Wednesday, August 12, 2015

A Meaning Of One

It seems logical to me that the perfect must be one, and consequently, Jesus' prayer that we may all be one strikes my differently from me erstwhile pseudo-progressive compatriots.John 17 KJV:

21 That they all may be one; as thou, Father, art in me, and I in thee, that they also may be one in us: that the world may believe that thou hast sent me.

22 And the glory which thou gavest me I have given them; that they may be one, even as we are one:

23 I in them, and thou in me, that they may be made perfect in one; and that the world may know that thou hast sent me, and hast loved them, as thou hast loved me.

Oneness being an internal quality, indicative of a coherent and integrated will within, as it is in the Trinity.

Trying to achieve oneness at a group level is a set up for non-oneness, because this group 'oneness' means subverting the will. Working on the will and getting yourself coherent may provide you with a by product at the end- a group that is essentially of 'one-mind,' but don't hold your breath. Will has been attenuated to the point where many seem more driven by television than reality. And then there is this sense of submission or even apathy that is encouraged in Churchian circles- any real development of will is seen as rebellious to God.

If this passiveness were appropriate, God's will would be being done already. It is simply not appropriate. I know because I tried it and it didn't work and it allowed a lot of foolish people to high jack my time, energy, and resources for foolish stuff rather than for anything God wants.

One aspect to this is pay attention. Unfortunately, this often means paying attention to unenjoyable things, which I don't do very well. But, presumably, I have to pay attention, because actions, derived from will, must take place in reality, and not daydreams. But, due to circumstances noticeable to many, this often means wait, too.

We are often of two minds about things, sometimes more, within ourselves. And then there are those confused people who do things while sleepwalking or while in other supposed states of non-consciousness. Often the thinking is that they were not themselves, as if the removal of consciousness means removal of person.
What if that isn't true at all? Firstly, as a practical matter they did do the act. Secondly, if you want to do something badly enough, you can easily reduce your conscious control if you think that buys you permission- isn't this why people binge drink and have drunken sex? Or turn on the TV to keep something, anything, running through their heads instead of whatever it they are afraid of.

Perhaps the sleepwalkers are merely particularly adept at turning their consciousness off.

Whatever the mechanism, they certainly can't be said to be one.

No comments: