“To be all is to be a devil of oneness which has come to destroy the parts; oneness is destructive to the parts- to all that differentiates itself from the whole, unless that ‘differentness’ arises as a devotional expression of the unified glory. For all that does not acknowledge, bless, or support this fusion into oneness must either be assimilated or trimmed off and melted away. That is the apocalypse of oneness.”
- END -
ASSOCIATED CONTENT @TMBCHR (Auto-Generated)
- The New Human
- Demiurge Demurrage Devil Dis Pater
- Jay-Z Freemason?
- The Blues & The Hebrew Book of Lamentations
- Shakespeare to Dogs
14 Comments
I totally agree with this. It’s why God ‘was, is, and every shall be’. You can’t have an Alpha and Omega without including all and everything…
This explains why only the unmanifest is truly whole, because only the unmanifest can include all possibilities.
The function of the true whole is blessed, whether or not anyone thinks it is.
It’s just better for us all if we can start realizing that and acting accordingly…
So say you are at a 360 degree crossroads. What then?
I guess I don’t get it.
Maybe I should break it down.
Ok, that makes sense. That’s the sin of wanting to be God. Absolutism.
Ok, this part confuses me, because it seemed like the first part was a bad thing then this starts to sound like a good thing.
Buy anyway, I still think its a bad thing. Its bad to want to trim off or assimilate other people or other energy, ideas, etc.
So anyway, the article is about individuation. To me that is about taking on limitation. Its a good thing. You can’t be God. You can’t be everywhere at once, you can’t stay in a sea of limitless possibility forever. You have to touch down to Earth. You have to Square the circle.
So now I understand this paragraph, but I don’t get your comment Ian.
You seem to be quoting and agreeing with what the author is saying is a bad thing. Do you agree its bad or are you saying its good?
I am saying that in the TRUE WHOLE there is no bad or good. Oneness already exists, we just have to stop being blind to it. Good and bad is in the mind, only.
Ok, Now I get it. I read it again. Its a good kind of fire, like a refiners fire.
So its like being a holon or a microcosm as opposed to a seperate part.
Anyway though, its a weird thing this alchemy of squaring the circle, because a square is a lot less beautiful and more mundane than a circle. A square is kind of boring.
But you can’t be the whole circle. Every attaempt to square the circle is off. You just get closer and closer and never get there. You just have to be resigned to it bt still work like you might actually pull it off.
Yeah, I guess that is what the Tao is. Geometry reveals all this underlying unity. People living in “golden ages” are aware of it. People living in “dark ages” are not.
So then you get urban sprawl instead of sacred architecture. But that kind of reveals that its possible to bugger things up, even though everything is supposedly already perfect.
Makes you wonder. There is a problem with the language. If everything is perfect how does it all get so fucked up?
I was thinking about this recently though. The yin yang symbol is misinterpreted by westerners to mean good and evil, with a little bit of good in evil and little bit of evil in good.
But that’s not it. Then I was struck from drawing the symbol that its like the Earth Rotating, viewed from above with one side in day and the other in darkness. The white dot could be moonlight and the black dot could be shadows that appear during the day.
Westerners symbolize evil with nocturnal creatures like bats. Bat wings are demon wings, white dove wings are angel wings.
I was thinking of this too looking at a book of Geiger’s work. Its supposed to be so evil, but its really just sexual imagery, and other body functions and industrial pipes and wires and stuff, warfare, maybe some thing about predation.
I was thinking, its dark, because its things people don’t like to think about. Can’t really point to one thing as being totally illustrative of “evil itself” in any of his work.
and
EXACTLY what I’m saying. The yinyang’s not good and evil, it’s the active and the passive (and is also misinterpreted as masculine/feminine). The manifest and the unmanifest. It’s the acceptance of the existence of both these together that allow us to actually manifest our desires in the world.
One thing I will say about the circle/square, is that it can also be compared to Heaven and Earth. To update this for today, Heaven is Space, where there is no gravity. All things are possible, but there’s nothing keeping things together. Push off in the wrong direction, and there’s no gravity (ie: attraction) to keep you from drifting forever. On Earth, there’s gravity, which stops us from flying, but also keeps us from floating away. Heaven and Earth, Mind and Body, Square and Circle.
(this shouldn’t be confused with the Yin/Yang though, because both Heaven and Earth can be active, and both Heaven and Earth can be passive).
Tim. I think I may have just created a 4 line iChing. (lower case “i” on purpose there…)
Heaven active in the first line can be yes (closed line) or no (broken line)
Heaven passive in the second line can be yes (closed line) or no (broken line)
Earth active in the third line can be yes (closed line) or no (broken line)
Earth passive in the fourth line can be yes (closed line) or no (broken line)
There’s your four quadrants. But then again, why reinvent the wheel?
See also: Priestess, Empress, Emperor, and Pope. This stuff is everyware…
Well reconciling “good” and “evil” with the whole is something I have been into for some time.
Like for example reading all this David Icke and learning about these “Satanic bloodlines” and then doing my geneology and finding he’s talking about my ancestors and distant cousins.
(probably David Icke’s distant cousins too)
But practically speaking its a hard thing to pull off. Nietzsche, taken in small does and in the right way, can help.
But anyway, Rich well connected people running giant green corporations and making billions might torque a lot of people off, but we have to have it out there as a possibility that might be the best for all concerned.
Imagine Darth Vader running a sustainable corporation. Its hard to embrace.
Judgements of Good and evil are tough to let go.
What about thinking that is right that we have the most nukes? That that’s part of the benevolent design of the Universe?
Nuclear weapons are an aspect of the Tao.
So’s the complete and utter destruction of the human race and all life on earth. It’s just not in our best interests to explore that part of the Tao…
@ted, its poetry, you can’t really break it down. just let it wash over you and then move beyond
I interpreted this through the body. If you choose to be ‘one’ without acknowledging that you are made up of individual organs that need varying levels of attention you will be your own worst enemy and your ‘oneness’ will be destroyed. Not too poetic but at least I felt like I got a strong meaning from it.