On the Differences, Part II

After a night spent mulling over what I'd just written, I came up with some additional insights on the topic. Thus, there just had to be a Part II.

It finally came to me why it is people would focus on differences to differentiate themselves. It's very Spinoza-esque: if people can't show that their different, what's to say there's any separation at all?

I guess from this I could conclude that maybe people just don't want there to be only one thing. People will name things, set things apart from other things, differentiate people, all to try to show that there are multiple things in the world.

How could a ball and a chair be encompassed in the same thing? They have different names, they are not alike, they aren't even close in space to one another. They must be different, we have ascribed all these properties to each of them. Why would we do this if they were not indeed different?

However, even if we want to try to take the view of all-as-one, it seems like we still must try to tell things apart. If everything just blurred together there wouldn't be anything left to experience. It doesn't make sense to think of everything as one.

Well, I can already tell I'm not done with this yet, so I guess that means there is going to be a Part III.