All is One.

[truth_justice]

What do you understand by the statement: All is One

[daybrown]

'All is one' is first expressed in the Vedas, which gives us the idea of a projected reality matrix, in which everything you see is no more than the expression of certain forces at certain points. Which is what quantum physics says.

Whether the projection mechanism, ie the Goddess, exists at any particular point, or- as also inferred in the Vedas, permeates what passes for reality, does not alter the fact that it is all One. The Vedas say there are a myriad worlds, but yet, they are all projected into being with the same ongoing system.

Like, your life is a movie, and there are lotsa movies, but the projection equipment is the same everywhere.

[ataxas]

My own interpretation of that statement is that it is over-used mystical fluff, and can mean any number of things according to interpretation.

I suppose that your intention was to start a discussion about what, exactly, you mean by "the all" and in what sense does every thing in that all experience a "oneness" with all other things. My reply to such hackery would be to say that Indra's Web is a stumbling block, a position from which there is no return, as causal relationships are muddied and definitions become redefined. As ordinary language would have it, your statement means all sorts of things, determined by context. Seeking to redefine a language is, to my mind, not progress. If a word does not exist in the language, create a new word; reappropriating an old word and giving it new definitions does not change the older definitions of the word, or make the thing that the word describes any different.

An example: nothing in reality is changed by your changed use of the word "all". "All" is a determiner: it applies to nouns. By creating a noun out of the determiner, and expecting the universe to somehow effect change as a result (a change in consciousness is real-world) is to commit a logical fallacy. If by "the all" you wish to say "the totality of zero-dimensional points that make up the three-dimensional universe", which, I suppose, is a spacial representation, or an instant snapshot, of Indra's Web, then I suppose you could claim that because each zero-dimensional point has no boundaries, then each point can't be defined spacially. This is, of course, a banal spatial observation, and not anything of metaphysical value, and is useless to declare, as each point may be designated graphically, with numerical representations of location using an arbitrary graphical origin.

If you are inclined to say that "the all" is "one" due to reasons of causality, then might I suggest that this statement is necessarily true in every possible world? In any universe with any number of objects, including an empty universe, there will be some relation between the objects, if only that they are in the same universe. In all possible worlds, if there is an observer to declare that "the all is the one", then that statement, using the latter, causal interpretation for "all", then the statement is necessarily true, for there is at least one object (the observer) that has some relation with another object (the observer).

Let me explain my use of "causality". It is not the definition of the word causality that I myself hold dear; it seems to be a catch-all net, effectively, "if B is related (somehow) to A, then B has some causal relationship to A". If this definition of causality is used, then everything is caused by everything.

[vicdan]

BTW, i think it's interesting to note how Indra's Pearls stand in light of modern science and thinking.

For example, we now know that the speed of light is finite, and so each pearl in the web can only reflect a finite number of other pearls, the ones within your light cone. We also know that light is quantized, so the quantization of light puts a fundamental limit on the resolution of the possible images we would see in each pearl.

Which is to say, claiming that 'all is one' is a rather iffy proposition, unless you are speaking metaphorically or historically, or are simply using mathematical trivia as per ataxas's post.

Similarly, Zeno's paradoxes don't hold up well in light of basic calculus.

Ah, the wonders of modern learnin'...

[Steven Coyle]

Correllation is also casuation.

[hsandman]

What do you understand by the statement: All is One

Everything that appears separate, is realy just a part of something else, hence "All is one." Can be a valid statement.

[dreadnought]

Hello one and all (hahaha)!

Dreadnought here! Dreadnought by name, dread nought by nature!

Similarly, Zeno's paradoxes don't hold up well in light of basic calculus.

Diogenes proved that some problems are best solved by walking away from them!

All is one is proved by the fact that anything not connected to reality does not partake in reality and thereby not real. Even Diogenes cannot disprove that by walking away!

[Pincho Paxton]

Never trust a paradox...... you will always find that they are false. Best to immediately put them in the false box, and never try to make them work. Later you will find that the solution was wrong.

And of course I bring back Wave/Particle duality as my number 1 victim of the Paradox.

[hsandman]

Hi, Dread :)
"Diogenes proved that some problems are best solved by walking away from them!"

Unless that problem is a tiger that can walk faster than you. :D hence the word "some"in there i guess.

"Temporarily avoided" is more fitting term I think.

[Sapius]

If you are inclined to say that "the all" is "one" due to reasons of causality, then might I suggest that this statement is necessarily true in every possible world? In any universe with any number of objects, including an empty universe, there will be some relation between the objects, if only that they are in the same universe. In all possible worlds, if there is an observer to declare that "the all is the one", then that statement, using the latter, causal interpretation for "all", then the statement is necessarily true, for there is at least one object (the observer) that has some relation with another object (the observer).

I don’t get it. Both objects have to necessarily be observers?

[truth_justice]

daybrown,

I haven't studied Easter Philosophies or Religions in any great extend. How old is the Vedas?

Like, your life is a movie, and there are lotsa movies, but the projection equipment is the same everywhere.

That's an interesting analogy.

I suppose that your intention was to start a discussion about what, exactly, you mean by "the all"

Not exactly.

and in what sense does every thing in that all experience a "oneness" with all other things.

That is of interest, but I don't I fully understand this statement. Can you clarify?

My reply to such hackery would be to say that Indra's Web is a stumbling block, a position from which there is no return, as causal relationships are muddied and definitions become redefined.

Indra's Web? I have not heart this term before.

If you are inclined to say that "the all" is "one" due to reasons of causality, then might I suggest that this statement is necessarily true in every possible world?

I'm more inclined to say All is One in the sense that everything partakes in a whole - Part-Whole relation. Now if "Part-Whole" relation is only possible because of causality, then I suppose your statement and mine are similar. I'm not certain that the statement is true in every possible world. I need to carefully think about this - for I wasn't a C.I. Lewis fan to begin with.

Everything that appears separate, is realy just a part of something else, hence "All is one." Can be a valid statement.

That's my understanding.

Never trust a paradox...... you will always find that they are false. Best to immediately put them in the false box, and never try to make them work. Later you will find that the solution was wrong.

I agree. But how does this relate the the original post? Am I missing something?

[Pincho Paxton]

I agree. But how does this relate the the original post? Am I missing something?

All is one is a paradox, because all = everything, and one = single entity. Not possible, otherwise the word all would not exist. All now has two different states, and two opposite meanings. PARADOX. Even though the meaning can be explained in a sensical manner, you would actually be using the equivelent of mathematical terms AND, OR, XOR, but spoken words that do the same thing.

So if I said..

12 = 1

and people argued, I could then say, "I was talking about dozens" But the word dozens was never mentioned, and I cheated.

I'm just saying that it's a bad habit of humans to explain paradoxes using a very pliable English language. By getting into this habbit you will automatically explain away science indeffinately.

[Tomas]

I agree. But how does this relate the the original post? Am I missing something?

All is one is a paradox, because all = everything, and one = single entity. Not possible, otherwise the word all would not exist. All now has two different states, and two opposite meanings. PARADOX. Even though the meaning can be explained in a sensical manner, you would actually be using the equivelent of mathematical terms AND, OR, XOR, but spoken words that do the same thing.

So if I said..

12 = 1

and people argued, I could then say, "I was talking about dozens" But the word dozens was never mentioned, and I cheated.

I'm just saying that it's a bad habit of humans to explain paradoxes using a very pliable English language. By getting into this habit you will automatically explain away science indefinately.

Well said, Pincho

Thought about replying but pleased to say... i didn't :-)


Tomas
VietNam veteran - 1971

.

[ataxas]

If you are inclined to say that "the all" is "one" due to reasons of causality, then might I suggest that this statement is necessarily true in every possible world? In any universe with any number of objects, including an empty universe, there will be some relation between the objects, if only that they are in the same universe. In all possible worlds, if there is an observer to declare that "the all is the one", then that statement, using the latter, causal interpretation for "all", then the statement is necessarily true, for there is at least one object (the observer) that has some relation with another object (the observer).

I don’t get it. Both objects have to necessarily be observers?

No. In every possible world in which someone can declare "the all is the one", that world has to have at least one object, namely, the observer that is declaring "the all is the one". That observer can observe at least one object, namely himself.

Now, when using the definition of causality so seemingly rampant in this forum, this means that "the all is the one" is a necessary truth, for in every possible world with at least one object about which this observation can be made. Necessary truths are semantically meaningless. The only way to rescue this statement is to redefine causality (may I suggest, in the way that it is generally accepted to be defined, out of mystic circles), or accept that the statement "the all is the one" has a meaning embedded in it that is not semantic, but pragmatic.

[Sapius]

I agree. But how does this relate the the original post? Am I missing something?

All is one is a paradox, because all = everything, and one = single entity. Not possible, otherwise the word all would not exist. All now has two different states, and two opposite meanings. PARADOX. Even though the meaning can be explained in a sensical manner, you would actually be using the equivelent of mathematical terms AND, OR, XOR, but spoken words that do the same thing.

So if I said..

12 = 1

and people argued, I could then say, "I was talking about dozens" But the word dozens was never mentioned, and I cheated.

Similarly, I think what is missing in All is one is, All is one in essence, since they share the same fundamental operation system, say causality, or say the same fundamental nature at a quantum level, but as it is, it gives a wrong impression that "All is one and the same thing", which is incoherent.

For example, Daybrown said…

Like, your life is a movie, and there are lotsa movies, but the projection equipment is the same everywhere.

I would say that the projection system is the same, not equipment. The movies however remain different and hold valid comparative/relative meaning, and it is a movie saying ‘the projection equipment is the same’, so unless a movie holds that thought, which is obviously not the projecting equipment itself, it then holds the meaning. At least one movie AND a projector is necessary.

So, to say the least, if there was but one movie, it would not be the projector obviously, so there has to be at least two.

[truth_justice]

All is one is a paradox, because all = everything, and one = single entity. Not possible, otherwise the word all would not exist. All now has two different states, and two opposite meanings. PARADOX. Even though the meaning can be explained in a sensical manner, you would actually be using the equivelent of mathematical terms AND, OR, XOR, but spoken words that do the same thing.

So if I said..

12 = 1

and people argued, I could then say, "I was talking about dozens" But the word dozens was never mentioned, and I cheated.

I see. You think All is One is a paradox. But consider the parts of a car making up the car. All parts=One car. If the car was the only thing in the universe, then All is One isn't a paradox. I think we say "All" because our senses see "many" things as separate, and we say "One" because in reality, the "many" are actually parts of "One", just like a tire is a part of a car.

Surely, if in reality, many=one, All is One would be a paradox. Just like if we say 12 = 1 and by 12 & 1 we only meant numbers. But as you pointed out, paradoxes should go in the "false box", and the only reason I could think why you think so, is if you think that paradoxes are not part of reality. That is, in reality there is no paradoxes, only in the human mind.

What's you take on this?

[Sapius]

No. In every possible world in which someone can declare "the all is the one", that world has to have at least one object, namely, the observer that is declaring "the all is the one". That observer can observe at least one object, namely himself.

But that is impossible, ataxas. He has to observe something other than himself to know TWO, and then say WE two, or whatever, are ONE. If it is only one, then one cannot even think or say or even know I am one. If he somehow magically manages to even say it, then One with what exactly?

One cannot be conscious of its self if there is absolutely nothing other than its self. If I were the only entity floating around in the cosmos, I could only be aware of myself if I could differentiate between the cosmos and me, even if that be an empty space, which is not me.

[ataxas]

You are making the mistake that "all" has to apply to "more than one". If the observer in such a universe merely declares "I am me", he is effectively saying "the all is the one". I would imagine such an observer would have an easier time claiming that "the all is the one" than any of us; he would have rather more evidence for it.

[Pincho Paxton]

Car = billions of particles.
Me = Billions of Particles.

These explenations are ignoring real life, and using human English Language references. English language is bracketed mathematics.

car = (Engine, tyres, wheels, chassis.. etc)
Engine = (Atoms, electrons, protons..etc)

Like I said, to fix the paradox you will end up cheating. Paradox = false.

Universe = at least 3 ingredients, and you will never get lower than that, because the universe is a mixture, an alchemy. 1 thing will always be 1 thing, and cannot be metamorphed.

[truth_justice]

Car = billions of particles.
Me = Billions of Particles.

Sure. But there are only 120 or so different elements making up the billions of atoms. All of those 120 elements share 3 things in common - electors, protons and neutrons. So in fact, we have only 3 real distinctions. The general direction of is towards unification, for example string theory - which if proven true would imply All is One.

Universe = at least 3 ingredients, and you will never get lower than that, because the universe is a mixture, an alchemy. 1 thing will always be 1 thing, and cannot be metamorphed.

3 ingredients, how so? Do you mean electrons, protons, and neutrons?

[Pincho Paxton]

Car = billions of particles.
Me = Billions of Particles.

Sure. But there are only 120 or so different elements making up the billions of atoms. All of those 120 elements share 3 things in common - electors, protons and neutrons. So in fact, we have only 3 real distinctions. The general direction of is towards unification, for example string theory - which if proven true would imply All is One.

Universe = at least 3 ingredients, and you will never get lower than that, because the universe is a mixture, an alchemy. 1 thing will always be 1 thing, and cannot be metamorphed.

3 ingredients, how so? Do you mean electrons, protons, and neutrons?

The 3 ingredients that are required are 3 forces that can work together to build a universe of everything. Two of the forces need to be opposing, like magnetic polarities. So two of the forces are Negative/Positive energy, which basically creates bubbles. Negative shrinks, Positive expands, and that's a bubble. So there you have a whole bunch of bubbles eventually, and the space between them shrinks, and shrinks, and the bubbles reach a point where the Positive/Negative energy are being forced together. If they ever have to share the same space as each other they will have to burst free. This burst of energy will travel through all of the other bubbles, because none of them can contain this extra energy. This will be a chain reaction, and can create other things, and more chain reactions will follow. Bubbles will expand, and shrink in various places. But this whole process is just two forces, and I said 3. So what is the third ingredient?

None of these random forces could create sentience. They could create planets, and a universe, with all of the known particles, but not sentience. Besides which, it is not likely for forces to oppose one another without some form of knowledge. Positive/Negative opposition is a force of awareness. Each thing knows that it is different to the other, I have broken the universe down to practically nothing, and yet there are still rules. Rules are a sentient, logical thing. So the third thing that you need is sentience, rules, math's whatever you want to call it, there is always some form of logic.

Positive Energy.
Negative Energy.
Basic Sentience Level 1.

[dreadnought]

Dreadnought here! Dreadnought by name. Dread nought by nature!

If things are not connected and therefore one, how can we know about them?

Dreadnought out.

[daybrown]

daybrown,
I haven't studied Easter Philosophies or Religions in any great extend. How old is the Vedas?

Like, your life is a movie, and there are lotsa movies, but the projection equipment is the same everywhere.

That's an interesting analogy.
The Vedas are a lot older than people think. Gimbutas, for one, shows us writing that is 7000 years old, and says there are a lot of stamps, carved in ivory, bone, stone, & molded in clay that go back further, maybe 8000. If you consider all the tels in the Danube basin, you can detect a vast trading network in an are unusually rich in diverse resources. Chalcocite mines in the Transylvanians & Balkans (the Serbs found the earliest mine yet-5400 BC) that produced copper, and even better, arsenic bronze woodworking tools, grain sickles, belt buckels, broaches, etc. Then the bone middens reveal a wide variety of grains, legumes, and bones from both domestic and wild species. Then too, there were the Rumanian oil seeps and tar pits that are still economically important, and the fisheries in the Black sea. Plus the salt mines at Hallstaat & Salzburg...

I could go on at length, but the point is that it was a vast trading network that needed labels for shipping and warehouses to keep track of all the diversity that was coming by ship on the river or sea and oxtrails overland in business 7000 years ago. ITs a nobrainer to move from this set of standard symbols for over 100 commodities in trade- to combining them to form verbs & modifiers. But whereas Egyptian heiroglyphs were for the power elite, who used skilled artists to write, here we have a peer to peer system of merchants in trade who see the economic, rather than cosmic, advantage in some system.

http://www.trypillia.com/info/index.shtml may predate the domestication of the horse, but things really took off 6000 years ago when that happened, and the trading empire started spreading across the Steppes, ending up in China 4000 years ago. Somewhere in the interim, these traders met lots of other people with lots of other cosmological ideas. And unlike Egypt, since there was no power elite, different ideas were entertained and traded.

Also unlike the Levant & Egypt, where the political elite wanted literal history spun the way they wanted, the Aryans, like the later Greeks, wanted good stories with a deeper focus on allegorical truth; not literal truth. And in that case, the exact year something was spozed to have happened, didnt matter. So there's no way to nail down the Vedas, nor was there ever a canon with the authority, like the Council of Nicea, to determine what was heresy.

Since we have Tocharian documents from the 5th century in a fully developed literary tradition, we have to assume that they arrived in NW China with a good part of that already developed in what is now Uzbekistan & Turkmenistan. And since Tocharian is a Centum language, it predates the split by Satem Sanskrit & Indo-Iranian. Everything east of Tripolye is a satem language but Tocharian. Its noteworthy that Celtic and Tocharian are both centum, and both wove twill fabric in plaid and even similar classic tartan. So- the Tocharians arrive in NW China with several Celtic traditions, among which its reasonable to assume some form of writing that predated Tripolye & the domestication of the horse.

But bear in mind, the authors of the Vedas were part of that professional merchant class able to have the leisure for art, and that 95% of the local populations were illiterate, often speaking their own tribal languages. Just as in India today, only the elite understands the Sanskrit of the Vedas, or in Europe, the Latin & Greek of philosophy.

Ethnobotanist Wasson, "The Road to Eleusis" makes a powerful case that Kykeion, the sacred potion used at Eleusis, was laced with Lysergic acids. Among the more familiar clues is that thing on top of the heads of the caryatids as pillars of the Propyleum. Each has a "Kiste", a sacred serving vessel, which if reconstructed and colorized would be recognized by any acid head as "trippy". In like manner, the Eastern Mandalas and ornamentation of Hindu art has psychedelic properties that relate to eidetics and the way the occipital lobes process images when in altered states of consciousness, ie tripping.

And one of the common tripping experiences is a bird's eye view of the body from some point outside; like looking down at a movie of yourself. If you consider that experience later on, in a slower, more rational frame of mind, you understand how it resembles a 3D projection. A Holodeck or Matrix. LSD will do it. So will Amanita Muscaria. So will concoctions of cannabis, ephedra, and opium... which were found, still in the bowls at the Ashrams near Gonor & Togoluk. Which, 4000 years ago, were near the center of the great Aryan Trading empire.

From what I know of those Ashrams, I dont doubt for a moment that those there knew the Vedas, and could well have written parts of them. Prior to the rise of Christianity, there were lotsa places in Europe, that like Mayan shamen to this very day, hosted initiation rituals with entheogenic potions. The drug trade was a real big deal. Course, they didnt have heroin or Cocaine, or any of the really dangerous artificial compounds now in use.

[Carl G]

Ah, how interesting it is how nearly every philosophical question eventually leads to flashbacks on commerce along the ancient spice trails of the Asian alpha 'hood, and the LSD matrix as expressing forth from the DNA of exquisite girlhood in the back of a '57 Chevy in the SE Ozarks, USA, circa 1965.

Indeed, All is One.

[hsandman]

Ah, how interesting it is how nearly every philosophical question eventually leads to flashbacks on commerce along the ancient spice trails of the Asian alpha 'hood, and the LSD matrix as expressing forth from the DNA of exquisite girlhood in the back of a '57 Chevy in the SE Ozarks, USA, circa 1965.

Indeed, All is One.

daybrowns thought processes, realy bug you... lol. Why is that Carl? Just curious.

truth_justice wrote:
daybrown,
I haven't studied Easter Philosophies or Religions in any great extend. How old is the Vedas?

In response to what:

daybrown wrote:
Like, your life is a movie, and there are lotsa movies, but the projection equipment is the same everywhere