top of page
Subscribe to Multidimensional blog by ANA333

Thanks for submitting! You rock!

NOTE: Expressive language often in use.


Reinterpreting Oneness | Politics

"We are one" has long been thought that I am you and you are me, we are each other at some point or another. At least that is the spiritually monistic perspective as seen in Hinduism and Taoism. But what if there's a different perspective? Besides other religions, I mean. What if there's another interpretation?

one plus one plus one plus one plus one plus one plus

Here I come to rock the boat! (Enter Mighty Mouse theme earworm. You're welcome ;) What if they (the ones who arrived at monism) are right about the the statement, but someone(s) misinterpreted its meaning over time? Once "they" are gone, who could correct them? We simply kept on with the misinterpretation and stopped questioning its validity. Path of least resistance, I suppose.

What if people are to humanity as sand is to a beach? The pieces that comprise the whole are all different. They simply make up a larger unit, like trees to a forest or stars to a galaxy. Nature says it over and over again. The individual piece is merely part of a larger picture. So, on a philosophical level, "I" am a conscious individual (Rene Descartes: I think, therefore, I am) but I am also part of a larger organism; humanity; a dot among other dots, like a Seurat painting, composing a Sunday Afternoon. I'm just saying that we are not "one" as some believe, rather we are many comprising a whole. As we change, the whole changes.

We are each so different on a detailed level, but so the same from a distance. And further still, like mites living on skin, we are virtually irrelevant. Do you even notice them? They're there. So, considering this perspective, why do people try to govern countries from an individual (detailed) perspective when the distance from the individual is already far, even at the county level? Like physics and quantum physics, the individual doesn't necessarily abide by the same rules as the whole of society. To govern one versus governing many is not ruling the same organism.

I can't say I've solved the problem, but at least I'm beginning to define it instead of ignoring it as many appear to do. Due to scale, I don't think it can have a unified resolution. However, we can definitely influence the whole by choosing which parts to incorporate. Don't get carried away... I'm not suggesting we eliminate anyone. I'm saying that if the individual is more mindful of their personal output, that ultimately changes the whole. If the choice is on the "better" side (it's subjective), and many individuals deliberately choose that same side, it shifts the balance of the whole of humanity.

We have a choice as individuals, although that entails responsibility and that's a whole other matter. Still, choice. Let's stop pretending like we can't change the world. I think you can change the world. I think I can change the world. If you're reading this and you've entertained my perspective, perhaps I changed a bit of what, or even how you think. One thing leads to another, a piece at a time. We are all connected, but we are still not "one" in the sense that I am you and you are me. That opens up other cans of worms though, doesn't it? #stinkinthinkin

9 views0 comments

Recent Posts

See All


bottom of page