Original Image part 2/3 by William Haines

This is Unification thought. The first chapter is called the Theory of the Original Image, which presents an idea or conception of what God is like. Everything else in terms of philosophy flows from this conception. We looked at the idea of dual aspects of inner character and external form. The Korean perspective has particular depth and meaning, and society is much more investigated within the Greek philosophical tradition. I had this idea that everything has these two different aspects: an inner aspect, which is invisible and subjective, and an outer aspect, which is visible and objective. Our mind is invisible; it tells our body to move around and do things, but it remains unseen.

The attributes of God include ideas of Yin and Yang. These are indirect or secondary attributes, while the primary attributes are internal and external. Every being has an inner and outer aspect. The secondary attributes, Yin and Yang, modify something. If you imagine a lump of clay, you can mold it; you can create a concave bit and a convex bit. You can't have concave and convex by themselves. It's similar to the Cheshire Cat from 'Through the Looking Glass,' where the cat's smile fades away until all that is left is the smile. You cannot have a smile without something that is smiling. In that sense, it's a secondary attribute; you can't have a smile without the cat.

We are fundamentally human beings with mind and body. The physical body is modified; it can be male or female. The mind generally has a tendency towards a more feminine or masculine aspect. Male and female are contingent on being internal and external. Internal and external do not need male and female for existence. Sometimes substances exist, while Yin and Yang do not; they are just modifications of the substance. Within God, everything is united in oneness, and these things only become differentiated with creation. This is not the same as classical dualism.

The idea of Yin and Yang includes examples like the sun and the moon, which are substantial things, or a mountain and a valley, hard and soft, day and night. In principle, Yin and Yang are modifications of a larger concept. If you look at the concept of Heaven and Earth, spring and autumn, summer and winter, you see a different conception of Yin and Yang than what the principle discusses. Yin and Yang are complementary; they attract each other and are different sides of the same coin. There is a mixture of different things going on, such as soldiers and labourers, which are two different types of beings, and action and inaction, which can be primary or secondary.

In this context, you can't have action and inaction without something that has been active or inactive. There are lots of different things mixed up here. It's not classical dualism because you don't have good and evil here; they are attractive towards each other. There are various kinds of relationships, such as controlling others and being controlled by others. This is not equality. The classical Western Greek conception of opposites includes limited and unlimited, odd and even, many and one, right and left, male and female, resting and moving, light and darkness, good and bad. Pythagoras put them all in the same tables, implying that anything on the left-hand side is good and anything on the right-hand side is bad.

This cultural legacy goes back thousands of years to Pythagoras and the Greeks. There is also a genetic legacy; societies often worry about genetic abnormalities, whether in animals or humans, and may misconceive that their differences are genetic anomalies. The aversion to left-handedness has persisted for so long because, initially, people react strongly to differences. Over time, they may become accustomed to different races and hair colours, but the question remains: why has the aversion to left-handedness lasted so long? The word 'sinister' has two meanings: left and evil, which is embedded in our language. This historical legacy has only recently begun to be addressed by feminism.

Pythagoras was primarily concerned with geometry and had his reasons for distinguishing between square and round. If you look at other parts of the world, left-handedness may not be associated with evil in non-Judeo-Christian or Greek cultures. In Africa, for example, it has likely been influenced by European culture. The concept of zero, which originated in India and was brought to Europe by the Arabs, was not present in Roman numerals. The Romans managed calculations without zero, which is a challenging concept. The modern world often associates unlimited with something positive, while limited is seen as negative. Order must be imposed; without it, society can descend into chaos.

The idea of oneness is regarded as good, while many are often seen as undesirable. This has led to a long-standing drive towards unity in Europe, with figures like Napoleon and Adolf Hitler promoting homogeneity. This desire for unity can lead to ethnic cleansing. Pluralism, regarded as good by some, is a relatively recent idea. The push for unity can easily slip into uniformity, such as the single currency in Europe. This has created economic disparities, as seen in the case of Germany and Greece, where the single currency has led to significant economic challenges for some countries. The euro is a political project rather than an economic one, and it does not function like the United States, where there is a central government to manage financial disparities.

Four states, no. You think that's what America does, transferring money from the states to four states? Don't they do well? Yes, that's right. It's the same person. We have a single currency, the pound. Most of the money is generated here in London, with vast amounts transferred to the north of England, where the whole industry collapsed. People don't mind because they all live in the same country, but they don't like subsidising people from a different county. Why do things have to be the same price just because they are in the same unit? I mean, if the Greek washing machine is rubbish, why not just have the same Euros but different prices? Well, that's just the way it works. They don't make washing machines increase in quality, do they? Well, they do, but that's why Greece was always a very cheap place to go for holidays, as was Spain. Spain is not as expensive as anywhere else.

Young people, especially, are unable to buy work. Maybe they have to rely on their sisters. Sorry, just to sum up, in Greece, they didn't work as hard; it was too hot. They realised that their way of life was lower in terms of standard of living than what tourists would expect. But then, as soon as they got the Euro, people wouldn't lend money to Greece. If the Greeks wanted to borrow money from others, they would have to pay more interest than the Germans would because it was a softer currency. They had higher interest rates for Greece than for Germany. However, when they adopted a single currency, there was a single interest rate, which meant that Greece could borrow money at a much lower interest rate than it could have in the past. They couldn't pay it back, and people lent money to Greece assuming it was part of the Euro, so it would be backed up by the European Central Bank. They didn't need to worry.

The reason why Greek interest rates were much higher was due to the recognition that Greece had defaulted every few decades; the whole thing collapses. People were factoring in this risk and charging high interest rates, which meant the Greeks wouldn't necessarily borrow because they had to pay higher interest rates. When they got the Euro, they had low interest rates, and for the first few years, it looked like heaven. But eventually, they ended up with huge debts. I can see that this is a political project. You can see the principal view of the relationship between yin and yang as a modification of the substance. If that's true, then is there really any significant difference between a man and a woman? The external form has a certain shape, but as far as the internal nature goes, what do you think?

I think that when the Divine Principle says a man's family inside is latent, it doesn't mean less; it means not yet developed. When a man marries a woman, it draws out his feminine side. Eventually, he becomes equally male and female, just like God is. Although in our church, they say you become whole when you're attached to a female, I think that attachment is for the purpose of drawing out your feminine side and vice versa for women. Eventually, you become fully male and female. There is no side of nature to that; you stay as a discrete projection, an individual being, but you become fully male and female. I wouldn't say fully, anyway. I know that's your theory, but I don't know what you mean. The two opposite poles attract each other and complement each other. For example, we describe male and female equality, but we said that even though we reflect God's image, we rely on being fused with another being to be a complete picture.

That's fine, but I think an empirical study would show there are differences between men and women on the inside. There are loads of books about this, like 'Men Are from Mars, Women Are from Venus', and people encounter a completely different way of thinking. You can find the same between Oriental and Western cultures. Yes, you can, but I was just saying that within the Orient, men and women are also similar. What do you think now? Because God has a male aspect and a female aspect, I’m sure in every single man and every single woman, you can find a bit of both. Not fully, because that would be very real if it were fully. I think two men have expressed the difference between male and female in a very special way. True Father said if you look at a rifle, the front half represents the man, and the second half represents the woman. He said they go together and are built on true love, like the American Frank who said that a man and woman are like a pair of scissors. You can imagine them apart, but it’s only when you put them together and put the screw in the middle that they can work.

The conversations I have with male friends are qualitatively different from those I have with female friends. I think the conversations that women have with each other are also different from those they would have with men. In which case, I would say there is always going to be something different. Psychologists recognise empirically that there is a difference. I'm not a psychologist; I can't give you dreams of data and evidence and references, but our sexuality informs what we say and how we think. I mean, that's nature. I think the physiology is different. For example, one very simple example is that men find it much easier to drive at night than women. When you're driving, the thing that's annoying at night is cars coming towards you with their bright headlights. Men can just realise there’s a car coming towards them with bright headlights; they look straight ahead, and it doesn't bother them. For women, it bothers them because the information coming into their eyes is about the same strength from everywhere, so they can't bracket out those bright lights coming toward them, which is why they find driving at night more difficult.

I remember when I was growing up, my parents would go to a party and come back to talk about it. My mother would ask my dad what he thought, and he would say, 'Well, I told you so and so,' and that was the extent of his report about the party. My mother would say, 'Well, I was talking to so and so, but at the same time, I noticed that so and so and so and so were talking to each other. Did you notice her dress and her shoes?' At the same time as my mother was having a conversation with this person, she was able to observe what was going on over here. As a man, you are aware of it, but you can't focus on what's over there without looking over there. A woman, apparently, has peripheral vision; she can look in one direction while concentrating and focusing on noticing a huge amount of detail at the same time. It's a different physiology, a different kind of vision. Why can't men do that? It's not a question; it's just the way it is physiologically. There is a reason why.

Well, I know there’s a reason, and you can come up with reasons. Anyway, the reality is this is why it is. But then, if that's physiology, you have to think, does that affect one's place in the world? Physiologically, there is a difference. Does that affect the inner world and make the inner world different as well? Can the spirit be male or female before the body is distinctly male or female? Do you think so? I don't know. I mean, I don't know what the relationship between the spirit and the body is in that sense, whether it's the body that determines the inner aspect. But you yourself are saying that the male and female aspects are secondary and malleable, right? So, the objective of life is to become experienced in all aspects, so you become flexible. Eventually, you can move between one and the other. In Shakespeare's 'Henry V', when Henry tries to rally his troops, he talks about English men in two different ways. When they're at home, they're calm and peaceful, but when they're at war, they're like this. He's talking about the same being that has totally different natures.

I understand what you're saying, but I don't know if it's empirically true, that's all. I understand what you're saying in theory, but the question is, if you go and read lots of books about masculinity and femininity in general, I think most women would agree with the feminist perspective that we are not men. There is a difference. Yes, of course, we are locked into our physiology for a while, but according to what you said, it's not absolute; it is relative. Well, it's a modification. You can have a straight piece of metal, and you can press something into it, creating concave and convex shapes. As we know, when men get older, their estrogen increases and testosterone decreases, and they become more emotional and sensitive, like me. Vice versa, even in a few short decades of life, you see a swing. The question is whether, I mean, you were saying in theory it ought to be completely right, but as long as a man is locked into a male physiology, it's always going to be on one side.

That's right. But you know, when we pass on and go to the next world, I think things will be more flexible. Again, I don't know that the people who've talked about the next world have said that. I understand what you're saying in theory, but there's no evidence for it. That's what I'm saying. So, I don't know; that's all I have to say. It's theory, but does one have evidence to support it? Okay, so here we have this thing: you've got this sort of sun, hum, upper and lower, subject and object, and you've got yin and yang's modifications. The physical body can be more masculine or more feminine, and the mind can also be more masculine or more feminine. I just watched a little YouTube video that my daughter showed me. It was really surprising. There was a couple that had a daughter, and when their daughter was about three, one of the first things she started saying was, 'I'm a boy.' She always wanted to dress like a boy and eventually articulated it as, 'I am a male soul trapped inside a female body.' So the child said that. Sorry, the child said it like that. She said, 'I'm a boy,' and she wanted to dress like a boy, behave like a boy, and be with boys. Her whole character was that she identified herself as a boy. She wasn't interested in dolls or anything, so it wasn't something in her upbringing; it was something she developed when she was about three years old. I thought, well, that's interesting. How do you go about explaining that?

You obviously can't. I mean, that could be explained; she could be called a tomboy if she was doing things that boys like, but that doesn't necessarily mean that she'll grow up to want something drastic like gender reassignment. Well, she did. I mean, she did. I tracked the particular thing up to about 13 or 14, and that was the plan because statistics show that nearly half the people who have this kind of condition tend to commit suicide. The parents didn't want that, so instead of trying to contradict her, they supported her in that sense of identity. But left and right-handedness is such a problem; I don't think having a problem with your gender is. I agree; it's a huge issue. Actually, this is one of my theories: sometimes I see men and I see the women in them. You can see, like, they look like their mother. Perhaps William looks like his mother. Some women look like their father because they take off. So really, there isn't that much difference; it's just the X and Y chromosomes. But then you get some people who, on the inside, identify themselves as different from what their body tells them they ought to be. I can imagine that must be a dreadful situation to find oneself in. That's a form of mental problem. Well, you can classify it as that, but the point is it exists. The fact that they go for surgery shows that they really have conviction. So yes, it shows something right. It's not something I said when she was about three years old. They just showed pictures and said things until I think she was about 13 or 14. I've never seen anything like that before. You've heard of eating disorders, where some people are appetised towards foods that are actually compatible, while others have eating disorders where they are not interested in food and want to eat just wood or just stone. It's possible for your alignment to be completely thrown off, and you can be completely convinced that's what you need. I question, why is it? Why sometimes? Well, I don't really get it. I don't know if it's perfectly correct to say, but couldn't they learn to accept the way they are? I mean, they feel like a woman in a man's body.

Body image issues can lead individuals to seek surgery to align their physical appearance with their self-perception. This is particularly complex when it comes to gender identity, where one might feel disconnected from their physical form. The struggle to cope with such feelings can be overwhelming, and while some may explore options like hypnotherapy, the underlying mental health challenges remain significant. It is a troubling reality for those who experience this disconnect, as they navigate their identity and seek solutions.

One common misunderstanding is the extent of our choices in life. Many aspects of our preferences, such as musical tastes or food choices, are largely influenced by our DNA and physiology. Our biology guides us in ways we may not fully comprehend, and this can create a conflict when one's feelings or attractions do not align with societal norms. For instance, trying to suppress one's sexual orientation can feel as impossible as changing fundamental biological traits, such as being lactose intolerant. This highlights the complexity of human identity and the limitations of choice.

The concept of the universal image of God encompasses both inner and outer aspects, reflecting a balance of positive and negative elements. Within this framework, every individual is seen as a unique expression of God's infinite images. The theological perspective suggests that the uniqueness of each person stems from their divine origin, which in turn affirms their inherent value. This idea aligns with the biblical notion of human rights, emphasizing that every individual deserves respect and dignity as a unique creation of God.

The phrase 'manifestation of one of God's individual images' suggests that there are infinite expressions of God's creativity. Just as no two snowflakes are identical, each human being is a distinct combination of genetic possibilities. The vast potential for variation in human life reflects the infinite nature of God's creativity. This leads to the theological assertion that every individual is a unique manifestation of divine intention, contributing to the richness of human experience.

Unification thought proposes a specific understanding of God's character, focusing on heart, logos, and creativity. These attributes are seen as essential for addressing real-world problems, contrasting with traditional views that emphasize God's omniscience or omnipotence. This approach suggests that understanding God through these attributes can be more practical and relevant to human experience, as it connects divine characteristics to our capacity for problem-solving and creativity.

The discussion of logos, or reason, highlights the idea that our understanding of God can be shaped by its utility in addressing human needs. While some may argue that this perspective risks oversimplifying the divine, it also reflects a pragmatic approach to theology. The challenge lies in balancing the recognition of God's complexity with the desire to make divine attributes accessible and applicable to our lives. This utilitarian approach raises questions about the completeness of our understanding of God and the potential limitations of such a framework.

The history of religion often involves humanity's attempts to map out and understand the divine. While some scriptures endure due to their practical application and the enrichment they provide, others fade away. This process of verification through lived experience contrasts with rationalistic attempts to define God in tidy terms. Genuine religious experiences often embrace mystery and complexity, resisting oversimplification. Unification thought's effort to categorise God may overlook the richness of metaphorical language that captures the divine's essence.

In conclusion, while unification thought offers valuable insights, it also risks presenting a too tidy understanding of God. The complexities of faith and divine experience often resist neat categorisation. The challenge remains to honour the mystery of the divine while seeking to understand and articulate the nature of God in ways that resonate with human experience. This ongoing dialogue between faith and reason is essential for a deeper understanding of the divine.

Published, it's sort of very much a stream of consciousness kind of book. He would talk and talk and talk, explaining things, and he had a couple of very intelligent disciples who were able to systematise his teachings. They were the ones who systematised it into these books called the Divine Principle. He himself would never talk in that kind of structured way. If you read his speeches, they are very rich with all kinds of ideas going on all over the place. So, this is based upon his insights, but he didn't write it; someone else put it together in that sense, systematised it with discussion. This is a bit erratic, taking a stream of consciousness, but it is full of deep insights and attempts to systematise the core aspects of God. I think it's important to know that approach, and then you can take a little bit of salt in the way they present it.

We often talk about religious language and how different languages are social constructs through which people perceive the world. If you think in one language, you see the world and human relationships in one way. If you think in a different language, you see the world and human relationships structured differently. This is a very core point, which goes back to the idea that every image or idea you have of God is always going to be socially constructed using the language in which you're thinking. Therefore, it's always going to be partial and potentially wrong. However, Moon himself thinks that Korean, as a language, is something unique and absolute; everyone should learn it, and the whole world should speak it. His way of solving this problem is to make Korean the single language of the world, thus eliminating the issue of language barriers.

You only realise that language is a problem when you encounter someone with a different language. When you try to translate something, you realise it's impossible to have an exact translation. If you're brought up bilingually, you're aware that the world is different depending on what language you're thinking in. But if you're monolingual and the whole world is monolingual, this doesn't become an issue, and you assume that your language corresponds exactly to reality. Isn't that dangerous? Yes, I would agree with you. English could become the dominating language of the next century, but is that a good thing? I think having a common language is helpful, but not having a single language. If English serves as a common language that enables people from different places to communicate without having to learn hundreds of languages, that's beneficial. However, a single language can hinder the learning of other people's languages.

It's much easier for a French and a German person to just speak English to each other, but there aren't that many differences between European languages. There are slight differences, but it's also more respectful if I go to Japan and speak Japanese rather than English. That's because, if you're English, it can be a problematic situation. For a German and a French person, speaking English is like using a neutral language. It allows a German to speak to a French person, a Spanish person, an Italian, or a Greek. By learning English, you can communicate with people from many different countries who have also learned English. In that sense, having a common language is quite useful, but they wouldn't feel bad about speaking the language of the conquerors. Let's just put that in a bracket; it's just very utilitarian and useful.

The thinking on this problem is often too linear. We think in terms of human experience, which limits our ability to understand God. I believe God saw to it that the universe would be a certain way and that we would have this limited experience, shaping our thinking and human relationships. Ultimately, God's reason for creation was to create beings that could be like Him and understand Him, so He could have a relationship. The reason we are like this is because God intended for us to be this way to understand Him. Projecting our experience onto what God is like could actually be God's way of helping us to understand Him. If everything were infinite, without limited human experience, we wouldn't understand anything. I feel this is a positive aspect, not a negative one, as it helps us to understand God's nature.

We understand ourselves and then project that onto God because God sought that we would be like this. However, it's easy to fall into the temptation of thinking that this is the way God really is. I'm proposing the idea that perhaps God Himself sought that we would have this limited experience so that we could express ourselves in a way that reflects His nature. When we grow up, we have a desire to have children so we can nurture them and find joy in seeing them flourish. We can project that onto God, suggesting that He is a being who likes to bring other beings into existence and nurture them, deriving joy from their flourishing. But why do we have children? That's all part of biology and the evolutionary process. If we didn't have children, the human species would have become extinct a long time ago.

You can say God intended for that to be the case, or one could argue that it's just the way things developed. I tend to lean towards the latter. So, you don't think God intentionally created human beings? No, I really don't. You think the universe just came into being? I think God created the universe and hoped that beings would emerge with which He could have a close relationship. It could have been a fish; it didn't have to be a human being. It doesn't matter what our form is, but the point is that we are complex enough to have a relationship with the Divine. You don't think God knew that this would eventually be one of the outcomes? Yes, considering the size of the universe, it's pretty much inevitable that somewhere there would be a planet where life could emerge. There are likely many other planets in similar situations.

But couldn't it be that God designed the way they live to cause them to experience life and a growth of mental state that He wishes, so they can understand Him? By them projecting that onto Him, that's what He wanted; that's His method of teaching us what He is like. I understand that's what you think He wanted, but I am agnostic about all that. I don't know if it's true. However, you don't make agnostic statements; you make absolute statements. You say it's impossible to know God. When you say it might be impossible, we project our nature onto God. That's what you were saying, and I agree. But you're suggesting that by doing that, we assume God is like that. I don't think that's necessarily the case; it might be, but it might not be. The evidence, in my opinion, looking at religious experiences, suggests that God probably isn't like that. He isn't a being who nurtures other beings and takes joy in their flourishing.

Yes, but there's a lot more going on as well. You have the angry God, the thunderbolts, and people getting wiped out. The historical record shows that God isn't just a loving, benevolent being; He has a whole range of attributes that can't just be put in a box. God made volcanoes and fierce lions as well. I don't know if He made them, but you know what I mean. We could make some small inroads into understanding this. Here again, it's just a diagram that is misleading because God is complete oneness. If one were to try to depict it, the heart is the core, the essence of God. It's not helpful to have a simplistic definition of the heart. Unification thought offers a phenomenological definition, describing the heart as the emotional impulse to seek joy through love. This is a projection of what a human being is; we want to experience joy, and the deepest joy comes from giving and receiving love.

At the end of the day, knowledge, power, and money mean nothing compared to love. The old romances, songs, and poetry reflect this; at the end of the day, it's love and the incredible joy that comes from relationships. This impulse, this irrepressible desire to give and receive love, and the joy that accompanies it, is central to understanding the heart. If you say this is the core of God, it provides motivation for why God would create the universe. Sometimes people ask why God created the universe. Was it for experimentation or fun? Unification thought suggests that the motivation for God creating the universe and human beings was His desire to experience joy through love. That's why there are beings like God; He can have the deepest relationship with beings who are alive. This was the motivation behind creation; it wasn't an experiment or boredom, but rather the core nature of God's motivation, which is quite interesting.

One of the things people struggle to explain is why, if God exists, He created human beings and the universe. I think this gives the best explanation for me. The heart of the Father is that God created human beings, Adam and Eve, as His children. Because of the Fall, God's heart was broken. Even though God is love, almighty, and all-powerful, He can actually be broken-hearted. God grieves. This theme runs through the Bible; God grieves with every single child who suffers. He is suffering and feeling that person's pain and agony as His own. In that sense, God is a God of grief, but He also loves each person and wants every human being to be happy. This idea of the heart of restoration is that God has been working to make the world a better place. The whole impetus behind religion is to teach people the right way of life, to stop wars and injustice, and to promote justice and equality. God wants to restore the world to the way He originally intended, and the way He does that is by responding to Him.

The nature of God's heart is unique, eternal, and unchanging. The second character is logos, a Greek word most famously used in the Gospel of John: 'In the beginning was the Word.' Translated from the Greek, it reads, 'In the beginning was the logos.' The Word was with God, and the Word was God. This understanding shows that God is a being of heart and love, but also, from the beginning of the Gospel of John, God is a being of logos. This is the principle of unification thought, understanding the union of reason and law, or freedom and necessity. With reason, you can imagine all kinds of things. You can draw all kinds of shapes of airplanes on a piece of paper, but when it comes to actually making a plane that will fly, you must consider the limitations of gravity and engineering. Therefore, you have to tailor your reason and imagination within the laws of aerodynamics.

Freedom and law are connected to necessity; you can't escape the laws of gravity. Here, things are not determined mechanically, but there is always this aspect of freedom that accompanies it. The idea is that God had a design, a blueprint for everything in the universe, which became the basis for God's creation. Unification thought, as presented, aligns closely with what we call intelligent design, which I personally find philosophically incoherent. This becomes clearer when we examine human beings and how that works. God has being and creativity as key attributes in all traditions, as God created the universe. God's creativity is compelled by heart and guided by logos. The reason God created was to experience joy through love, but for that to happen, there had to be a universe that functioned properly.

The universe required incredible fine-tuning from the beginning of the Big Bang; everything had to align perfectly. Otherwise, there would be no universe capable of complexity and consciousness. God intended to create a universe in which human beings could emerge, and to achieve that, He had to work within the laws. This understanding implies that God Himself is limited by law; for example, God cannot create a square circle. The essence of the original image reflects Divine character, heart, and creativity. This concept is rooted in the biblical tradition, which speaks of the three blessings: to be fruitful, to multiply, and to have dominion.

To be fruitful means to mature and inherit God's heart, becoming one with Him. Logos represents reason, while law pertains to ethics and morality, focusing on relationships between human beings. This is where the idea of family comes into play. Creativity involves having dominion over creation. In this sense, God wanted us to become like Him, so He bestowed upon human beings the three blessings: the ability to perfect our character, to develop as beings of heart, and to multiply our children to experience God's heart. Additionally, we have the capacity to create and develop God's creativity.

There is a correlation between emotion, intellect, and will. Emotion corresponds to the first blessing, intellect to the second blessing, and will to the third blessing. While I acknowledge these distinctions, I also believe that at the end of the day, emotion, intellect, and will are all facets of the mind, which we experience as a unity. If one attempts to separate these aspects and label them individually, it becomes artificial. Reality is not divided in that way; it is a unified experience. Although I just ran through that list, I find it problematic when diagrams and language are used to categorise these experiences. Reality is experienced as a whole, and while we may use diagrams to illustrate concepts, they are merely models and do not accurately represent reality.

If one takes a diagram as reality, one risks misunderstanding the true nature of existence. A two-dimensional or even three-dimensional world still divides things and places boundaries around them, which is not how we experience life. Diagrams serve as tools to aid understanding, but they do not reflect the true nature of things. This is how I perceive the situation.