'When it comes to Intelligent Design and how to live in this world (including personal ethics), I am in a stage of letting go of personal wantings and living for the connection. It is not getting what I want, but the quality of attention I give into every moment that matters.'

M. - Ultimately, the chase is just the interplay of atoms through the process of life. As are all our struggles. All the intense love-struggles of our youth - all just so much wasted energy in some ways. It's all a game. A game we get so involved in we forget its just a game. From that perspective, there is no right, no wrong. It is simply life playing it out.

G. - Yes, I can see the game aspect of 'life.' And agree that struggles are a waste of energy. It is a game, but in some significant ways I determine whether I play a competitive game with 'high stakes' and a winner and loser, like poker or chess, or a cooperative game such as Herbal Wildcrafting with the grandkids. I get your point, though, about the game-like quality of the human experience.

M. - (But then there is the continual unfolding, and, as far as we know, the present state of humanity is the most evolved, the most developed, the most complex and self-reflective point that the universe has reached thus far. And mostly, this has been achieved by the random processes of life.}

G. - Yes, hmmm. Random process set in motion by consciousness (intelligent design)? With some clear idea or blueprint for the ultimate qualities of the human being?

M. - What is the objective standard? Is there one?

G. - Only from the perspective of the One Being.

I understand your "just because its in your head, why would that make it any less real"?' -- and see that there are countless realities. In my reality, there is also one actuality, which I accept as unknowable. I sense it intuitively with the awareness it my sense is a reality, not the fullness of actuality. We all wear the sunglasses of our filtered perceptions. I like the model I have chosen, it is always subject to enhancements or modifications, and I always remember that I am seeing through sunglasses.

Adam Apollo Amorastreya 
Wow, what a smorgasbord of comments! LOL ...and some pretty rough debates in there. Whew.

For the record, I am a scientist first and foremost. I published my first papers on the intersections of Loop Quantum Gravity, String Theory, Quantum Mechanics, Special and General Relativity when I was in High School. Now I am regularly published for my work in Unified Physics.

A few of my related opinions:

1. Scientology - While I respect that scientology has been able to surface a significant amount of valuable philosophy (some quite ancient), I also think it may have been applied in a manipulative way, or even as a full blown scam, and may contain a great deal of false information. I cannot say more without having had significant personal study of this field.

2. Intelligent Design - Tough subject without lots of contextual discussion, primarily because even if you agree with every primary cosmological theory and evolutionary theory, nothing in those theories truly refutes ID. More importantly, whether or not ID exists is entirely dependent on your definition of Intelligence. If the Universe has innate feedback mechanisms, which many mathematical and physics studies support, then does this suggest an underlying "Intelligence" to spacetime itself? You could look at self-similarity, fractals, and holographic patterns as proof of ID, or you can suggest that they are mathematical "coincidences" or inevitable outcomes due to the laws of our Universe. You can't remove perception or intelligence from our study of the Universe, so you can't remove the observer from the observation. It is more a matter of self-recognition, self-definition, and self-determination. We choose how we interpret the data, which for all intensive purposes, changes the data.

3. Big Bang - I love the theory, and even with holes, there is a lot that makes sense here. But where did the little node that expanded into a Universe come from? I find the idea that it's a Proton that has left the surface of another Universe fascinating, and there are some stunning "coincidences" between this theory and recent quantum gravity theories regarding the structure of the Proton.

4. Magic - "Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic." - Arthur C. Clarke. There have been approaches to methods and processes of "communicating" with spacetime (previously known as Aether or Ether) for thousands of years. Some clearly didn't work, and were invalidated. Others persisted, often kept as tightly held secrets to avoid religious persecution. Many more were almost lost due to nearly holocaust level cultural slaughter. There is a reason why we see the same patterns repeated across cultures, across continents, going back into pre-history. Yet beyond magical geometries and their applications, real Magic is about understanding our Self. When we grasp that everything we create emerges from having a clear mental idea of what we want to create, strong feelings for what we want to create, and the physical capacity to take actions that implement the creation, then it is really about mastering that process and getting out of our own way. 

Of course, knowing full well the risk of rolling eyes and instigating harsh responses, I will share that I have had many many personal experiences that I would not be able to explain without significant development of my metaphysical philosophy. I have had to develop my own frameworks and research those of ages past to explain what appears to be a form of advanced technology which many simply call "magic."

Are they all coincidences? Apparently random events where somehow a pattern of cause and effect was set in motion that resulted in an event directly, and stunningly coinciding with another event, seemingly beyond impossible odds?

If you've never had an experience like that, my heart goes out to you. And I'm sure the sentiment is shared by the countless others who have "won the lottery" in these types of coincidences many many many times. 

Examples, you ask? Sure, here's a few:

1. I needed serious help paying off a bank loan and didn't know how I was going to do it. I drew a star on a page in my notebook and wrote the amount I needed in the middle. I didn't want to tell anyone or ask anyone for help with the situation, as I was embarrassed. The next day I received an envelope in the mail saying my debt had been paid off entirely.

2. I drew a picture of a house I wanted from the outside, all the details I wanted on the inside, and wrote down how much rent I wanted to pay. 

I got a house at that rent, with all those details within weeks. After I moved in I climbed down the hill and realized I had drawn it almost exactly.

3. My girlfriend at the time did the exact same thing, and the architectural details she drew for her house were so stunningly accurate to the one her friend found and partnered with her to get, that we kept the drawing for years as an example to friends.

4. Hundreds of times: looking for parking place, pulling up in front of destination, and right then someone's blinker turns on to pull out of the perfect spot.

5. Many times: spending a day or evening meditating on some part of my life I would love to experience more of...a part of myself (skills), or specific type of connection that I want. 
Within a day or two, someone calls me or emails me out of the blue inviting me to do something that involves those exact skills, or that allows me to experience that exact connection. 

Those are just a few examples of countless experiences, the odds of which happening at random are so ridiculous I eventually used logic to determine alternative explanations. Some of that logic, and the many ways I have used it to improve my own life situation and the lives of many others comprises a portion of my workshop. Other portions cover ancient wisdom traditions, transformational practices, self-awareness practices, and much more.

G. -
{Yet beyond magical geometries and their applications, real Magic is about understanding our Self. When we grasp that everything we create emerges from having a clear mental idea of what we want to create, strong feelings for what we want to create, and the physical capacity to take actions that implement the creation, then it is really about mastering that process and getting out of our own way.}

Adam,

After reading carefully the full length of your comment and appreciating you for it, I asked myself what is the one aspect which stands out most clearly for me to respond to. It is the above quote from you, especially as it fits with Intelligent Design.

There are many mysteries which at this stage are still unknowable, and I am okay with that. Intelligent Design can go either way. I choose to perceive it in a specific way, while being aware that my chosen perception is not an absolute. If some of the veils are lifted after death, in case there is a continuation of individuated consciousness in some way, I can imagine that the actual will appear both similar to and unlike anything perceived while in the body.

Synchronicity and coincidences are very cool, and to be enjoyed, but I haven't seen any consistent pattern in or reliable interpretation of them. Like others, I have had predictive and 'other dimensional' dreams which were fulfilled in a stunning way or left me with a lingering feeling that they had some significance. Looking back, I still don't know how to fully interpret those instances.

When it comes to Intelligent Design and how to live in this world (including personal ethics), I am in a stage of letting go of personal wantings and living for the connection. It is not getting what I want, but the quality of attention I give into every moment  that matters. That would seem at odds with your 'having a clear mental idea of what we want to create, strong feelings for what we want to create, and the physical capacity to take actions that implement the creation,' which is ruled by the persona -- but then you add, 'and getting out of our own way'.

The difference is that, because the deepest longing of my heart requires it,  I get out of my own way before the 'wanting for things' beyond my current means begins.

Update 05/28/2017:

Almost a year after this post was first published, I realize that the term 'illusion of separation' no longer serves. It is more useful to see it rather as 'disconnection.'

From connection with ourselves, such as feeling our emotions, to connecting with others, to a longing for connection with 'something greater,' something whole, I'd say we all feel disconnected in some way — or are so disconnected we don't even feel that.

In summary,

What prevents connection is contraction.
What causes contraction is resistance.
What underlies resistance is often anxiety.
What generates anxiety, some say, is the primitive brain.

Raphael Cushnir, a respected author and facilitator, says,

'I think of anxiety as fear of feeling, stemming from the primitive brain, a way to distract from an underlying emotion that seems more dangerous. Being with anxiety takes us through it to that deeper emotion which then can let go of us.'

The deeper emotion may be the fear of annihilation, vulnerability or disconnection, for example.

Emotional Connection is integrated into the design of Heart Breathing — a simple, powerful  way to support such inner work and make Connection more deeply felt and effective 24/7.  I am re-publishing this now because the subject of the One Being came up in a conversation about Applied Magic. 

The illusion of separation is a key topic especially during these times. It is a well-covered subject, but here is a new angle - dispelling the illusion with a four word greeting - 'we are one being.'

Dispelling the illusion is about effectively dis-empowering the spell of the 'illusion of separation' by thinking, feeling and acting upon a potent four word combination which can also be used as a greeting or a closing (and perhaps one day, for anyone who takes it up, as artistically-embellished songs, signs and image quotes.) 

While 'the illusion of separation' is a commonly heard term, do we know what it is 'really' hiding? In this case, 'the illusion of separation' has been hiding the actuality that 'we are one being.' O.B. is my familiar term for the One Being.

The great illusion is not referring just to our living separated (in our minds) from our source and each other. The illusion has distanced our human awareness from knowing the one true self and identity of every human and that 'we' have never been separated. Revealing the actuality veiled by the illusion of separation, that O.B. is the True Self of all that is, answers a big question for every person, 'who am I really?'

It also can answer, 'why am I here?' for every person who accepts that everything exists to be the vehicle of O.B.'s expression. For me, that translates to knowing my deepest purpose is to unfold the unique center of awareness designed by my original blueprint, to be O.B. in the Gary expression. The fullness of unfolding is to consciously be the defined human and the undefined totality in the same moment.

'We are one being' means much more than being inter-connected. It means more than 'we are one people' or 'we are one family,' or 'the brotherhood of Man.' In nature we see some examples. Certain mushrooms cover enormous areas beneath the ground yet above ground are seen as individual units. The mushroom organism below surface level is a metaphor of the one being of pure consciousness, while the stalks and caps correspond to individual humans. The illusion of separation which has kept us from knowing we are one being has prevented us from knowing who we really are and what we are capable of manifesting as human beings.​

The Illusion of Separation, then, is the false impression that you are separate from everyone and everything else in the known universe. Our five senses naturally lead us to adopt this objective frame of mind and therefore to our own misunderstanding of the world. - Brandon Cook

Our separation from each other is an optical illusion. - Albert Einstein

Time isn’t precious at all, because it is an illusion. What you perceive as precious is not time, but the one point that is out of time: the Now. That is precious indeed. The more you are focused on time – past and future – the more you miss the Now, the most precious thing there is. – Eckhart Tolle

​And when you focus on the Separated, you miss the magnificence of the One Being we are.

An illusion is a deceptive appearance or impression, a false idea or belief. It hides the actual with a believable replacement. While 'the illusion of separation' is a commonly heard term, do we know what it is 'really' hiding? In this case, 'the illusion of separation' has been hiding the actuality that 'we are one being.' 

The great illusion is not just referring to our living separated (in our minds) from our source and each other. The illusion has distanced our human awareness from knowing the one true self and identity of every human and that 'we' have never been separated. Revealing the actuality veiled by the illusion of separation, that O.B. is the True Self of all that is, answers a big question for every person, 'who am I really?'

Words which precisely convey the intended meaning in this case is critical. 'We are one being' means much more than being inter-connected. It is not 'I am the one being,' though it could be said 'I am a center of awareness within the one being.' The words 'we are one being' mean more than 'we are one people' or 'we are one family,' or 'the brotherhood of Man.' The illusion of separation which has kept us from knowing w.a.o.b., has prevented us from knowing who we really are and what we are capable of manifesting as human beings.

Though the sentiment expressed in the letter attributed to Chief Seattle is beautiful, moving and contains truth, it also does not convey the deeper meaning of the four words, 'We are one being.'

"This we know: the earth does not belong to man, man belongs to the earth. All things are connected like the blood that unites us all. Man did not weave the web of life, he is merely a strand in it. Whatever he does to the web, he does to himself....

"One thing we know - there is only one God. No man, be he Red man or White man, can be apart. We ARE all brothers after all." 

Identifying with 'we are one being' consciousness does not annihilate the persona. It enhances, evolves and empowers the persona as a servant of the whole of life. It means living as the border-less one being and the defined 'upgraded' persona in the same moment. It means to be 'God in the flesh,' emanating border-less love, creatively expressing and neutrally observing, and fulfilling the pattern of our unique original design as centers of awareness within the one being we are.​

Writing can be self-revelatory in many ways. Writing posts on 'The Impersonal Life,' is the process which revealed to me what is being hidden by the illusion of separation — that in actuality we are one being:

We - all that is
are - in the present moment
one - single, self-existent
being - of pure consciousness

The greeting which, when felt and acted upon, dispels the illusion of separation, is: 'We are one being.'

An example of greeters reminding each other of their true nature is namasté, which goes in the same direction but not the distance. Although the meanings seems similar, the distinction is clear.

One Being in Many Languages

by Stephanie Lucas, Guest, Waking Times

Simplistic Gestures of Universal Oneness

Often used by Hindus, Muslims, Buddhists, Sikhs, and other religions, Namaste is also revered within spiritual circles and meditation and yoga classes, and it’s being embraced far beyond its South Asian origins. You’ll often hear it spoken in combination with a slight bow and the Anjali Mudra – the placement of the hands together pulled close to the heart in a fashion similar to a prayer pose.

Use of the Mudra position to the heart and raised to the forehead is most often utilized in North and South India where formal versions of Namaste called Namaskar and Namaskara are common. Along with Namaste, these gestures represent surrendering ego to the spirit – recognizing that the life force within us as individuals is the same as that within everything and everyone.

It’s a Spiritual Connection

The literal translation of this greeting varies with each language; however, they are all pretty much saying the same thing. In Sanskrit, the word ‘namah’ means bow, ‘as’ means I,, and ‘te’ means you, translating into “I bow to you.” A Hindi friend once explained that Namaskar is translated from ‘namoh’ and ‘sanskar’ translating loosely into English as “I bow to godly/good qualities within you,’ as her culture always tries to see the good in all things.

Some other popular translations and meanings of the word Namaste I hear frequently include:

The Divine light in me acknowledges the Divine light in you.
The God in me greets and meets the God in you.
I honor the spirit in you that is also in me.
The Diving wisdom in me recognizes and acknowledges the Divine wisdom in you.

Regardless of the language you speak, the word simply invokes a sense of sharing a spiritual connection and creates a sense and feeling of oneness and balance. Essentially, it’s a way that all humans can connect.

by Giovanni, Live and Dare

​The Need For Oneness

The understanding and experience of oneness can help stop wars, exploitation, injustice, violence, abuse, and environmental damage, among other problems. These actions would hardly have any reason to arise, just like it makes no sense for the left hand to want to hurt the right hand, or for blood-cells to wish the destruction of bone-cells, just so their “way of life” can prevail.

Oneness can improve our social, political, and professional environments, helping create a more “enlightened society” – a society where we recognise that, as human beings, we are all cells of a larger organism.

This may sound highly utopian, because we will probably never live in a world where everyone understands and behaves in accordance with the truth of oneness. However, this change is possible, and any small progress in this direction has the potential to create much good.

Spirituality – in all its approaches and traditions- offers both the perspective and the tools for this transformation.

The Philosophy of Oneness

Some traditions speak of oneness based on an idea of a common origin. For instance, Christianity says we all come from God, and are children of God. In this context we are all brothers, and hurting each other would be less likely. “Love your neighbor as yourself.” (Mark 12:31)

In many Eastern traditions, oneness is more based on an idea of common nature, or common being.

Buddhism speaks of the interdependence of all things.

Zen invites you to move beyond individuality, to drop away body and mind so that you can see and live from the Big Mind (daishin).

Mahayana Buddhism emphasizes compassion as one of the highest teachings, personified in the ideal of the Bodhisattva.

Taoism also invites you to move beyond the attachments to yourself, so that you can live in harmony with the Tao. “Supreme good is like water. Water greatly benefits all things, without conflict. It flows through places that people loathe. Thereby it is close to the Tao.”

Advaita Vedanta teaches that the whole universe is only Pure Consciousness. Therefore, all is of the same substance and nature, and separation is a mistaken perception.

Yoga traditions emphasize non-violence (ahimsa) as the heart of the yogi’s way of life, the cornerstone of yogic ethics.

[Note: some of these philosophies clarify that even the idea of oneness is still conceptual/relative, and that ultimate truth is beyond that. However, they honor the fact that living by the principle of oneness develops a mind that is more ready to fully absorb the non-dual truth.]

...
​
For more, see the link at the end of this blog post.

​
An Unfolding Revelation

The following posts reveal the process by which I came to the 'we are one being' conclusion. O.B. is my familiar use of the term One Being, which I mean as pure consciousness, the creative source, the one true self.

Being O.B.

Shades of One

Finding Me (Ch. 17 of 'The Impersonal Life')

We Are One Being

Union (Ch. 18 of 'The Impersonal Life')?

Anon I mus
​

Now take the next step:
AT THE LEVEL OF PURE CONSCIOUSNESS, WE ARE ONE BEING.

Meaning of Namasté on Waking Times

Namasté on Wikipedia

Grüß Gott on Wikipedia

World Greetings by Bruce Van Patter

Jennifer's Language Pages - Greetings in more than 3000 languages

Letter attributed to Chief Seattle

Oneness - A Key to Happiness & World Change

Systems Theory: 'Rediscovering Nature's Paradigm'  by Christopher Chase - PDF download below. 

From the Guardian Alliance site:

PRINCIPLES

We stand by these fundamental principles as stewards and Guardians of the Earth, and all Life. We honor the Truth of every individual, and seek to bring greater understanding, acceptance, and unity through Love. We trust in the goodness of all people, and actively participate in the healing, transformation, and evolution of all beings.
 
Sovereignty
every individual and collective are entitled to their own beliefs and choices

Community
each individual is responsible for creating and promoting collective homeostasis and evolution

Authenticity
the deepest gift an individual can offer in the moment is their fullest presence in integrity with their purpose and core values

Accountability
each individual is responsible for their own integrity and is supported through collective feedback

Synchronicity
all things occur in perfect timing, and “coincidental occurrences” are signifiers for timing resonance and alignment

Purpose
we are all guided by a feeling of deepest resonance in our life-paths and are responsible for holding to our purpose

Respect
the act of recognizing another’s sovereignty

Honor
the art of bringing ourselves and others into authenticity

Truth
commitment to the integration and continuity of ideas, words, and feelings

Love
dedication to the continuity of community and evolution through synchronicity

Integrity
aligning your whole being with honesty and consistency in keeping your word and following through with your planned actions

Collaboration
creating and promoting collective symbiosis and evolution through community actions and effective leadership

Freedom
every individual and collective are entitled to their own beliefs and choices: sovereignty

Courage
offering your deepest gift (the root “cour” means “heart”) in the moment, especially in challenging times, and choosing to bring forth your fullest presence and live by your core values

Sharing
to share your gifts of knowledge, discovery, wealth, nourishment, etc with others openly and without fear of loss

Respect
recognizing the sovereignty of others and their values, rights, and freedom, and standing for your own

Diversity
honoring the many backgrounds, cultures, and perspectives of each individual 

Openness
maintaining a dedication to open acceptance, respect, and acknowledgement

Revolution
transforming circumstances to enable love, community continuity and evolution

Evolution
the act of engaging your own deepest purpose and presence and inviting others to do the same, while learning from their gifts and sharing your own

Commitment
being committed to getting better at all that we do and every way that we are, all the time