Gary F. York ( wrote:
>If and only if, you ascribe an 'awareness of being aware' to AllThatIs 
>above and beyond what might be accounted for by collective action taken 
>knowingly or unknowingly -- a separate sentience, 

     No, all there is, is the High US.  There is no Eternally awake
super being, creating the rest of us.  EVERYTHING is just the high us
going in and out of manifestation, assigning roles to itself and its
members on a unanimous basis.
     >If your AllThatIs is just your term for the collection of
individuals >and how we accomplish whatever it is we do, together,
then no 'evidence' >or 'chains of reasoning' is required or desired.
If you ascribe to >AllThatIs higher properties, superior reasoning, a
separate (and super?) >sentience, or so on -- then yeah -- I'd like to
see how you came up with >that.

     If it were truely a separate entity, the proof claims we could
never know it exists, let alone what its qualities are.

     We depend on ONENESS of each of us to even know the other exists
and then only through the world of Dura, for the world of Sabe
(separation) makes certainty of others impossible.

     Occam's Razor II says don't postulate what you can PROVE you
can't prove, so we refrain from postulating a seperate conscious unit
different from or above and onotologically separate from the High-US.

     The High-US wouldn't be the *HIGH* Us if there were something
higher, now would it :) And in any case if the HIGHER IT existed, we
could never know it with certainty, unless it were one with us anyhow,
in which case its just part of the HIGH US.  You see?

     The Devil's tune is anything that preaches separation, this is in
part why reasoning men hate religion at this stage of the game,
because most religions either preach or are written in the words of
separation "God was forever, then he got bored and made me..."

     Even "God and Soul are co eternal" is devil's tune.

     God and Soul are ONE.

     God = Soul.

>On a different but related issue, if you've discovered a way to have 
>'perfect certainty' of the existence of others, I'd like to know it. 

     Not yet, it could only come from the access of Dura, where we can
perceive the side of ours that is one anyhow.  The proof is very
strong on this, certainty across two different objects is impossible,
thus certainty can only be had by an object of itself.

     Thus there MUST be a oneness to us all if we are ever to know
that there are more than one of us.  The one *AND* many paradigm
causes normal english to fail, so I return to the question:

      Could something that is ONE appear to be MANY to itself?

      Could something that is MANY appear to be ONE to itself?

     Actuality is pretty weird, living conscious self luminous
certainty is at the top of the list.  But quantum mechanics is not
much lower, so we have multiple problems in wave/particle duality and
which route did it take etc.  So if we can live with wave/particle
duality, can we live with the actuality of one AND many and simply
shift gears to the appropriate side when we are talking about
     When talking about physical universe interactions, we use the
many, but when talking about perfect certainties, we need to use the
one, which is presently outside of my own personal perception.


Wed May 23 20:12:02 EDT 2007