Trascending the Many and the One--Acheiving a state of boundlessness

[JTCrace]

Here I will deal specifically with the lines contained in the song ‘Reflection’: “And you will come to find/ That we are all one mind/ Capable of all that’s imagined and all conceivable.”

Let me preface this by saying that yes, this is a beautifully poetic line, not to mention a wonderfully arranged musical piece. But, I want to examine the ontological/philosophical/spiritual implications of the aforementioned lines.

The third line mentioned states that, “ (We are) Capable of all that’s imagined and all conceivable.” This is a poetic way of saying that the One Mind has infinite powers.

To say, “We are all One Mind capable of that’s imagined and all that’s conceivable,” is actually a misunderstanding. The noun “we,” in other words, the Many, naturally implies its opposite, namely, the One. Maynard is identifying the Many with the One. He isn’t maintaining the appropriate distance between the Self’s Multiplicity (Many-ness) and the Self’s Transcendence (Oneness). Saying that the Many is the One is just as wrong as saying that they the Many is NOT the One. In fact, the case must be both if one is to truly maintain the Self’s truly unlimited nature.

This means that the Self cannot be an individual person because the Self cannot be limited to time and space as each individual thing is limited in time and space. However, the Self cannot be totally transcendent (beyond individual things) because then the Self is also being limited…by saying that the Self cannot be each individual thing!

If one wants to speak of total unlimitedness, true omnipotence, then one cannot work in dualities. Identifying with one or identifying the other, or even as Maynard does, identifying one with the other, does not work. The Buddha suggested a wonderful way out of this problem….

He solved by it by maintaining an attitude of boundlessness. If a Being is truly boundless, then a Being may choose to be separate, or a Being may choose to be one with everything. But ultimately, if a Being has honestly achieved a state of infinite potential, then a Being is NEITHER. And a Being is neither not in a negative sense, but in a positive sense. Meaning, as I mentioned above, that a Being is neither in the sense that a Being may choose to be either one. (In fact a Being in a state of infinite potential is no longer a Being because the Being would have transcended the beingness/not-beingness duality…the Being is then truly “unrecognizable” as it was said of the Buddha in the Pali Canon).

The way to resolve or transcend dualities is by being both poles. If one is capable of doing this, one would clearly see that one is neither pole. The highest spiritual technologies out there, from ancient to modern, are aimed at literally achieving this insight.

If Maynard is really referring to an actual experience in the song, then that means he has had a fantastic spiritual experience. But, it seems by analyzing his lyrics it’s obvious he doesn’t clearly understand his experience. If he would combine his mystical intuition with his reason, he may come to a true understanding of, well, the truth.

* I would like to thank Max Sandor, Ibn 'Arabi, Ed Dawson, Siddhartha Gotoma and Maynard James Keenan for inspiring and helping me in my understanding*

[Cyanide ChrYst]

Yeah, that or the song is actually about the general transcending of senseless drama/worries/pain.

[Triangular_Vision]

fuck you, emotions are not senseless because they are in fact a sense themselves... you are an asshole.

[Cyanide ChrYst]

Reacting to a situation is not senseless; the situation itself is...thanks for the plate of Dumbass, though.

[paraflux]

Maynard refers to concepts using the words that the English language allows for. Saying all you have said is not necessary or timely when you are writing poetry. As long as the gist of the message is understood, the goal is accomplished.

[JTCrace]

The fact of the matter is that we are NOT all one mind capable of all that's imagined and all that's conceivable. Poetry aside, it's simply not the Truth.

Yes, the Absolute does manifest itself in multiplicity (obviously). But it is certainly not this multiplicity that has omnipotence. It is the Absolute; which is the One that precedes the idea of the Many.

Your sorely mistaken in implying that the English language cannot convey truth, or point to it rather. It just depends on how you use it.

And the gist of the message is not understood. There are far too many misguided souls barking their agreement to the lyrics, without any personal and/or theoretical knowledge of these levels of reality. If they did, then others would be saying the same thing that I am. They're not. It needs correction and I wanted that correction to be on the books. Makes me feel important and shit.

[paraflux]

Twisted.

People have different paths, correct? So how then, can someone else have the identical perspective as you? They cant. The unity is not in the experiential perspective. It is levels above that, above individuality, above duality. You claim to know what the Truth "isnt" so what do you consider it to BE? I have seen the One. Instantly, I knew I would always refer to it as the "electric network." All energy connected, flowing together. Even though I call it the electric network, it still does not convey the entirety of the experience or the actual persona that I ascribe to it. Words are just symbols, and when we experience something outside the realm of "normality," there are probably no words that can accurately depict what we experienced.

How can I be sorely mistaken for something that I didnt say? I never said words cannot point to truth.

The gist of the message goes back to the different paths. The lyrics will mean different things to everybody, because people will take them differently. The words and the music go hand in hand in Tool, unlike 90% of the music out there today. The music means just as much to the listener as the words do, or at least it has that potential. Tool here in Reflection places the listener in an atmosphere that will show the One Mind, will place images in their heads that show everything connected. So thats why I and everyone else are not saying the same thing as you. Because we have our own perspective on the One. So there's my personal and theoretical knowledge on this level of reality, or some of it, anyway.

[paraflux]

The fact of the matter is that we are NOT all one mind capable of all that's imagined and all that's conceivable. Poetry aside, it's simply not the Truth.

Yes, the Absolute does manifest itself in multiplicity (obviously). But it is certainly not this multiplicity that has omnipotence. It is the Absolute; which is the One that precedes the idea of the Many.

I addressed the last part of your post last time, I will address this part this time.

The fact of the matter is that we ARE all one mind capable of all that's imagined and all that's conceivable. Poetry aside, it is simply part of the truth. I dont know where you get your truth from, and thats ok. Vice versa, as well. Everyone has their own personal truths. What is true for you might not be true for me, etc. You call the One the "Absolute." Is that really a good name for it? Since nothing escapes the power and necessity of change, is there such a thing as an absolute? I say absolutely not. Truth does not escape change. You are looking at it in a dualistic light, still. Multiplicity vs. One. They are the same thing. That is the key to understanding unity. There does not have to be such a thing as dualism anymore.

[JTCrace]

1.) Yes, paths are different, on the inside (or externally, however you wish to put it)

2.) How can someone have the same perspective as me? Uhhh, by duplicating my viewpoint. The hallmark of communication by the way.

3.) The Absolute on the level of unity is not "in the experential perspective." Are you saying it can't be experienced? Agreed.

4.) You said that the Absolute on the level of unity is senior to individuality (which is one pole of a dichotomy) and duality. Right.

5.) What do I consider the truth to be? Truth is created and destroyed. In other words, it is whatever you want it to be.

6.) You said that you "saw" the One; you used the word "experience" three times after affirming in the prior paragraph that the Absolute at the level of unity is "not in the experiential perspective."

7.) I never said that things aren't connected. They are. But they are separate as well (they'd have to be for one to perceive a connection).

8.) You said: "Nothing escapes change." You're right. The Absolute is not a thing. It is the source of things. Tell me how you came to the conclusion that everything changes. By looking, right? Yeah, when I look I see the same thing too. But, perception is relative. You can't perceive the Absolute, namely, because it's not relative. Stop looking. What changes? Nothing. (Ironically, Siddhartha Gotama in the Pali Canon called the highest boundless state "Neither perception nor non-perception.")

9.) The Multiplicity and the One are not the same thing. They have the same Source. I suggest you read, and re-read my original post. If you wish to disprove a statement, follow the line of reasoning. Makes it easier to discuss.

You're total subjectivism (i.e. everyone has completely, utterly different perspectives) is incorrect. As everyone's subjective realities interact, an objective structure is going to be created. This structure will have certain characteristsics that lie senior to anyone's subjective reality.

[Cyanide ChrYst]

I think your interpretation of the song turns into bullshit when it actually becomes longer than the song itself.

[paraflux]

1) Paths are different internally and externally, in all possible ways, starting with childhood experiences that mold the perspective of the child human. This is why no two perspectives are identical. This is why every perspective is unique. Except in the case of multiple births (twins) you will very rarely find cases of identical perspectives, and only concerning some subjects.

2) Duplicating your viewpoint? Show me the cut and paste option in the human brain and I will agree. Hallmark of communication? Maybe hallmark of brainwashing, but if a speaker speaks to a room of a thousand people, those thousand people will come away with a thousand different understandings of what the speaker said. Goes back to unique perspectives. People take their input and compute it, and based on their perspective, come out with different answers, whether they be highly similar or completely opposing.

3) Try as I might, I cannot recollect what I meant by the sentence "The unity is not in the experiential perspective." Thats what I get for trying to be smart. But no, I was not saying that what you call the Absolute cannot be experienced, because I have experienced it firsthand.

4) Yes.

5) Yes. Keep this in mind when you make absolute statements.

6) see #3

7) They are connected, and separate, yes. Does this mean we have to take a side, one or the other? No. It simply means that they appear to be different things depending on which level we are currently perceiving them. Elevating consciousness allows the view to expand, allowing us as observers to see clearer pictures of the reality concerning connectivity.

8) What you call the Absolute is the same thing as the source, same thing as the One, same thing as the collective. Quantum physics teaches us that our very brain waves, thought patterns, affect whatever it is that we are observing. Imagine the power of all of our minds together, observing, directing. This is where we were at the beginning of time. Together, observing, directing, creating. This is why we are humans and we are also a part of God, a part of the Absolute, or the source, whatever you want to call it. Energy cannot be created or destroyed, only transformed, so where were we in the beginning? Exploding with the gasses, making the building blocks for life as we know it today. In the beginning, God created the heavens and the Earth. We created the heavens and the Earth, all we are is reflections of God, shards of God, pieces of God, children of God. Where do you get that the Absolute (I have given up and just used your term for it) is not relative?

9) I dont wish to disprove anything, because by doing that I simply take a train of thought and re-route it down another path which is equally as false as the one I brought it from, since everything is constantly changing. I am just discussing my viewpoint on the matter. I certainly dont wish you or any free thinker to follow me, because my path might not gel with your perspective. Doesnt mean that one of us or both, or neither are right or wrong, because in the end we will aspire to reach the same goal.

Completely and utterly different perspectives? I dont mean to imply that perspectives cannot be similar. I just mean that people's reasons for having certain perspectives bring them to similar or different conclusions, based on those different experiences and thoughts.

and, great input there, cyanide.

[JTCrace]

Acknowledged.

I want to first talk a little about duplication. I think you'll find this interesting.

Many individuals go and see psychotherapists. Some, definitely not all, experience relief from past trauma. But what is the mechanism that allows for this relief to occur? Freud said something to the effect of: Locate a trauma and run through it until the patient rises in emotion. What exactly is going on during this process?

Scientologists call it the "Perfect duplicate." An experience is created again, later, and this destroys the original experience--erases it. This is exactly what is occurring in regressive psychotherapy. Normally, as individuals have experiences, like if one goes for a walk or talks to a friend, the experience does not persist. And it does not persist because the experience is confronted totally, it is seen "as-is" and the experience is gone as soon as it was there. The reason why the trauma is persisting is because the patient was unable to confront the experience. The patient did not percieve the experience "as-is" and therefore the experience persists. Now what happens is that a person, instead of "as-ising" the experience, will "not-is" the experience. This "not-is" is a sad, ineffective attempt to vanish the experience. But there always remains the possibility of perceiving the experience again, creating it again, in mental space; if one can does this perfectly, then the negative energy that accumulated around the experience vanishes. Hence, rise in emotional tone.

This is what occurs in true communication. A person creates symbols that convey a particular meaning. Another person perceives this, creates it for himself and the communication then vanishes. This is why in good comm you always want to acknowledge the other person's communication: you're letting him or her know that you have created the communication too--in other words, duplicated his intention.

Dude, if there wasn't a possibility of duplication, communication would be impossible. You're talking about association I think. You're talking about someone tells me something and I associate it with all the insane contents of my mind. True communication is far senior to minds man. I think it's wrong when communicating to someone to associate my fucked up mind with their communication.

Example: Someone tells me they saw beautiful blue flower today. Of course when they say this, I might have an association. I might see a blue flower in my mind just like they do. But it's not the image of the thought they are conveying, or the meaning of the thought they are conveying, but the thought as it is.

Normally, in communication you have one or more terminals. One terminal (1), the source-point, sends across a thought to the other terminal, the receipt-point (2). There is distance.

1>- - - - - - -<2

But what about telepathy? There is no distance, no time lag, it's instantaneous. The thought is appearing in two different locations at the same time. But is it? It's my contention that really it's the same being having a thought that is perceived in two different locations, by two different terminals. And this tells us something interesting about "regular communication": it's telepathy with the consideration of distance thrown in.

So, duplication happens man. There are a lot of minds out there, and a lot of associations to be made. But there is only one God, the God, Allah if you will. And He's just communicating to himself, but we see it as ME communcating to YOU.

So really, duplication would prove that as you ascend inte the heavenly realms, beingness comes back together and forms into One Being.

And why do I think that the Absolute isn't relative? Uhhh, because it's the Absolute.

[paraflux]

I imagine that telepathy is more than simply communication without distance. Telepathy can convey images, or sounds, or smells, or anything involving the senses that can more accurately describe the intent of the communication. Thats why Tool does more than the average band. They plant images, create atmospheres, they convey meanings to places inside of me that I forgot existed. They shine light in places inside me that were overrun by other things, disguising the ancient knowledge as rubble underneath my ego. I agree with you saying that God sees our communication as talking to himself. I just think you are trying to separate the two into separate entities, where it is no longer necessary. We no longer have to eat of the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil, right and wrong, black and white, left and right. I dont think we are saying different things, actually, I just think we are beating around a bush until we discover that we are indeed saying the same thing.

[5-MeO-AmT]

Hi, I am

Bump. I am created in the image of God. That must mean.. wait, what is God? I don't know! But the more I realize myself, the more I will understand the 'Truth.' Transcending the one, perfect essence, would be the many - striving to make perfect; more perfect. Whatever is, is the best. Damn, this shirt smells good.

[Cyanide ChrYst]

I think your interpretation of the song turns into bullshit when it actually becomes longer than the song itself.

Hey, well said mate!

[paraflux]

I think your interpretation of the song turns into bullshit when it actually becomes longer than the song itself.

That logic is so sound. Really, it should be a law of nature.

[tempest]

Really interesting posting people, especially paraflux an JT.

Nietzsche also raises interesting propositions about the nature of reality and transcending duality which are quite similar to Siddhartha Gotoma's. Many of his preliminary theories are helpful to a person travelling down these paths of thought, as they help to wash away the preconceptions of conditioned structures of thought with a more modern and philosophically formal approach (though no less poetic).
While Nietzsche is massively misinterpreted, its almost safe to say he was a partially insane bastard. Buddha to him, of course, would merely have embodied his lustful and elusive Will to Power, taking the 'moral high ground' to assert his power over others. What a pessimistic bastard.