Unity and interconnectedness: Difference between revisions

Line 66:

The second of these hypotheses is that the illusion of separateness does not stem from a hardware problem but a software problem. It is entirely possible that unity may well be the default evolutionary perspective through which human beings originally operated, but it has been suppressed through a purely cultural or, more specifically, linguistic problem. This could potentially stem from the way that despite the many obvious benefits of language, it pays a price through completely reorganizing our thought structure and perception of the world into a system of intrinsically separate labels that in reality are merely glimpses of a unified whole. It’s an overcoming of this deeply embedded illusion that hallucinogens and meditation could theoretically rise above by suppressing the linguistic thought structure of the ego and allowing our consciousness to see reality for what it really is.

If the universal definition of the self can be defined as “the thinker behind one's thoughts”, identifying a separate individual component besides the singular whole which serves this purpose seems to be inherently impossible on both a physical and a philosophical level. This realization (which may well be overly simplified or completely wrong) indicates that one is permitted to use terms such as “I”, “you”, and so on, but not because they refer to an empirical and separate self. Instead we are permitted to use them simply because they are convenient symbolic approximations or linguistic tools for use in conversation which, through social interactions with others, we have been taught to believe as something so much more than what they really are.

'''If the universal definition of the self can be defined as “the thinker behind one's thoughts”, identifying a separate individual component besides the singular whole which serves this purpose seems to be inherently impossible on both a physical and a philosophical level. This realization (which may well be overly simplified or completely wrong) indicates that one is permitted to use terms such as “I”, “you”, and so on, but not because they refer to an empirical and separate self. Instead we are permitted to use them simply because they are convenient symbolic approximations or linguistic tools for use in conversation which, through social interactions with others, we have been taught to believe as something so much more than what they really are.'''

=====Examples of unity throughout history and culture=====

@@ Line 66: / Line 66: @@
 The second of these hypotheses is that the illusion of separateness does not stem from a hardware problem but a software problem. It is entirely possible that unity may well be the default evolutionary perspective through which human beings originally operated, but it has been suppressed through a purely cultural or, more specifically, linguistic problem. This could potentially stem from the way that despite the many obvious benefits of language, it pays a price through completely reorganizing our thought structure and perception of the world into a system of intrinsically separate labels that in reality are merely glimpses of a unified whole. It’s an overcoming of this deeply embedded illusion that hallucinogens and meditation could theoretically rise above by suppressing the linguistic thought structure of the ego and allowing our consciousness to see reality for what it really is.
-If the universal definition of the self can be defined as “the thinker behind one's thoughts”, identifying a separate individual component besides the singular whole which serves this purpose seems to be inherently impossible on both a physical and a philosophical level. This realization (which may well be overly simplified or completely wrong) indicates that one is permitted to use terms such as “I”, “you”, and so on, but not because they refer to an empirical and separate self. Instead we are permitted to use them simply because they are convenient symbolic approximations or linguistic tools for use in conversation which, through social interactions with others, we have been taught to believe as something so much more than what they really are.
+'''If the universal definition of the self can be defined as “the thinker behind one's thoughts”, identifying a separate individual component besides the singular whole which serves this purpose seems to be inherently impossible on both a physical and a philosophical level. This realization (which may well be overly simplified or completely wrong) indicates that one is permitted to use terms such as “I”, “you”, and so on, but not because they refer to an empirical and separate self. Instead we are permitted to use them simply because they are convenient symbolic approximations or linguistic tools for use in conversation which, through social interactions with others, we have been taught to believe as something so much more than what they really are.'''
 =====Examples of unity throughout history and culture=====