Personal Development for Smart People Forums - View Single Post

Michael Chui · 07-18-2007, 02:13 PM

So, here's a question for you all.

ShiningLight recently posted Who am I NOT? and jtrikster is asking People are representations of yourself?. Both of these questions point to the suggestion that there exists no individual but what Steve Pavlina calls the God-consciousness, or subjective reality.

And yet, I recently used this against a friend of mine where we debated the question of whether or not multiple identities exist. And while I'm entirely unconvinced by his argument (which was basically "Identities possess traits, and some traits cannot coexist with other traits; thus, differing identities must exist"), something about it made me deeply uneasy.

A long time ago, it was suggested to me that, at the end of the universe, there are really only three possibilities: nothing, one thing, and many things. Nothing is the least likely; it would certainly violate physical principles, but there are some models of thought that support it. The latter two options become (I can't articulate the path here) a question of the nature of intelligence and, in a sense, consciousness, sentience, and all those other weighty words.

My model of human relationships follows a similar path. While I have pointed out that knowledge is the most significant metric of all, my model distinguishes a secondary axis which I call "equality". On one end, you have "compassion" and on the other, you have "alienation". Knowledge splits itself between love (understanding + compassion) and discrimination (understanding + alienation).

So, there are two perspectives to ask of this. One is our usual frame of seeing things. While we may accept that, we are disparate bodies today, in the millenial future, we may merge into One. The other perspective is the world without time: in which case, the question simply collapses into a simple yes or no: are we One?

I'm not sure. To reiterate ShiningLight's question, there are some things which I am opposed to. I do not, for instance, believe a theocracy is a good government. I do not believe that sex has a biological effect on competence. I am nearly certain that the current, mainstream American education system is a farce. These are things that are not part of me. I am also not a dancer, nor am I a soldier. I am not Greek, nor am I physically female.

This suggests, ultimately, that my friend is right. I, whatever I am, possess an identity independent of others'. But what I am is questionable, because under the model Steve presents, this so-called identity is merely a container and that it is distinguished from other containers is no different than the distinction between my two arms.

So, what do you guys think? One or many? And why? Do you have any other frames or perspectives that might shed light on the subject?

07-18-2007, 02:13 PM	#1 (permalink)
Michael Chui Family Member Join Date: Nov 2006 Location: Seattle, Washington, USA Posts: 3,977	The Existence of the Individual So, here's a question for you all. ShiningLight recently posted Who am I NOT? and jtrikster is asking People are representations of yourself?. Both of these questions point to the suggestion that there exists no individual but what Steve Pavlina calls the God-consciousness, or subjective reality. And yet, I recently used this against a friend of mine where we debated the question of whether or not multiple identities exist. And while I'm entirely unconvinced by his argument (which was basically "Identities possess traits, and some traits cannot coexist with other traits; thus, differing identities must exist"), something about it made me deeply uneasy. A long time ago, it was suggested to me that, at the end of the universe, there are really only three possibilities: nothing, one thing, and many things. Nothing is the least likely; it would certainly violate physical principles, but there are some models of thought that support it. The latter two options become (I can't articulate the path here) a question of the nature of intelligence and, in a sense, consciousness, sentience, and all those other weighty words. My model of human relationships follows a similar path. While I have pointed out that knowledge is the most significant metric of all, my model distinguishes a secondary axis which I call "equality". On one end, you have "compassion" and on the other, you have "alienation". Knowledge splits itself between love (understanding + compassion) and discrimination (understanding + alienation). So, there are two perspectives to ask of this. One is our usual frame of seeing things. While we may accept that, we are disparate bodies today, in the millenial future, we may merge into One. The other perspective is the world without time: in which case, the question simply collapses into a simple yes or no: are we One? I'm not sure. To reiterate ShiningLight's question, there are some things which I am opposed to. I do not, for instance, believe a theocracy is a good government. I do not believe that sex has a biological effect on competence. I am nearly certain that the current, mainstream American education system is a farce. These are things that are not part of me. I am also not a dancer, nor am I a soldier. I am not Greek, nor am I physically female. This suggests, ultimately, that my friend is right. I, whatever I am, possess an identity independent of others'. But what I am is questionable, because under the model Steve presents, this so-called identity is merely a container and that it is distinguished from other containers is no different than the distinction between my two arms. So, what do you guys think? One or many? And why? Do you have any other frames or perspectives that might shed light on the subject?