'I fundamentally disagree with the premise that primary reality is "one" '


 One of the people who were kind enough to check a draft of this Issue, wrote this to us: 
 
I think. . . that I fundamentally disagree with the premise that primary reality
is "one" and the perception of separateness is illusion rather than reality.
Perceptions have their own reality and it is strange that when the primary
 reality is one this is not obvious but is obscured. That is, on the premises
of the article, reality is actually bifurcated into appearance and reality, a reality
 that may only be accesible for a moment or two of "oneness" when
appearances are set aside.
 
I share this not to enter into an argument but to be clear that in being a
'reader' of some kind of the website you understand that I am theologically
 interested in what is being communicated, but not necessarily at "one" (!!)
 with what is being expressed.
 
Editors' Response
I am thankful I invited you to comment, for you get me to BALANCE
the message of this issue, and perhaps annoy fewer readers.
 
In the first issue we spoke of binocular vision if the One and the Many,
and implied that the purpose of the journal was to present the point of
view of the physicists and mystics to help balance the largely "many" focus
of much of Christianity, and certainly of the secular world.
 
The One and the Many approaches appear to be contradictory.
 
The same Lawrence LeShan who so clearly describes the world
of the One, in his Alternate Realities, concludes his description with
 the words "This is the only valid way to regard reality. All other
ways are illusion."  
 
But then he describes (p.88) The Sensory Modes of Being. "All
valid information directly or indirectly comes from the senses. All
events happen in space and time. All events have a cause. Causes
occur before events. Events in the future can theoretically be changed.
Objects separate in space are separate objects; events separate in time
 are separate events...All objects or events have similar parts, they can
be placed in classes for a specific purpose and the entire class can be
 thought of and dealt with as if it were one object or event...This is the
only valid way to regard reality. All other ways are illusion." (!)
 
All of us live and love and serve in the Mode of the Many. We have to.
And we may believe that God did not make a big mistake when he created
 individual selves and egos. This is where we experience, act, and learn
 from experience. If we focused only in the mode of the One, then in
crossing a road, we might become One with a bus, and end our earthly
 lives.
 
I can see that our e-Journal might be understood as advocating some new
 version of Christianity. But that is absolutely not the case. 
It is true that we would emphasise Eph.4.4. "in all through all and above all"
 John 21, "you in me, I in the Father, and the Father in you."  And we would
 consider that every act of Communion, every act of worship, every
surrender into the hands of Spirit, every loving relationship, every
synchronicity, every guidance received from God, belongs more to the
Mode of the One.
 
But I personally would not give way in asserting that the universe is God's
cathedral, or that the universe cannot be split into spiritual and material, into
 heaven and hell, two separated governing individuals called "God" and "devil".
 There is no easy answer to the question of the problem of evil. Perhaps it
arises through the judgements of the separated minds of those in the Many.
 Perhaps there is more to it.