Who are we?

society divides while nature unites
society divides while nature unites

Genetically, humans are 99.9% identical, and even though race is not a biological reality—rather adaptations of the same thing adjusted to environment—society still uses race to divide the people. Theologically, over 95% of the population accept some form of Supreme Being and afterlife, and even though religions are not a spiritual reality—rather visions of the same global culture—society perpetuates the use of religion to divide the people. Academically, almost all scientific theories become obsolete or need modified, and even though scientific theories do not describe a unified reality—rather only describe different versions through similar observations—society continues to use scientific theory to divide the people. In other words, society divides while nature unites.


2 thoughts on “Who are we?

  1. I don’t know about this John… Does science divide? Religion sure does.

    However, Science is more objective on that subject. Biology seems to agree that on a cellular level we’re all the same. Biologists even stipulate they could look at two DNA samples and never guess whom it belongs to… Meaning they can not tell if its white or black guy DNA.

    On an astrophysical level, we’re all made of about 40% stardust/space stuff/debris and 60% water.

    So I do agree with you.

    Nature unites as we all made of the same stuff and we all come from the same place. We just don’t truly know where. Maybe it was also meant to be that way. Maybe we humans were not meant to resolve such mysteries like life, consciousness, what, when, where, why and how…

    One thing that can sure bring us all together is our consciousness. It’s all in us to become who we are truly meant to be and uncover the true power of our inner-divinity and raise awareness 😉

    Infinite peace and wisdom!

    Liked by 2 people

    1. You raise a good point; however, I never said science divides people, I said “scientific theory” divides people: as in, the opinion of one scientist’s interpretation of observed phenomena versus that of another. Science is typically presented as an absolute thing, and yet, most of it is led by interpretation, and, within that interpretation, lingers a certain degree of bias for many reasons; entrainment, as it were, of certain theorists moving along with the general inertia of consensus as opposed to hard factual reality—I could give examples, but I’m sure you get my point on contentious scientific theories. This is why I specifically used the generality of the term academia as the preface to the subsequent statement of division, as this is much more subjective: science might be objective, but many scientists are not—hence the troublesome nature, inherent to many scientific theories, being used by society to divide people.
      Indeed, higher awareness, and being conscious of that higher awareness can lead one to the epiphany that all issues—especially those antagonistic philosophies—are but theories that describe one aspect of a larger whole; it is the perceptional based awareness that often divides and splits people, not the nature of nature, but how it is described wherein society, particularly the news media, who take advantage of this purely human preoccupation of needing to be correct rather than right, which polarises people into camps of thought and behaviour.
      Thank you for taking the time to reply, it really got me thinking more on this topic.



      Liked by 2 people

Comments are closed.