Do you think the number one could or should be changed to WE. Think about it, WE the world, WE the people, WE are one race of many colors and belifes. We love and love is all things. WOW what a world WE would have.
-
changing ONE to WE could it ever happen?Voted for by drmvalley2003.
yes it would be a heck of a world, because WE become the US - US becomes ALL - ALL becomes you and I making all, I the WE of one world. WE the people, WE of all countrys, WE are one race, WE ARE HUMANS.
-
One is AllVoted for by Drabarno Ruv.
I believe that we are all one. I know, very hippy of me. I believe we are from the same gods and therefor are all connected. Every plant, animal, rock, person, we are all one. There is no 'we', we is almost nonexistant in my eyes. Treat others as you would like to be treated because that is how you are treating yourself. One planet, One. 'We' are One.
-
hmmm..Voted for by freeduck.
I beleive that the universe is random and meaningless and this whole concept is unnecessary because WE are actually 0. Furthermore, WE cannot be ONE because each individual one of us has our own unique perception of the world. oh, naivety
-
kill all your enemiesVoted for by RothMcVeReagan.
i think thats insane personally...what your saying is that the world should be one country, which means one ruler...which ruler, the American Pres, the queen of england, there would have to be some decision made, and everyone would fight for it. That and to have one race we'd have to get rid of the hicks that are trying to bring back kkk, and all the other racists. the only way to achieve what you are speaking of, making everything one, together, united...etc. the only way to achieve peace is to kill all of your enemies
-
GODVoted for by JULIET OF RAH.
WE ... OUR ...ONE ..ARE THE WORDS OF ALL WARS DICTATERSHIPS RELIGIONS AND OF ALL GOVERMENTS.. WE =STRENTH..OUR =OWNERSHIP..ONE =SUPERIORTY.. RELIGION IS A DICTATERSHIP.BASED ON GREED POWER AND CONTROL....GOD IS A FEELING ..GOD IS ..I
-
Brought to you by: The number one.Voted for by MindOphelia.
That could cause some confusion with mathematics and the like..
-
Why?Voted for by A Dreamer Awake.
I personally like my self-identity. I don't want to lose myself to create some peaceful world. I want to be me and retain who I am. I like who I am, and I like changing, but I'd never want to totally lose who I am.
Adding your reply:
Registration is required because of issues with spam. It is fast and free! This author would LOVE to get a comment from you, please join!
Crazyhead
September 16, 2005
Edit | Reply
umm...
did this have a point...?September 17, 2005
Edit | Reply
The point was slightly unclear
I belive that what is trying to be said here is that. Everything is unconsequently ONE. Everything is connected, it exists because there is existance. This level of conciousness is derived from the manifestation of energy into it's physical form. To say a rock is anyless concious then a human is false. True to say it is not alive but does not moving that rock have consequence? Throwing it an effect? The energy I speak of is in all things even not on this planet. "All matter is merely energy condensed to a slow vibration, that we are all one conciousness experiencing itself subjectively" put in the words of Maynard the singer of Tool. Superconciousness is a good book to read in reference to this somewhat awkward topic. One being all and all being one. But when we seperate ourselves with labels the ONE is lost and we focus on how we are different istead of how we are the same creating rivalry and conflictDecember 6, 2005
Edit | Reply
Before you can say "I love you" you have to be able to say "I".
The original post was so unclear that I'm not sure if the clarification offered is correct or not. It reminds me of that Ayn Rand dystopian story, "Anthem", where the society has enforced collectivism so well that people cannot even use the singular first person. In Latin, Ego is the singular first person pronoun, just as we use I the Romans said ego. And a bit of trivia is that ego in Freud's writing was supplied by his English translator. He never meant to use that word for his concepts. Aside from that chance, we might never have the connotations to the word that we have today.Please register or login to comment! It's totally free