The Principle of Our Difference Is Our Similarity

[bkadoctaj]

Alright, so I just had a realization that basically rivals my personal enlightenment for depth and meaning to me. It really struck me to the core just how simple, and yet how profound this existence is. So here goes an attempt to relay, in the best and most appropriate words I can find at the moment, my understanding.

In order to describe a thing, we must first find another thing to distinguish between. How can one realize that a thing is separate (different) from another without finding yet another thing? If one perceives a difference, and attempts to communicate (understand or comprehend) it (to oneself), one must create a concept or a term, so as to visualize or "recreate" the difference even in the absence of direct perception. When this interpretation of a direct perception is communicated in the absence of the original things, we have what may be called indirect perception. This indirect perception is made by another conscious entity (oneself in a later, different moment; another in a different location; etc.).

Thus, when the indirect perception occurs, the true difference that was directly perceived is not there to be perceived by the second perceiver. (In the same "perceiver" but in a later moment, however, it would be called a memory.) What is being perceived is the first entity's perception of an unknown difference. What follows, therefore, is that the second perceiver must fill in some of the blanks in the communication, which cannot truly describe the original difference. The issue is that the original difference was perceived because separation of things occurred (how it did is clearly up to interpretation, and is thus irrelevant because the direct perceiver cannot even explain how it came to that perception, for it does not even know how it perceived of its own perception in the first place).

In other words, a principle of separation pervades all things. A principle of difference. And that is the one similarity that we all recognize in principle. This principle even pervades principle itself: separation between principle and manifestation of it in form. (The principle of "chair" is not an actual chair, but what does it look like? It cannot be looked at, because to look means there is something else looking at it! Separation again...)

So how can we communicate about the principle of separation if it is even within principle itself? We use the word "it". The word "it" is perceived by every being that is/exists, and yet we cannot say what "it" looks like. Yet, what cannot be "it"? Any word can be called "it". Any concept can be called "it". Any conscious thing can be called "it". Any perception can be called "it". "It" really is the nameless, the formless, the void.

It is the way to transform distinction into unity. It is the way. It exists everyday. It never comes nor goes away. It is here to stay. So what do you say?

Question: So what are you going to do to apply your realization to the "real world", where people are starving, wars are going on, people are lying and cheating others, money is sometimes valued more than human lives, and animals are mistreated and abused?

Answer: This answer comes from the heart within each of us. My answer would be that, since I find myself best able to think in a philosophical manner and wish to apply my understanding of things in the field of political science, where I have found much inspiration and also many possible theoretical and rational interpretations, I would participate in eroding the concept (limited/ing concrete box) of the non-universal state. Call me pro-Pangea, but I would stress that I do not support truly divisive political systems, only syncretic ones. The reason that the negative things mentioned in the question above exist is because lines are drawn between those on the butt end (being perceived) and those perceiving of those things happening. I would work to make those lines invisible. The lines are imaginary, drawn within the mind, which perceives, while each of us interprets. To change people's consciousness to recognize and accept the humanity and oneness within us all, that is my aim. It is my aim, because I recognize the principles of humanity and oneness as pervading me.

In simple words: "We must strive to understand each other, as we strive to understand ourselves."

In Golden Rule terms: "Do unto others what you would have done unto you."

[Cali Ounces]

your my boy blue.

+rep for making me feel like im not the only one that walks these winding paths of thought.

[bkadoctaj]

I can't believe there was but one reply to my heart's call to "y'all".

EDIT: Yes, I can believe it, actually. Do I prefer it...? Nah.

[bommer09]

Nice post dude! Really got me thinking again on the subject. I think I get what you're saying. Basically, that perception is relative, and when we compare something with something else, that something else is almost non-existant or a memory or some other intangible device. And that because of this there really isn't a point in bickering or arguing and that we should all come together to help out one another.

If I'm wrong let me know. + rep

[bkadoctaj]

Originally Posted by bommer09

Nice post dude! Really got me thinking again on the subject. I think I get what you're saying. Basically, that perception is relative, and when we compare something with something else, that something else is almost non-existant or a memory or some other intangible device. And that because of this there really isn't a point in bickering or arguing and that we should all come together to help out one another.

If I'm wrong let me know. + rep

Nah, you got the gist. Thanks for the rep.

My real point: if this isn't happening [world peace, yet, for example], and people reading my post aren't thinking this way, what are they running from? Themselves?