What is all this preoccupation we seem to have with “one”

Not “four” or “three” but “one”.

 

This unifying theory, that concept of identity, this idea of a single truth, that big bang.

 

A single second of awareness where the past is gone and the future is yet to be…

 

Why one …why unity?

 

Why just one?

I like two. Symmetry. Paired opposites. There can never be unification because for everything there is an equally significant paired opposite.

I like three. Three keeps us from defining everything as opposites; there are protons and electrons, but also neutrons. Three keeps us balanced.

I like 17. I don't know why.

 

 

 

Seriously though. What are you talking about? The significance of the number 1?

 

It's the smallest absolute value whole number ever. Why 1? If there were several difference consciousnesses that perceived different parts of a chair (legs, seat, back), then there would be no one perception of a contiguous whole. There would be several consciousnesses that were aware of only different fragments of the chair. One is the only way things make sense for us.

So is the fact that we consider ourselves to be a single entity, existing in a single second,...is that point of view distorting the nature of reality and truth?

http://www.scienceforums.net/forums/forumdisplay.php?f=62

 

Try this area...more appropriate.

how is perception related to that topic?

So is the fact that we consider ourselves to be a single entity, existing in a single second,...is that point of view distorting the nature of reality and truth?

I wouldn't say, 'distorting'...

 

Defining the means by which we explore?

 

We can not understand life, the universe, and everything, as a whole; we need to approach understanding in parts, through specific disciplines. Howver, we know that this fragmented approach is inadequate, because we can experience the, um, unity of the universe in epiphanies that go beyond our rational and linear understanding.

 

So, I meant my first answer. We need three to act against our intellectual tendency to define reality in terms of conflict and opposites. Don't you need three points to define the circumference of a circle?

Because one question needs one simple answer.

I'm thinking about all of your replies...

 

ps Richard...if you are in the bottom of the bottomless pit...

can you by chance see the top of the topless dancer?