This is a description of a late night conversation I had with a friend of mine at one point where we were comparing internal philosophies, initially were surprised at how wildly disparate they were, and then (several hours later) arrived at a way to integrate the two so that they were similar if not the same. Picture the self as a mosaic. I watch and analyze others, and listen to their stories, I break what I see and hear down into pieces, and occasionally, one of these pieces resonates with me, and I will add it to my personal mosaic. It is a recognition that "This is part of me", and by choosing the tiles, I am constructing myself. Even if I can't articulate it, I have a vision of who I am, and by grabbing pieces from where I see them, I am working towards realizing that vision. The inarticulation makes it seem like horrendous mishmash of personality traits grabbed here, bits of stories from there, etc., but the things I choose to remember and share with others define who I am. The other view is that the self is the universe. There are no other people independent of me. The universe exists to help me find myself. The apparent others are just tools of self-realization for me. These two views, while initially wildly disparate if not wholly opposite, actually can be reconciled, and even be construed as being the same thing. In the mosaic case, I am using others to define who I am - they are helping me find myself. It is the same thing in the universe view; the only difference is in the metaphysical reality of those others. In the mosaic case, I am wholly composed of others and their stories, to the extent that it appears there is no core "me". But since I choose which stories I remember, which others I include in my life, I am choosing who I am. In the universe case, there are no others - there is only me. These views boil down to the same thing, because the others are part of me either way! Hence, the line upon which it appeared that these two views were opposite actually can be bent around and forms a circle where they are the same point. So what is the rest of the circle? We can not communicate with the people around the circle. They do not think about such things. They have no need to question their assumptions. They just live their lives. We _have_ to study our assumptions, by virtue of having extreme viewpoints. We can not live in the mundane world where things just happen; we have to construct a world-view where each assumption has been tested and studied, so that we can defend our position. So what is this circle? Is it really a point where everything is the same? My gut says no. Is it a sphere? If it is a circle, how do you get through the center of the circle to the other side? Understanding people is the tool to get around the circle. By finding their assumptions and their thought system, one can construct the intermediaries necessary to communicate with them. This communication can be used for many purposes. A masterful understanding can lead to manipulation, where the relationship is all about power. This feeling of power can be addictive and destructive; I'm thinking "In the Company of Men", but others will have their own cultural touchpoints to illustrate it. Another purpose is to analyze them for the sake of determining which parts to add to one's mosaic. Analysis here is used in the dictionary sense of "the separation of a complex material or conception into its elements". By breaking down other people, we understand their elements, and can choose to add appropriate elements into ourselves. On a tangent, we can then view society as a protocol in the computer sense. A computer network is formed of nodes which are connected by links, where the communication is accomplished via an agreed-upon protocol. A straightforward mapping to society views people as the nodes, with interpersonal relationships being the links, and society being the protocol by which people communicate. We can use the common assumptions of society as a starting point to establish the communication discussed in the last paragraph. From the universe standpoint, "I am the link"; in other words, since I am the universe, society is part of me, and therefore, all links are through me. Upon further exploration, the concept of a circle is too limiting, and a cone seems to make more sense. Picture an upside-down ice cream cone with the point at the top, and a widening circle going down. The vertical axis can be treated as awareneess. At the point, we have the Buddha, who is perfectly aware, "tat tvam asi", all is one, everything is part of me, I am one with the universe. As we descend the levels of awareness, we grow less and less conscious of this fact, starting to confuse assumptions and societal standards with facts, etc. At the "bottom", people are completely unaware; they live on a straight line (i.e. an infinite circle) and have no understanding of how such disparate viewpoints such as the mosaic and the universe can be brought together. The circle that we posited before is thus seen to be an ellipse. The two viewpoints are at the "same" point, relatively high on the cone compared to most people. We are aware of our assumptions and of our positions in society, and have come to this same point, arriving from opposite directions on the ellipse. The people we interact with are lower on the cone; we can see them, we can communicate with them, but we have to lower our consciousness, and treat their assumptions as reality to do so.