Oneness and differentiations within Consciousness

I wrote this a while ago into an article titled 'This Picture Has Creationists Terrified'. A puerile headline that gives away the Tweedledum and Tweedledee tiff between disconnecting polarities of one idea... that it is up to human thought to define 'Creation' or All That Is - and that such definition can be exclusively 'right', rather than a facet or perspective upon All That Is from a particular point of view.

Anyway... I wrote:

There are two 'creations'. one is depicting First Cause as if it were a time sequence, when of course it is always ever Now,  extending as all levels of expression, and the second depicts the differentiation of consciousness within Consciousness such that "Lord God"  and a separated human consciousness arose from 'the mist'.
Everyone is free to read as they choose, but if it (Bible) is allowed to be a structure of reflection for consciousness as to the true nature of Consciousness, presented in a language that can be accessible to the physically identified personality structure, then it is not read as a scientific account of the physical. Which 'modern' man worships as if IT (physicality) were the One Lord God from whence all reality derives, and whose 'secrets' he (or she) alone comes to possess and so have favour and validity and dominion as the 'right hand man'; "God's doer".
The mind that dreams itself alone in search of itself special is turned away from all that shares Conscious Existence so as to 'see' only as its own judgements and definitions dictate.
The urge to power is a coercive control mentality that would 'Lord it' over others and creation. But the True Mastery of Life yields unto its true Nature and 'Lords it' over none.

Popular religious Creation tends to separation and magic. Scientific creation tends to separation and anti-magic.
Consciousness is not in Fact separated from any of its objects, nor defined by them.

This response from  haloMarch:

I can't think of an accepted school of psychology that would agree with you. Freud, Skinner, Jung, they would all probably see this as complete nonsense, let alone today's cognitive science which would not even believe in your idea of "consciousness".

OK and ... so what?
I am not writing to the schismed mind that seeks to map and control itself as if it were outside itself - which is a derivative of the idea; 'lording it' over Life.
Consensus is a herd mentality, that the people you name did not altogether follow or they would be unremembered.
But the edifice of learning that grows upon a false foundation can never become true, no matter how diligent and dedicated the work.
You can want it to be true and believe it true and experience it true - but you cannot truly step outside Consciousness - as if to judge it - not in any degree whatsoever. Such is an imagination, used as a foundation and a lens and as basis for a currency of idea and experience. Such exploration is all well and good - but our joy in living and being is our true basis of expression - so if you/we teach y/ourself to be isolated and depleted and compelled to herd conformity, it is still y/our choice - y/our free willingness to accept or refuse.

Consciousness is implicit in every idea! Rather than assemble a 'private mind' - why not feel the resonance and relevance of the idea to your interest, excitement, joy and wholeness of being - and flow with it? (Or pass it by unused if it has no relevance).

This kind of consciousness is NOT coercive upon you. The Lord - if we are to use the term for Primary Unified Power - is One. Not a unified THEORY - though theorizing is ok too.

As you allow your oneness to express in place of a conflicted self-definition, you will resonate with All That Is and will feel pure joy. Nor will you need grasp at it as if it can be lost. Yes this is 'out of control or accountability' in the sense we usually use these terms, simply because it is not fearful and so not calling upon a fearful rationalisation and control.

I'm not suggesting anyone believe anything I write - I am inviting recognition within the reader. Make your own direct connection as your own intuitive discernment - but of course test everything with the utmost self-honesty. Mentality is ever a deceiver if it is not directly aligned with presence - no matter how earnest and rational it may seem.

Thoughts that leave the living context of their relational being are like money; they can become agreed currency, yet have no intrinsic value and can lose it overnight when the herd runs (or is directed) over a cliff.