Half-human half-biscuit!

[_Z_]

Half-human half-biscuit!


A paradox of individuality, i am wondering if this metaphoric perspective [below] is comparable with other forms of spiritual understandings! And if there is anything to it generally?


a star-trek dilemma.


I jus saw a star trek episode where a half-Klingon half-human lady was divided [persona 'a'] - by evil alien technology - into two separate genetic beings one human [persona 'b'] and the other Klingon [persona 'c']. of course this may not be possible yet this serves as a metaphor for many other such instances of individuality paradoxes'.


Which one is the 'real' person?


Is the real person{s} only one of these, two or all three 'a' &/or 'b' &/or 'c'?


What are the others if not the individual as well?


if we conclude that the same being can become two or all three beings – much the same as we remain the same throughout many drastic changes in our lives; is this a basis to make an educated presumption that:


there may be groups of individuals, sharing the same being in many forms, such as in the above?


Can this grouping be extended to groups of groups?


Is it plausible that all humans [e.g.] are of one group i.e. One being/person?


Then all creatures!?


And even all non-life forms right down to each and every quantum package? In other words; is all of existence one being of undefinable dimension?


Does this being equate with infinity? As infinity is also an undefinable 'entity'!


And infinity is all things as one thing. 'Everythingness'.


Thence existence is this entity in it's forms.


In this there is no primary duality. As one would presume as infinity is not fractured/fractionalised.


'And so life is but an ocean that we are all emersed in and are'.



thank you

 

[iBrian]

Time flies by when you're the driver of a train,
Speeding out of Trumpton with a cargo of cocaine...

Oh, so you're not discussing Half Man Half Biscuit, but Star Trek (wasn't this a Voyager episode you're referring to?


One of the NextGen episodes that struck out for me had Picard with an archaeological relic from a dead world, which had a bowl filled with little people.

The symbolism of the artifact, as Picard explained, is that each person can be said to be like a whole composed of many voices.

I liked that - the idea that the personality is not a simple flat dynamic, but instead a cosmopolitan mix of different and often conflicting drives.

The idea of splitting someone into two distinctly dualistic natures, I fear would be a simplification of that.

 

[lunamoth]

Interesting ideas Z. Brian took it to the many voices, conflicting and harmonizing, that make up one personality (and I wonder how that relates to people with multiple personality disorders--have the voices simply split, as if the "integrater" has stopped functioning...?), but I think your idea in the other direction is cool too. To what extent, perhaps, are we not really individuals but waves of a sea. "In Him we live and have our being..."

I think that at at least one level of our being we are of one essence. We have individual souls, but the foundation that supports us is One, which I also think is Love. But it's not just a foundation, as if seperate from us, because we all manifest love in our lives.

STTNG was the best. I was sooooo sad when that one ended, and I never seem to catch any reruns.

lunamoth

 

[_Z_]

I brian, hi


ah so you know the band! Yes it was a voyager episode.


Yes that is an interesting way to look at it -

but instead a cosmopolitan mix of different and often conflicting drives.

In a way i suppose we could see the personality as potentially all persona's, we can change as we please to a degree – although it's not as easy as it seams to the onlooker.

The idea of splitting someone into two distinctly dualistic natures, I fear would be a simplification of that

.


Yes, perhaps – interesting! This is missing a rather large element of what we are though, if i get what you are saying? It presumes that the personality is only of the transient world and may change invariably – as you say! Allow me to expand the argument somewhat:
Twins may come from one egg – just as genes can be divided or replicated – in theory [?]. i saw a program once about conjoined twins whom shared the same brain! Yet they were otherwise two individuals in every sense! So there is some truth in what you say – yet where would you draw the line? e.g.:

let us take the scenario; instead of being half-human and half-Klingon, what if the individual was half synthetic & or robotic [an android]? If you replace organic parts or even molecules with synthetic parts, then at what point do you stop being human and a person or don't you?


Multiple personalities; Just as you can have the conjoined twins as two beings that share 'two' bodies/brains, then the inverse may be true; that you can have two or more within the same singular being – perhaps. But is this 'personalities' or is it two beings of the one body/brain, or withing the two [or more]?


a personality is a fleeting thing of the transient world, it is a reflection of our inner natures [i.e. The real you!] that are the aspect of us that is the form of the infinite potential within reality!
is infinity real etc.... then it shares the same undefinable nature as we and all things do in there essence. Whats more, >infinity = 'it'< is not another 'it' in separateness [as the multiple], we are 'it' and 'it' is us and all things. Both worlds compose what we are in an everyday sense within the universal sphere – infinite sphere, individual sphere within the universal whole.


some things are transient some everlasting, the aspects or elements of 'you' that have no limits - and you'll be surprised how much of you that is - belong to the eternal!


Hi lunamoth, how are you these days!


I hope some of the above will add to what you said in some way.

We have individual souls, but the foundation that supports us is One, which I also think is Love.

I see, yes i would agree, with one minor altercation; our foundation is one and yes this supports us, yet i would perhaps go so far as to say that it is our fundamental nature and is ever-present as the actual being that I am talking to, rather than its reflection in one's personality forms. As usual I am probably just meaning what you said.
Love is an interesting one! As one would normally think of it as a thing of the emotions and thence transient, however at it's root is perhaps an element of the same thing i.e. 'the real you' as seen from a different perspective. Perhaps love is the bond between god as individual i.e. Us and all things, and god as the infinite and universal whole.


Love as you think of it would be a great topic! I find it hard to open myself up so much as to see it fully, thus my philosophies tend to be a little emotionally barren!





thank you

Z