The Unifying Factor: Tai Chi Two Mirrors

In my quest for greater focus in my life and studies I decided to take the advice of leading neurologists. They suggest that the brain can be made to grow by learning something new (see Charlie Rose on the brain/mind, and "The Brain in Love", PBS). The science points to, amongst other things, exercise that requires eye-body coordination, think ping-pong. I, however, decided to study Tai Chi. So I started attending a class with Master Lin of Park Slope.

The first thing he said was "stare into the hand like it is a mirror". This admonition was followed by "breath through the nose". Finally another intermission explaining why he was teaching me "this" form. It, he explained, hearkened back to Mao Zedong, who gathered all the Tai Chi masters of China and told them to choose a form that was most suitable for international promotion of Chinese culture. This was the form he began to teach me.

But back to the "stare into the hand like a mirror", what does that mean?
What is the purpose of a mirror? Is it to see ones flaws, as a first step towards improvement or does the mirror serve to affirm ones vanity precluding correction?
Also, why the hand? Is this some form of unconscious palm-reading, or is the hand just a convenient place to stare?
Finally, why should I "stare" why not glance peripheral-like?

I'm sure if I ask Master Lin, he will have a profound explanation, perhaps drawing on arcane Confucius or Taoist philosophies. On the other hand...

On the other hand, if the hand is like a mirror then by staring at the hand you should be able to see your self.

The above proposition can be understood metaphorically or literally.

Metaphorically, through the hand (Tai Chi means Supreme Ultimate Fist), you can achieve health for the whole body.

Or literally, the hand is not separate from the self, it is only a label we use to explain its geography and function. We can stare at the hand and see ourselves because the hand IS our self (If we cut the hand then pain may shoot throughout the body, blood from all parts of the body flow towards the cut etc.).

Indeed to love your fellow like yourself, because they ARE you. (see november 2009 post,"to not love your neighbor like yourself")

But, when I stare at my hand I don't see myself, yet with a carless glance the mirror in my room offers me a clear visual. Which is the true reflection of the self, the superficial glance or the contemplative stare?

To see your individuality, your perceived flaws and virtues, glance at the mirror on the wall.
To recognize the unifying factor stare at the hand.

The Unifying Factor: Is Soul the Global Consciousness?

Before entering into a conversation about the "soul" six corrolary premsis need to be reiterated.
One, we are one organism with different roles, working on the same product.
Two, we may never know that we have a role, or what that role is.
Three, we can still work together despite our ignorance, like an assembly line of parts.
Four, we may be aware of our role and work together like a body; akin to the conscious-free foot that walks without being aware of where, why, or how.
Five, those unique roles on the assembly line or body are what make us special.
Six, recognizing those roles is facilitated by subjectivity.

However who or what is the CEO of the assembly line; who or what is the brain coordinating our body?

One response, is the same thing that coordinates nature, (the tree gets its rain and sun and the lion has its antelope etc.) is what coordinates the human species.

Perhaps, but does that mean that genocide and a rainless rain-forest are two sides of the same coin? Are the wars and suffering part of that CEO's plan? If so do we really want that CEO, if that CEO is coordinating those actions?

To offer a different perspective, a return to the analogy of the body is called for. The body often injures itself. I know cigarettes are bad, but it only seems to affect one part of my body, so I smoke.
Genocide is bad, but it only affects one part of humanity, so I kill.

Thus, just as it is possible for the human to disregard its consciousness, so to can the organism of one, act in a contradictory manner. In other words genocide, and the lack of rain, are choices made by parts of the organism, probably because it doesn't understand that it is part of the same organism. They are outside the plan, they are an aberration.

On the other-hand who is to say the aberration is an aberration. Perhaps trees witness genocide and whisper, "they are acting as nature intended"? Perhaps polar bears look at violence and mumble "it is just like our ice melting". Do we distinguish between natural and unnatural mistakenly? Perhaps the plan is so big and final product so complex that we cannot help but be myopic.

Perhaps the only way to distinguish nature/plan and unnatural/deviance, is to view how an action affects the whole, utilitarianism on a global level, but then who or what can really understand consequences of that magnitude?

Let us put that digression aside, and wonder about this coordinator, and how that coordinator assures that we, the parts, which look and feel separate can work in unison. The mechanism that engenders cohesion.

The brain coordinates the body using a system of "cables" via the spine, what coordinates humanity and the all that exists with it? If the plan is big and far-sighted then we would need a mechanism that is able to meet that demand.

The satellite can communicate messages, information, and commands across the globe.
The internet keeps us in touch with everything we choose to follow.
Why cant the body have a mechanism that keeps all that is in step.
A global-consciousness that is only being understood as we begin to understand the connectivity of nature. A global-consciousness that can only be understood with a metaphor that only recently has been "invented".

Is it a coincidence that this blog is on a network that mimics the soul? Are the soul, nature, and global-consciousness different labels for the same concept, the unifying factor?

The Unifying Factor: The Polish Embassador and the Political Conception of Love

On Monday December 7th the Polish Ambassador to the United States, Kupiecki, held-forth on Poland's state of affairs. Among the routine issues addressed where Poland-EU relations, how Poland is weathering the current global recession, and that Poland, as the 20th largest economy in the world (GDP) should be part of the G-20.

At the end the ambassador made some, rather, ambiguous comments regarding missile defense in Eastern Europe and the Obama administrations decision to renege on the agreement to station missile-bases in Poland. The ambassador simultaneously brushed off the American decision as a strategic swap of NATO resources (he wasn't specific, but instead of missile bases NATO would place something else in ), and at the same time reminded the audience that it was America who approached Poland in the first place. As such, the ambassadors argument went, it was not a rejection of Poland's interests, but a reversal of a request for a "favor".

Interestingly, the ambassador, reiterated how Poland continues to see America as a key strategic ally and friend. As evidence of that relationship, the ambassador reminded the audeince that Poland has provided military support in every conflict America has been in since the first Gulf-war. Moreover, he argued, Poland has sent another 1000 military personal to Afghanistan in addition to the 2000 already stationed there.

To the question, of whether the Polish-public viewed the American missile pull-back as the norm or the exception in American-Polish relations the ambassador vacillated, essentially arguing that either way this scenario was different from the past. This because it was America who requested military installations and it was America that "reoriented' its position.

While the ambassador didn't indicate that there was any link between the additional soldiers and missile defense restructuring in Poland, it seems that there may be a connection. The real question, is whether Poland sees it as a positive or negative development .

On one hand, Poland may appreciate the fact that America needs to get along with the Russians, a relationship strained by missile defense, and sees the value in an America that can influence Russia, in Poland's favor.
Alternatively, it may be that Poland sent a message to Washington that "we love you whatever you do, look, here are more soldiers"!

Which goes back to the notion of loving one "like" one loves themselves, this time ,on the national level. "Like", because that other is separate in perception but not in reality.
If Poland understands its love of America as contributing to Poland's welfare than this may be another small indication of a globe moving towards a more sustainable unity. A unity premised on the acknowledgment that to love the other is to really love the self.

The Unifying Factor: The Subjective Culture, What Does it Mean? (III)

If it is not our talents that make us special but rather how those talents enable us to play a unique role in the larger human effort, then what role does subjectivity play?
There are a number of responses. One is that like anger, jealousy, and our knack for storing body fat, subjectivity is a remnant of our evolutionary past; a learning mechanism.
Alternatively, subjectivity still plays an integral role in enabling the individual to contribute to the whole. It is simply a matter of reevaluating what makes subjectivity a constructive force.
Perhaps we can begin by juxtaposing the traditional view of subjectivity with, what we will term, the progressive view.

The traditional view is that subjectivity is part and parcel of what makes humans different, our ability to interpret one experience in many ways. For example, all humans are born and die, yet there are a plethora of subjective explanations for both of these experiences. Furthermore, these subjective explanations lead us to conduct ourselves in different ways. For example birth and death ceremonies. Most importantly our subjective interpretations of why and how these events take place lead humans to offer and construct different explanations for life and its meaning. This in turn affects how we choose to live our lives and what we value; the here and now the “after-life” etc.
The traditional view explains why independent-Westerners perceive a fish, separated from the school of fish, as the leader of the group , whereas the collectivist-Easterner perceives that same fish as lost!
According to the traditional view subjectivity is the "big why" for everything not empirical. It is not something foreign that we acquire, utilize, and control. It is innate, we are born with it just as we are born with fingers. Unlike fingers however, its source is the brain and mind, thus it only becomes apparent as we progress through common life experiences, but because we are inherently subjective we perceive and, thus, act differently. What this means is that human will always be different, just as we will always have fingers (as far as the philosophy behind the traditional view of subjectivity please see part 1 of this series).

The progressive view, is that subjectivity is not the cause of difference but rather a mislabeled emotion. In other words it is not a finger but rather a deep-rooted human characteristic, which we learn to indulge in from experience and example. However, like language, it is so pervasive, historically and currently, that it is perceived as innate (for a more comprehensive discussion of this analogy, see literature on children and language acquisition).

The difference between the perception of innate subjectivity and innate subjectivity, is in how we understand, and thus utilize, subjectivity.

If we simply accept subjectivity as part of the human, like the finger is part of the human, then unless we remove the finger, or in this case the brain, we will always be inclined to difference and even war.

However, if subjectivity is really a deep-rooted and learned human characteristic, than we can focus it, like passion. Moreover, like passion it has extraordinary utility.
Passion can result in Shakespeare or more commonly enables humanity to flourish. Imagine life without passion in the bedroom or otherwise!

Imagine if we were unable to recognize our unique abilities, recognition that emerges with life experiences. These experiences are challenged by others and questioned by ourselves. In other words, it is subjectivity in the face of common life that allows us to recognize our strengths and weaknesses. This is the first step in recognizing, specifically, how we can contribute (strengths), and just as importantly, how we can only achieve with others (weaknesses).
One can even argue that what we see as individual limitations is in fact a flawed name akin to labeling our hands, that can’t run, a limitation!

This is one way to reconcile the seeming contradiction between human connectedness/unity and human subjectivity; the assertion that we can only be special if we recognize we have a role in a global effort.

Does there need to be an entity orchestrating this? Or from an evolutionary perspective, are we moving cyclically back to our origins, returning to the big bang era, by recognizing the reality of our unity? Is it simply a matter of recognizing the unifying factor?

The Unifying Factor: The Subjective Culture, What Does it Mean? (II)

In regards to the question of “what is the self, what defines or makes us individuals”, the possible conclusion offered (December 1 post) was subjectivity. Moreover we concluded that embracing subjectivity has real, potentially, negative implications. So why do we embrace subjectivity? Perhaps we reject the notion of the objective because of where it emanates from, or what it implies vis vi free-choice?
However, on a basic level every person desires to be special, unique, different, an individual! Is it so bad to want to stand out of the crowd? In fact many of our pursuits in life are geared towards eventual distinction. Riches, wisdom, respect, honor, love etc. all of which we believe will enable us to stand out, and I agree those that achieve these goals do stand out.
But are they special, after all there are always bigger and better; I mean special absolutely and categorically unique?
Thus my question is: “is it true that subjectivity enables an individual to standout to have a sense of being special, OR do we conflate being different with being special, and then argue mistakenly that the only way to be special is to embrace our subjective self?
What if we have embraced subjectivity thinking it will help us be different. A difference that engenders specialness which will result in happiness; the goal is indisputably justified but have we chosen the best path? Furthermore, if embracing the subjective is premised on misconceptions then does it NOW justify the implications of difference?
There is an alternative to all this. What if the only way to be truly special unique and thus happy is to embrace the similarity, to delve and seek connectedness.
Returning to the analogy of the human body-which consists of a number of body parts all with their special function-would these body parts be considered necessary and special as separate uncoordinated parts? On the contrary, their special and unique abilities are magnified and reach fulfillment when they “acknowledge” their role in a larger unified organism.
Thus the human’s uniqueness can be highlighted and actualized specifically when it sees itself as part of a larger and connected body.
But how do we discover our role as an individual human in the larger organism we call international life?
Alternatively, if we do not know our role, can we be an effective and contributive part of the whole, or do we become a cancerous member, one that needs to be cut off for the good of the larger organism?
One potential response is that the maturity that individuals experience mirrors a global process of maturity. If this is so, it may offer the one who does not know their role (or not aware that they have a role) the possibility to contribute. Like a child slowly becoming aware of their role in a family, humanity has slowly come to realize the interconnected roles we play. Or, it can be that like science is showing that which we once thought was unsalvageable (cancer) or unnecessary (appendix) is in fact salvageable and necessary.
Of course even if we don’t know our role we should be aware that we have one. This does not mean that one need be conscious of their role just like the heart doesn’t know why it beats, but imagine what it would mean for the heart-attack if the if the heart could talk to the rest of the body, as in fact our conception of medicine is beginning to show us?
The question that needs to be discussed further is “if subjectivity is part of the human condition, then doesn’t it play a counterproductive role". Conversely, perhaps its existence is the ultimate fault in the position taken here?
What positive role does subjectivity play and how is that role concurrent with the notion of a unity that is not something to achieve but to acknowledge?

The Unifying Factor: Understanding the “Goldstone Report”

Why Richard Goldstone

The subjective biases that most media outlets are accused of is often the result of their respective audiences who rather have their beliefs confirmed rather than informed.

That being said the dichotomous coverage of the Goldstone report seems to reflect this trend. Either Goldstone is an “evil evil man” as Alan Dershowitz recently stated on Israeli Army radio (01/31/10) or as his daughter Nicole argues, he is a genuine Zionist who loves Israel (Israel Army Radio, 11/16/09). Richard Goldstone had a stellar human rights reputation as a constitutional judge in post-apartheid South Africa, and was the chief prosecutor for both the international criminal tribunals addressing Rwanda (ICTR) and the Former-Yugoslavia (ICTY).

A fundamental question that is often overlooked in this toxic debate is why did the notoriously anti-Israel United Nations Human Rights Council (UNHRC) handpick Goldstone to lead an “independent” investigation into the “Second Gaza War”? Could a Jew be trusted to deal objectively with the only Jewish country, could Goldstone really give Hamas a fair trial? While many argue that it was to create the illusion of legitimacy, the question remains, why was the HRC so certain that Goldstone would return with an anti-Israel verdict?

Gaza and International Law
One way to unravel Goldstone's conceptions of human rights is to apply them to a concrete scenario that reflects a common theme in the larger human rights conversation.

In the Gaza conflict the point at issue revolved around instances when Israel attacked locations used by civilians, for example the UN funded school. The legal question is: "Is it justifiable to intentionally target the school when “militants” use it as a base for firing rockets?" This issue is covered in International Law, specifically the Rome Statute; the founding document for the International Criminal Court (ICC).

In the ICC’s Elements of Crime (2002), specifically those provisions covered in articles 6, 7, and 8, “War crime of willful killing”, is comprised of five elements. The first element is, “The perpetrator killed one or more persons” (p.14). In a foot note the term “killed” is “interchangeable with caused death” In Article 8 (2) (a) (i). Amongst other connotations, this implies that causing a death is akin to willfully killing.

This definition effectively ignores context. The immediate concern is that without integrating specific definitions that take context into account, how can courts possibly make rational decisions? After all, most of us can distinguish between killing in self defense and premeditated murder, how then can international law ignore such important and obvious distinctions?

Intent for Results

Regardless of this obvious flaw in the reasoning this highlights the conceptions that Goldstone propagates. Civilian deaths are wrong, even if there is no evidence of “intent” or “willfulness”. The very fact that civilians could be there, as they have been there in the past, is grounds for not targeting the area, period.

But what is at the heart of this argument? Is Goldstone’s argument that we cannot “know” one's intent and thus intent is irrelevant?

In other words, even if, contextually speaking, Israel did drop fliers and made hundred of thousands of personal calls, we can never “know” Israel’s intent. Perhaps Israel’s real intent was to cover up their crimes?! Thus Goldstone and international law contends that it is the results that count not the intent; context is irrelevant as its consideration implies an evaluation of intent.
Of course, Goldstone's argument is Kantian in nature and anti-utilitarian in practice (the ramifications of which require a completely separate analysis).

This is part of the same trend that asserts the moral equivalency between Israel, a Democratic nation, and Hamas, a theocratic/terrorist regime. That Hamas openly declares its intention of killing and maiming as many Israeli’s as possible while Israel makes, apparently, unprecedented efforts to prevent civilian casualties, is immaterial! The results of Hamas targeting civilians, and Israel targeting militants shooting indiscriminately, are the same, civilians are killed.

Objective Law

However this analysis does not in itself expose Goldstone's thought process. What is at stake here, Goldstone implicitly argues, are universal human rights which require an “objective” foundation, rules that declare killing (human rights in general) as wrong. Because if there is no one universal and absolute truth, i.e. “killing is wrong”, then how can international community prevent the advent of the Hitler or Stalin who develop subjective intent-based arguments to justify the worst atrocities.

We on the other side must question the International community. Are they justified in ignoring real contextual issues in order to prevent even larger Human rights abuses? Can intent never be evaluated based on context, after all most laws are? Finally for the Israeli, the Jew, and the man with moral clarity the question is should Israel be the first and only target of the impractical ideologies of the international community? Yet these pointed questions can only be asked after understanding Goldstone.

For those that dispute the relevance of this analysis, consider that the Goldstone report is unique only so far as its mandate; its underlying reasoning and conclusions are as old as Israel itself. Perhaps, by understanding Goldstone on his terms we, the Jewish community, can be better prepared for the inevitable repeat of the Goldstone phenomenon.

The Unifying Factor: The Subjective Culture, What Does it Mean? (l)

What defines the self?
This question assumes that there is a self, an individual that is separate and distinct from its surroundings. But what makes one distinct?
On the most elemental level, science tells us, we are all composed of the same matter, and we know that the tree, the body, and even, the inanimate (think the stone), disintegrate to the point of no individual recognition.

Humanity often distinguishes itself from other entities, by pointing to its intelligence. But what about that intelligence make us unique? It certainly doesn't distinguish one human from another, on the fundamental.
Furthermore, as science continues its quest for understanding, it is slowly emerging that all entities on earth have a form of intelligence. Whereas we have focused our collective intelligence on technology to improve our existence, plants like the potato have focused their intelligence on diversifying their species. Not just their color, but what that color represents, immunity from a disease that wiped out the mono-crop of Ireland (the “potato famine”). We however, are just as susceptible to afflictions like the bubonic plague!
Many respond that we are unique because we have “reason”. Yet that reason has not prevented our species from acquiring the distinguishing label of “fratricide”.

Finally, some contend that what makes us unique is our subjectivity. I would agree, with the caveat that unique is not synonymous with positive, just different.

If we conclude that subjective is what enables individuality; that unique experiences makes us different, then we should also consider the ramifications of that. After all if it is this element that makes us different, how should we best utilize this differentiation's potential?

Interestingly there is a cultural relationship to subjectivity. That is, Westerners seem to embrace individuality, which as argued here is subjectivity.
We can see the practical consequences of this. Take the media and our institutions of higher education. Both have accepted, tacitly or explicitly, that subjectivity is all that there is. In the media there has been a complete rejection of the objective truth; instead our major media sources openly perpetuate one subjective ideology over another. After all it is what we are, it is inevitable and there is no alternative, let us embrace it! The university is rife with these post modernist notions of truth, or lack thereof. Thus all tradition is questioned. After all, tradition, unifies us and our experiences, and in turn undermines our own source of individuality.

Either line of reasoning leads to a number of provoking questions. For example, should we embrace subjectivity or attempt to channel it? Indeed it in “natural” to be subjective yet it is also “natural” to be passionate. Like passion and the multitude of other drives we have, subjectivity, perhaps, should be channeled.
Another question: Is the embracing of the subjective motivated by the rejection of the objective? If so is it because the objective can only stem from a universal truth, which implies a “higher power”? In other words as our society distances itself from the notion of the omnipotent should we expect more manifestations of the subjective?
Furthermore is the rejection of this “higher power” a Freudian desire to be in control? A “higher power” would seem to deprive us of that control.
Finally, is there really a contradiction between a “higher power” and free choice?

If subjectivity is the one perspective that makes us seem different, and we embrace subjectivity because we reject the “higher power”, then what is really at the root of war and death, abuse of nature, and even an unreliable media!
If revisiting the potential for a higher objective truth, real or otherwise, can unify us…

The Unifying Factor: Trance, the “Magic Eye”, and Recognizing the One

Some of the people I know just don’t understand what I see in trance. To them it is a jumble of sounds created for the consumer of drugs. I myself used to feel this way. Then one night some friends from my building invited me to a Paul Van Dyke festival in Central Park. I went, and since then I have understood the method of trance.

Now when I try to convey my transformative experience I employ the magic eye analogy. You know those annoying “pictures” which seem to be a jumble of colors and shapes. Look closer! Don’t you see it? Do you see it? Do you see the statue, its right in front of you! Then exasperated you attempt to refocus your strained eyes uncrossing them, going back to a visual reality that comes naturally.
Of course for some, after a while, they “get it”. From that point on it becomes obvious, a natural trance.

Every religion and culture, Confucius, Moses, and the Sufi, ramble on about this one all encompassing consciousness, an idea that if meditated on either by spinning oneself around, not thinking about thinking , or really thinking, reveals an obvious truth. The truth being that we are really 1.

The real question, then, is how do we access this awareness? (I tried crossing my eyes while dancing in a state ecstasy.)
On the other hand if one is not aware of trance or the magic eye picture then they can never know the answer, because they don’t know that there’s a question.
What do these “one” people see? Where is the evidence?

I wonder if the Unifying Factor can be found by being aware that there is a common denominator in everything. After all if one must experience trance in order to appreciate it and stare at the magic eye to see, then to find something that is everything is a matter of just being awake.

The Unifying Factor: Why we don’t Kill

Why don't we kill or steal? Because it is wrong. Why it is wrong? Because society can’t coexist, or killing/stealing hurts the living. But if the premise for not killing is human rational what happens when killing becomes rational? Take Hitler, Stalin, Saddam, or the guy whose wife was cheating on him. Each one of them claimed good (to the extent many other "rational" individuals bought into it), perhaps rational reasons to kill.

Perhaps it boils down to "we don’t kill unless we are allowed to either by our position of power, personal rational, or physiological need". But for the people out there that want to establish clauses like not killing or stealing permanently, what principles can we employ that will ensure the peace?

Yet if we are to find one universal principle that all humanity follows we need that principle to be nonhuman. After all, as the post modernist would contend, the only truth that is universal is that each individual has their own unique truth. Because humanity is inherently subjective, individuals, and I would argue communities, are unable to remove themselves completely from their empirical past. It would seem then, that there is no source for or of universal truth.

Is humanity then doomed to experience murder, and even genocide? Or is it that murder is in fact a natural occurrence that is as integral to the human as subjectivity or passion?
On the other hand if there is an entity that is nonhuman, and this amorphous being is infinite, and because it is infinite it is also eminently objective (because it is aware of every idea and experience and is not restrained by time so it also understands consequences). Can this entity be the universal source of the truth, a truth that is beyond human intervention?

If we accept this all powerful entity, are we also simultaneously relinquishing control of our own destiny?
Accepting this omnipotent presence is especially ominous and frankly scares me. Imagine that the maxim “nothing stands in the way of will” is and always was another human delusion?
(This point rests on the premise that free-choice and providence as irreconcilable. This will be discussed in the future but it is imperative to understand the deeper implications at the heart of debate around murder).

At least, though, it may offer a theoretical perspective as to why we need a higher nonhuman source, whether imagined or real.
A mirage that emphatically and objectively declares “it” is the reason why we don’t kill.

The Unifying Factor: The Hand that Chopped off the Foot

The recent UN convention was enthralled with the notion that we all must fight global warming. It is seen by many as one of the few issues where there is international consensus. This is not to say that there is equal consensus in the method of solution, or the extent of sovereign responsibility. In fact critics argue that the lack of consensus reaches deep into and partially stems from an epidemic of incoherency emerging from the scientific community. However, when it comes down to the realities of what is occurring -what some objectively minded individuals would claim are “naked facts” there is no debate. The global environment is changing (some would argue that it is not warming), no nation or scientist disputes the shrinking North Pole ice cap. At this level, there is singular international agreement. This is evident from the endless stream of head-of-states declaring their support and national initiatives to fight global warming. Russia, China, America, and Europe agree!

What then does this extraordinary providence portend? Will its potential disappear in the guise of empty words, or will nations act on the global threat? Conversely, can nations achieve their objectives by an uncoordinated response; do national borders mean anything to airborne carbon emissions? It would seem that we are either doomed to failure (whatever that may be) or have a chance of success, depending on international consensus leading to absolute international cooperation. International regulations, significant investment, and even technology sharing, are all required for this to work. It is highly questionable as to whether an institution as polarized as the UN can succeed in such an important sphere when it often does not in regards to less important matters. At the very least this is a threat that no nation is immune from, and potentially poses a danger that is catastrophic to all nations.

It is a strong argument for globalization. Indeed one can expect that if the global changes continue at their present course the international community will be forced to think in more global terms. How this will affect the move to more global perspectives is left to the imagination; however we should not forget that the current economic downturn reflects real global integration. That is, globalization is a modern evolution just as global warming is seen by many scientists as a natural occurrence, one that is inevitable. Thus the question itself evolves from the relationship between calls for globalization and climate change, to whether the global community will accept the inevitable.

Is the split in America between those who believe in divine destiny and the objective, and those who are skeptical and accept subjectivity, reflected in their positions on global warming? Can it be that those who desire to control their destiny refuse the possibility that they are not the cause of global warming? This question may give credence to the argument that global warming is a natural trend, and offer real insight into the subtle undercurrent that is once again evident in American politics.

What if the unity that is required in the face of global warming is nature telling us unify or die. Perhaps global warming in not real but the need to recognize that we are one body is. After all who ever heard of a hand chopping off a foot?

The Unifying Factor-To Not Love Your Neighbor as Yourself!

There is an old Judeo-Christian dictum. It is often offered in “ethical” conversation, as a principle in evaluating our actions. However is it possible? Really, is it humanly possible to love one at the same level as yourself?

Moreover, as it it so obviously impossible, why is it so often thrown around?
Interestingly what makes this principle so outrageous is that the one unifying factor of humanity is that we are separate and different. In other words what makes us human is the same thing that makes us distinct. And because we are distinct we cannot love the other like the self!

That is one perspective.
Another perspective sees our differences as a reflection of our different objectives in life, as manifest by our physical and psychological makeup. The athlete is powerful, the banker savvy, and the teacher patient. Our innate talents cause us to have different objectives. These objectives are so disparate and consuming (think of your career or lack thereof) that they define us; what makes me different is what I do.


(One can go so far and label these departments as social, ethnic, religious, geographic etc. groups,career etc.) Thus each one of these groups is made a group by their larger but most importantly discernible objective, i.e. I am American because I ascribe to certain values, or I am an employee and you are an employer.
Likewise each group defines itself as different or not part of another group because that other group has a completely different and even contradictory objective.

Now let us imagine that each group is actually working on the same objective as the next group but the objective is so large that is almost impossible to imagine. For example GM has multiple subsidiaries that all work on the same objective but never see the final product or even understand how their objective is integral to the next group's objective.

It is almost as if the hand, which uniquely can grasp, understands that it is actually part of the same entity that my foot, with its unique mobility, is. Imagine if it didn't?

Is the only difference between humanity and the body physical proximity?

I wonder, if to love your neighbor like yourself is like loving your hand as you love your foot, understanding the uniqueness of the individual objective and talents but also the larger overarching objective. If, like the body, humanity is one organism working on the same project (do we as individuals ever really know where "WE" are going), then to not love the neighbor is to not love the self!

The Unifying Factor: Does One Equal Infinte

What do the big bang theory, conventional religion, and the human body have in common?

They all started with the notion of one. One large piece of exploding matter, one infallible entity, and one drop of semen.
The question you many have is so what? So what if they all have a common singular beginning?

Is it that the painting reflects the artist? So that we come from one drop of semen, because nature began in one moment with one source, and is that source the one infinite being?
Then again if the painting does reflect the painter and the painter is ultimately infinite, should his or her work not also be infinite?
In other words, is the fact that we are finite evidence that our source is also finite, or that our source can’t be infinite?

Another question: how do we know whether we are finite or not?
True our body needs to eat but do we as an existing atomic structure need to eat? Once we die our body is still there, albeit decomposing, but our body needs neither sleep nor food, shelter nor family, sex nor air! Maybe we, in our entirety, reflect in some ways the infinite.
Or when we die we return to the one that we began as, one matter, dirt.

Is it that the same experiences that makes us feel finite, life and consciousness, also prevent us from truly experiencing the one infinite that is at the heart of everything?

Is the unifying factor that we all come from the same source and it is our consciousness, our physical existence, that precludes the obvious? What if we are aware that this oneness is the infinite source and if so is it interchangeable with the term infinite?