Do you think you know what the ego is?

Do you think you know what separation means?

How many of you believe the idea that "ego" means "separation", and that therefore any kind of separation is ego? Or that all forms of separation must be removed in order to have oneness?

This is NOT TRUE. And it's not what Jesus says in ACIM:

Jesus: "Selfishness is of the ego but self-fullness is of the Soul because that is how He created it."

Jesus: "You who prefer specialness to sanity could not obtain it in your right minds. You were at peace until you asked for special favor. And God did not give it."

BEFORE THE SEPARATION, there were many of us in God's Creation. Many Sons of God, directly created by Him. There wasn't just one Son. There being many sons IS NOT SEPARATION. IT IS NOT EGO. Here's why.

God's children are all created in the likeness of Himself. They are identical reflections of Him. They are all IDENTICAL. He loves them all EQUALLY and therefore they are all created in PERFECT EQUALITY. There isn't a single Son of God who is different to or unique from the others. They are like "clones". Perfect beings of a like order. A good analogy is spherical orbs of light which all look the same. These are souls.

There is nothing wrong with this. There is no ego there. There is no ego because there are no DIFFERENCES. There is no inequality. Every son is fully equal to all the rest. Every son has access to share everything with everyone. Every son is perfect and whole and complete within themselves and needs nothing. Every son has everything that all the other sons have. Every son is perfectly IDENTICAL to all the others in every way. In this there is NO ROOM FOR EGO.

The Sons of God in the Sonship are in perfect permanent harmony. It is perfectly normal and natural for there to be many FREE WILLED beings who all correlate and agree and are in accord with the Will of God. They each have their own minds which God created, and their own free will, and yet there is not even the slightest trace of disagreement. Every son is perfectly UNITED in the willingness to will like God. To create in His likeness and in their own. Even though all children of God are CO-CREATORS with God, there is no discord, no competition, no comparison, no differences, no exclusivity. NO ONE IS SPECIAL IN ANY WAY. And this leads to the perfect harmony of Heaven's peace.

Now. What is the ego really? The ego is NOT the idea of separation. The Sons of God are "separate beings" and this is NOT EGO. So to say that any kind of separation is ego is wrong. It is also wrong to say that having separation means you can't have oneness. That's bullshit. Oneness means OF LIKE KIND, being identical and in the likeness of God. It means they are ONE KIND. Jesus even says you can even be "one with yourself" - meaning you are of one single kind of state within yourself. That's what oneness really means, not "only one thing with nothing more than a count of 1."

WHAT EGO REALLY MEANS, in Jesus's terms as well, is any form of SPECIALNESS, which attempts to ISOLATE OFF some Son of God from the rest, describing him as DIFFERENT IN SOME WAY, unique, special, unlike the others, no longer equal to anyone else. THAT is the oppositie of the identicality of God's perfect creation.

Jesus: "You who prefer specialness to sanity could not obtain it in your right minds. You were at peace until you asked for special favor. And God did not give it."

WE (many) had our own right minds BEFORE EGO. Then we tried to believe in "special favor" from God, that we would be thought of as NOT IDENTICAL TO others, and therefore gaining in some way and losing in others in order to have exclusivity.

It is PERFECTLY OKAY for there to be individuality in Heaven provided the individuals are PERFECTLY IDENTICAL. There is nothing wrong with there being a million Christs. Having individuality IS NOT AN EGO THING. It only becomes an ego thing when it turns into a SPECIAL INDIVIDUALITY or an individual identity that is NOT LIKE THE OTHERS.

"EGO", in ACIM terms, really means... being exclusive, isolated, imprisoned, limited, lacking something that others have, having something that others lack, not being equal to anyone, being unique, spiritualizing something, demonizing something, condemning others for what they have which you lack, being in competition, being selfish, wanting to own and hoard and posses something in denial of others, denial of your brothers, denial of God, rejection and abandonment, failing to share anything with anyone, not-shared interests, privacy, private thoughts, your own subjective perception, withdrawal from Life, isolation into a specific point in spacetime (in a body), being cut off from abundance or sharing, a breakdown in communication, contrast, opposition, war and conflict, murder and suffering and sickness and death.

That is basically ALL THE SAME THING. It's just different ASPECTS of the same wish to be exclusive, to be different, or to be un-alike your identical brothers. That's what leads you to withdraw from sharing from the entirety of Creation and to narrow yourself down, withdraw and isolate into a little corner, and to then hide yourself in a body. Specialness produces body-identification and reincarnation and sickness and death.

So egotism, or selfishness, or specialness, forms a barrier around yourself which tries to keep something exclusively within, while also rejecting stuff as outside of you. The body is a symbol of that. It means you want to be seen as DIFFERENT and not identical. And that's why all bodies are unique and unalike. They were made as devices for proving separation. This special exclusivity and isolation is the same thing as sin. "The body is the idea of sin made flesh and projected outwards."

So in this more-accurate view of what ego is and is not, which is perfectly in line with what ACIM says about it, it's not your individuality or self or soul or free will that's a problem. The ONLY problem is your sense of SELFISHNESS which has attempted to set you APART from others in terms of BEING DIFFERENT TO THEM, rather than identical. To be un-equal is to be in disagreement and conflict. It is an act of war. And it produces a split mind. Your mind cannot stop being split and become "right minded" until all inequalities are ironed out and made equal again. Then, when there are NO inequalities, your mind can return to ONE MINDEDNESS, which is a mind experiencing a SINGLE STATE, ie "oneness" as in - ONE KIND.

You do not need to forego your free-willed individual soul or self. It has never been a problem. The ONLY thing that needs to be let go is the sense of being SPECIAL, exclusive or isolated. Any form of inequality is ego. Any form of equality is God's Will.

"You cannot enter into relationship with any of God's Sons unless you are willing to love them all equally".

Loving MANY BROTHERS EQUALLY is not an ego state.

"Healing is an act of thought by which two minds perceive their oneness, and become glad."

When TWO MINDS REMAIN TWO MINDS, BUT see each other as IDENTICAL, they become glad. Oneness means identicality and perfect equality and LIKENESS, it does not mean "there is only one Son" nor does it mean "many sons is an ego thing" nor does it mean "many sons is separation."

SEPARATION, as in separation from God, doesn't mean "being separate from one thing" it means being EXCLUSIVE an ISOLATED FROM THE REST. What constitutes "the rest" isn't necessarily "only God". Isolation isolates you from your brothers as well. It is the sense of isolation and inequality from your brothers that must be undone and undoing that DOES NOT ERASE YOUR BROTHERS. Attempting to do that or to claim that doing that means oneness is MURDEROUS. It's another way the ego interferes with the truth.

So what I've come to do is that whenever I think of ego or separation, think more in terms of exclusivity, isolation and inequality. It's FAR more accurate and lines up with absolutely everything Jesus says. We are to overcome our self-imposed imprisonment and open up to SHARING, to RECLAIM OUR IDENTITY AS *A* SON OF GOD, and return to sharing in all of Creation of which we are a PART.

Jesus continues his passage:

"For the request was alien to Him, and you could not ask this of a Father who truly loved His Son. Therefore, you made of Him an UNloving father, demanding of Him what only such a father COULD give. And the peace of God's Son was shattered, for he no longer understood his Father. He feared what he had made, but still more did he fear his REAL father, having attacked his glorious equality WITH Him.

In peace he needed nothing, and asked for nothing. In war he DEMANDED everything, and FOUND nothing. For how could the gentleness of love respond to his demands, EXCEPT by departing in peace, and returning to the Father? If the son did not wish to REMAIN in peace, he could not remain at all. For a darkened mind cannot live in the light, and it must seek a place of darkness, where it can believe it is where it is NOT. God did not ALLOW this to happen. But you DEMANDED that it happen, and therefore believed that it was so.

To SINGLE OUT is to MAKE ALONE, and thus MAKE LONELY. God did not do this to you. Could He SET YOU APART, KNOWING that your peace lies in His oneness? He denied you only your request for pain, for suffering is not of His creation. Having GIVEN you creation, He could not take it FROM you. He could but answer your insane request with a sane answer, which would abide with you in your insanity. AND THIS HE DID. No-one who hears His answer but will give up insanity. For His answer is the reference point BEYOND delusions, from which you can look back on them, and see them as insane. But seek this place and you WILL find it, for love is in you, and will lead you there."

We often talk about the versions of the course, the editing, whether all the facts are included etc. And then on top of that we try to understand its metaphysical model, its concepts and ideas, and argue over which model is the right one.

But what we should perhaps really be more concerned with is whether true information has been lost. ie whether we have the whole truth represented in word form, or whether key detail has been lost.Information is ... the minimum amount of detail that is needed to represent something with perfect logical accuracy.

In its simplest form, for example, let's say there are two squares next to each other. One is black and one is white. You can distinguish that there are two, because they contrast to each other. This contrast is information. If you were to, for example, color both squares white, you cannot tell whether its one square or two squares. Information has been lost.

In information theory, which is used for such things as data compression algorithms for example, and also in science, there is something called entropy. Entropy is a measure of the absolutely minimum possible size that the information can be, in order to fully and accurately represent something.

When you have files on your computer, or images for example, you can "compress" them. Usually this is based on representing larger repeated things with smaller symbols. You can get back exactly what you started with by "de-compressing" it based on the symbols. But this can only be done up to a point. There is a threshold at which you CANNOT compress the files any smaller, without losing information. All the "information" needed to fully describe the image must be retained in some form.

With images for example, the jpeg file format is not an accurate representation of the image. It LOSES ACCURACY as a trade-off for making the files smaller. The more accuracy it loses, the smaller the representation becomes, the blurrier the image is. It starts to develop artifacts which are visual errors. From that "overly reduced" data, you CANNOT get back the original full fidelity and quality of the original image. Key accuracy of information is LOST.

When we conceive of truth, when we try to describe reality, or talk about God and his creation etc, these lofty and rather abstract metaphysical ideas, the temptation is to make the representation of that truth, the symbol of that truth, be as SMALL AND SHORT as possible. We somehow think that less is always more, and that "simpler" must be more true. This is NOT true. TOO FEW words is INACCURATE.

When an accurate representation of something is reduced SO much, it has to in fact LOSE very important detail. The information becomes blurred, vague, generalized, overly abstract, and really does NOT contain the subtle nuances that are actual aspects of the whole truth. It may SEEM like it represents the whole of the truth but it doesn't. It's an APPROXIMATION, like a jpeg image, which is "sort of close" to being accurate and gives you some idea of it, but IS NOT accurate.

Examples of this happening include "reductionistic" statements like "Everything is God." Well now. For some reason that sounds all mystical and special and lofty. But, such a vague statement lacks enough detail to be accurate. You cannot GET BACK the full story when you BASE logical conclusions on this information. The reconstruction of the whole story is corrupted.

You could say for example, well, it seemed like the Son of God feel asleep and dreamed of death. But ... since ITS ALL GOD.... THIS MUST MEAN, logically, that God HIMSELF fell asleep and dreamed of death. That is absolutely what it implies. You can argue that "no it doesn't" but all you're doing is trying to pretend that it is accurate because the BS alarms are going off to indicate errors. The fact is that the information that's given is NOT ENOUGH, it DOES NOT accurately represent the whole truth, and it's too vague.

MORE WORDS IS BETTER! Or perhaps we can say, you want ideally the fewer number of words which FULLY AND ACCURATELY represent the whole truth. I you can be sure this is not going to be 3 words or even 20 words.

So yes, even in terms of thinking about abstract spiritual stuff, even in terms of oneness, god being all, everything is mind, son and father blending into each other, going beyond words and concepts... all this stuff.... when you are USING LANGUAGE and logical constructs to THINK about it..... and you strip SO much away that you start losing vital information, going BEYOND the entropy threshold, you are literally turning a detailed and nuanced truth into a blob of mush and mud and blurriness and meaninglessness. Because you think that is what spirituality is like .... this oneness thing... must mean, we only need to use one word. Not even close.

There IS an entropy limit beyond which you cannot go, in logical reasoning, in discussion, in theorizing, in metaphysics, in conceptualizing reality, where if you DO go beyond it, you have chopped out SO much information that you're not even really talking about the whole truth anymore. You're making a vague approximation which is NOT accurate enough. And it is therefore MISELADING. The more you push it towards eradicating as many words as possible, down to like "everything's God"... you have seriously censored significant major truths.

If for example I have a flower with 6 petals and I tell you that I have "a flower", but I don't tell you that it has 6 petals, in your mind you may envisage a flower with 8 petals. You are wrong. I did not give you enough information to represent the whole truth about what I have. There is information loss. I have been TOO VAGUE. I have reduced the accuracy of the representation of truth BEYOND the limit of information entropy, and have gone into the realm of a LACK OF TRUTH. A loss of precision.

It is funny then that when we talk about "its all one thing", we are actually LACKING truth, while pretending to talk about truth. We are not being accurate because we are not giving enough information. In fact we're trying to SPIRITUALIZE WORDS by having the fewest words possible. Less words is not more spiritual! In fact less words can be corrupting and destructive and a complete misrepresentation of the truth.

There are some people that go so far with their stripping away of any notion of anything informational - which usually means anything separate-sounding - any contrast or delineation or division or any notion of a "something" or two of anything.... that they enter a logical realm of total abstract bullshit. It devolves into meaningless drivel with specialness all over it. Ego loves to do this because it thinks a count of one is more spiritual than a count of two. It's concept of truth is flawed.

If for example it is true that God has at least one son. And if we say that this son IS God. And that is ALL that we tell you. If we tell you that is the WHOLE truth. Then someone is going to think ok.... the son IS God, so.... when the son fucks up and dreams of death and imagines murder, this must be God doing it right? Sure thing. God is now dreaming of death. We weren't specific enough or accurate enough.

It's a nice idea to imagine that God is this total 100% abstraction which is SO abstract that there is NO detail to it, no properties, no structure, no qualities, no characteristics, nothing. Just a nice blob of existence sitting there all by itself. That is NOT an accurate enough representation using words and symbols and language. It is a massive information loss. And God DOES in fact have properties, qualities, a "nature", a premise, law, mind, thought, causation, will, love, etc. The attempt to reduce truth to NOTHING, is an attempt by the ego to destroy the truth!

We HAVE to understand that God is for example infinite and absolute. We have to properly specify what God'e nature actually is before we can start basing conclusions on it. If you knew that God is causal and a creator, you would also know that God MUST have creations which MUST in turn have creations. The logic in this is utterly impeccable. But you can't see that or come to that conclusion is you DON'T specify that God is causal, or that his creations have to inherit through extension, or that he is a creator at all.

So when you become too vague, thinking it is spiritual, thinking you are representing truth more, thinking that "its oneness" is the most spiritual thing anyone has ever conceived of. ... it is not true. You CANNOT go that far into the loss of information and represent the whole truth using language and logic. But people are doing it all the time. "It's all God" ... well, sort of... but no. It's not. God has creations. "God is everything" .. well.. sort of, but no. God is not an illusion. Did you specify that? You need to.

So in terms of the editions of the course and the editing and the words in the book and the repetition of concepts and ideas and whether it contains ALL distinct information, fact, accuracy, precision and is "complete" informationally, you really need to think more in terms of ..... is there a full and accurate representation of the whole truth here. Is there ENOUGH words to represent the whole message. And that does NOT mean there should be too FEW words OR more than is needed. More words is not always an improvement either.

We might ask if something has been LOST, vital information, which is not repeated, which is missing, and that without it the picture is incomplete. It doesn't matter so much if the same ideas are presented many times, or if the concepts taught are built upon by others, etc. We need the whole accuracy and full scope of the truth, enough description to leave no loopholes, but we don't necessarily need 550,000 words to do that. But what matters is when you become SO reductionistic that you chop out VITAL information and disappear up your own arse.

So perhaps we can steer away from all these super-short ultra-vague trying-to-be-mystical statements of vagueness, and instead realize that you HAVE to use enough words in order to fully communicate an idea. You can't JUST say "God is" at this level and expect someone to understand that this DOESN'T imply that God is a piece of dog poop on the sidewalk. A more accurate, more detailed definition is needed, to close loopholes and stop logical errors from happening. This is why ACIM is presented as rather a lot of words, and not just one.

The course tries to represent a picture of the whole truth. It tries to talk about God and his nature. It doesn't do it in 2 words. It does it with a great many words because Jesus knows that you CANNOT represent the nuances of reality in such a small number of symbols. There is a certain level of entropy to this. You can't properly represent God, creation, kingdom, sonship, holy spirit, souls, your creations, eternal life, immortality, etc... in two words.

It has nothing to do with a person's inability to "grasp the truth of oneness" either. No one is grasping the truth of oneness by using the word oneness in a sentence. Oneness actually encapsulates rather a lot of details which you might not think are a part of it. Oneness doesn't forego God having a son. But it implies that there is no son at all. That is wrong. It is not an accurate representation and not enough information. The son is literally lost in that formulation.

Nor is someone being "all spiritual" just because they talk about God as if he's SO abstract that you can't say anything about him accurately at all. We might as well say that God is so beyond everything that you can't even say that God is beyond everything. What then? If you're GOING to use words, and language, and logical arguments, you CANNOT REDUCE IT beyond a certain point and expect to be accurately representing it.

God is ... much more than... just oneness.