Wholeness and Fragmentation

[Nick_A]

Are fragmentation and wholeness complimentary or mutually exclusive? I found this excerpt concluding a david Bohm blog. It concludes with a profound suggestion

https://www.infinitepotential.com/whole ... mentation/

We all contain the whole universe within us as well as being individual. We are both whole and part. While we are uniquely ourselves, we are also inseparable from the whole.
If that is so, then why is it that we tend to get into such muddles? There’s a hint in something he once said. The universe is always coherent if we take a great enough view. The reason things appear to be fragmented is that we are looking too low; we fail to raise our sights to the level at which the fragmentation is only a part of a greater whole. As a result, we mistakenly see things as separate, as fragmented. Were he to speak to us today, he might say, “Raise your sights. Look at a higher level for the greater whole.”

Is a rock a part of the whole? Can a thing have both a lawful individual fragment and yet be part of the whole? If science concerns itself with fragmentation, must it deny wholeness and how could science include wholeness? Can a spiritual person accept that fragmentation and creation is not just the meaningless whims of a divine entity? Will the future of science tend to prove the necessity of our source or make it obsolete in favor of pursuing fragmentation and the abstractions of science?

There is a lot we don't know. But we do know that many believe truth comes from fragmentation and others believe truth comes from wholeness. They are at war in the world on secular and spiritual philosophy sites. Is there an approach to truth people seek which would satsify those into fragmentation and those drawn to wholeness? If so, what is it?

[Dontaskme]

There is a lot we don't know.

There is no 'we' to know. The 'we' is known. This STOPS with the KNOWN ...there is nothing more that can be known...can a KNOWER be located inside a human brain without making any material find also KNOWN? ....NO KNOWER has ever been SEEN...all that is seen is a conceptual KNOWN... there is nothing that can be known beyond that knowledge. You cannot step outside of this immediate conscious knowing to get a peek up it's skirt, to then say I have seen the knower. . yet this too is KNOWN.
Isn't that enough?

But we do know that many believe truth comes from fragmentation and others believe truth comes from wholeness.

Truth comes from it's own source...source cannot be captured or bottled and looked at.

They are at war in the world on secular and spiritual philosophy sites. Is there an approach to truth people seek which would satsify those into fragmentation and those drawn to wholeness? If so, what is it?

There is no approaching truth. There is only truth...going live right now....to approach it implies it is something to get that you haven't got yet...but that's all wrong, there is no other one to get truth, in truth, the truth is already all ones. Even the lie is the truth.

The only war going on here, is in the mind of the believer. You do not need to believe TO BE ...but belief needs a believer to be.

[Nick_A]

DAM takes the position that Man is God but beliefs get in the way of realizing it. He is the whole truth. The scientist is only concerned with verifying partial truths and the sum of partial truths equal the whole truth both science and religion are drawn to.

Suppose Man is a MIDDLE along the line of being between wholeness and fragmentation? Man worthy of the name Man as a conscious middle could consciously receive quality from above and give to below. Then Man is neither God or a dog The trouble is finding men worthy of the name Man. We are surrounded by experts making it far more difficult

[Dontaskme]

DAM takes the position that Man is God but beliefs get in the way of realizing it.

Wrong I

He is the whole truth.

Who's HE again..I forgot?

The scientist is only concerned with verifying partial truths and the sum of partial truths equal the whole truth both science and religion are drawn to.

Sounds like a plan.

Suppose Man is a MIDDLE along the line of being between wholeness and fragmentation? Man worthy of the name Man as a conscious middle could consciously receive quality from above and give to below. Then Man is neither God or a dog The trouble is finding men worthy of the name Man. We are surrounded by experts making it far more difficult

No need for a middle man. It'll only cause conflict between two opposite opposing sides.

.

[Nick_A]

No need for a middle man. It'll only cause conflict between two opposite opposing sides.

A real philosophical question. Is the great chain of being connecting wholeness and fragmentation a reality? If it is, how do science and the essence of religion verify it?

[Dontaskme]

No need for a middle man. It'll only cause conflict between two opposite opposing sides.

A real philosophical question. Is the great chain of being connecting wholeness and fragmentation a reality? If it is, how do science and the essence of religion verify it?

I've no idea what you are talking about.

[Nick_A]

No need for a middle man. It'll only cause conflict between two opposite opposing sides.

A real philosophical question. Is the great chain of being connecting wholeness and fragmentation a reality? If it is, how do science and the essence of religion verify it?

I've no idea what you are talking about.

https://www.britannica.com/topic/Great-Chain-of-Being

Great Chain of Being, also called Chain of Being, conception of the nature of the universe that had a pervasive influence on Western thought, particularly through the ancient Greek Neoplatonists and derivative philosophies during the European Renaissance and the 17th and early 18th centuries. The term denotes three general features of the universe: plenitude, continuity, and gradation. The principle of plenitude states that the universe is “full,” exhibiting the maximal diversity of kinds of existences; everything possible (i.e., not self-contradictory) is actual. The principle of continuity asserts that the universe is composed of an infinite series of forms, each of which shares with its neighbour at least one attribute. According to the principle of linear gradation, this series ranges in hierarchical order from the barest type of existence to the ens perfectissimum, or God.....................

[Dontaskme]

A real philosophical question. Is the great chain of being connecting wholeness and fragmentation a reality? If it is, how do science and the essence of religion verify it?

I've no idea what you are talking about.

https://www.britannica.com/topic/Great-Chain-of-Being

Great Chain of Being, also called Chain of Being, conception of the nature of the universe that had a pervasive influence on Western thought, particularly through the ancient Greek Neoplatonists and derivative philosophies during the European Renaissance and the 17th and early 18th centuries. The term denotes three general features of the universe: plenitude, continuity, and gradation. The principle of plenitude states that the universe is “full,” exhibiting the maximal diversity of kinds of existences; everything possible (i.e., not self-contradictory) is actual. The principle of continuity asserts that the universe is composed of an infinite series of forms, each of which shares with its neighbour at least one attribute. According to the principle of linear gradation, this series ranges in hierarchical order from the barest type of existence to the ens perfectissimum, or God.....................

Sorry Nick, this info is all lost on me. Am I supposed to understand this. Honestly, I'm just not an intellectual type of thinker.

.

[Dontaskme]

[Nick_A]

DAM

The secular world defines the concept of being as life. If it is living it has being and if dead it lacks being. This excerpt is a little easier to understand and introduces the quality of being. The hierarchy of being adds a new dimension beyond life and death to understanding being.

Secularism must ridicule it since by definition it includes a source to begin the hierarchy into creation. It seems you do not yet recognize the relativity and scale of being as a living necessity within creation. Yet it is at the source of the spiritual influences mentioned in the excerpt. Apparently as society ages it loses its awareness of being awareness considering everything in nature as the same in objective quality or closeness to the source and in the process, losing its objective quality and being potential.

https://www.newworldencyclopedia.org/en ... n_of_Being

The Great Chain of Being or scala naturæ is a classical conception of the metaphysical order of the universe in which all beings from the most basic up to the very highest and most perfect being are hierarchically linked to form one interconnected whole. Although this notion was viewed in various ways from antiquity and throughout the medieval period, its philosophical formulation can perhaps best be seen beginning with Aristotle, moving through the Neoplatonists, and culminating in the theological vision of the scholastics.

Although many modern philosophers abandon the classical view, some alternate versions of the Great Chain of Being can be seen in the metaphysical rationalists of the seventeenth and eighteenth century. Beyond the realms of academic philosophy, the Great Chain of Being characterizes a cosmology that in its essence traces back to the Egyptian and Greek civilizations in the West and is continuous through Judaism, Christianity, Islam, Hinduism, Buddhism, and ancient Chinese thought. Discarded by many or even most intellectuals under the critique from modern science and philosophy, the cosmology of the Great Chain of Being in various forms nonetheless remains powerfully attractive to millions of people who are uncomfortable and unfulfilled within the cosmology presented by modern scientific materialism…………………………

[Dontaskme]

DAM

The secular world defines the concept of being as life. If it is living it has being and if dead it lacks being. This excerpt is a little easier to understand and introduces the quality of being. The hierarchy of being adds a new dimension beyond life and death to understanding being.

Secularism must ridicule it since by definition it includes a source to begin the hierarchy into creation. It seems you do not yet recognize the relativity and scale of being as a living necessity within creation.

Nick, trust me I do recognise the relativity aspect of being, you are wrong to assume I don't.
Ok, just because I'm maybe a bit crap at putting all this into words doesn't mean I don't get it. I get it ok.

I can only see it the way the seeing manifests as and through this mind/body mechanism here. Now, you there may see all this in a totally different way to me, according to your own unique lens of perception, and yet we will still be both correct. So all I'm saying to you is that I cannot see what you are seeing, I can only see what I am seeing. I don't even need to write it down what I am seeing, I can totally understand without the need to say one single word about it.

Apparently as society ages it loses its awareness of being awareness considering everything in nature as the same in objective quality or closeness to the source and in the process, losing its objective quality and being potential.

You see I don't even agree with that statement. I don't see it like that at all. I believe awakening can happen at any age, even at 100 years old it can happen, or it can happen even as you are taking your last breath while lying on your death bed. So the point is, it's never too late to awaken, in fact we have the rest of eternity to awaken. There's no rush. If we'd rather stay asleep for the rest of eternity, then that's fine too.

We ain't going to miss out on what we never had, and we are never going to want what we never missed. Unborn people don't miss out on being alive. And the born people do not miss out on life because they are being spiritually dead, because here there is only life living itself, it has no preferences to be awake or asleep,these are just conceptual ideas within the dream of separation. In reality, there is nothing separate from itself, from source to source is an endless spring. We live, we die, and reappear only to die again, forever and ever....infinitely.

So I just don't worry or care about who is awake or who is asleep Nick. To me,it's all the same one love action dreaming difference where there is none...for me, there's just wide awake awareness in which every thing arises and falls including all our stories about how things should and shouln't be, or could and couldn't be.

Sorry for the rant...


.

[Nick_A]

DAM

We ain't going to miss out on what we never had, and we are never going to want what we never missed. Unborn people don't miss out on being alive. And the born people do not miss out on life because they are being spiritually dead, because here there is only life living itself, it has no preferences to be awake or asleep,these are just conceptual ideas within the dream of separation. In reality, there is nothing separate from itself, from source to source is an endless spring. We live, we die, and reappear only to die again, forever and ever....infinitely.

Feom the OP excerpt:

We all contain the whole universe within us as well as being individual. We are both whole and part. While we are uniquely ourselves, we are also inseparable from the whole.

But at least our essential difference is clear. You believe in the “dream of separation” and I believe that the human organism is “both whole and part” It is this difference that provides humanity with objective meaning and purpose.

In these times people argue over which is true. Some speak only of the dream of separation or wholeness while others into science refer to the value of “fragments.”

Can the reality of the future contain the ideal of enabling the objective value of fragments, of individuality, to reflect the reality and purpose within universal wholeness? Sadly there is nothing to indicate it. What is possible for individuals is not possible for the cyclical purpose of mechanical society.

I can respect your belief in the “dream of separation” and I believe the human organism is “both whole and part” so can respect the value of conscious individuality. How does a person who understands this grow in their understanding while avoiding being killed or emotionally abused by believers in one or the other? Not so easy. The battle is too intense.

[Nick_A]

From the OP

We all contain the whole universe within us as well as being individual. We are both whole and part. While we are uniquely ourselves, we are also inseparable from the whole.
If that is so, then why is it that we tend to get into such muddles? There’s a hint in something he once said. The universe is always coherent if we take a great enough view. The reason things appear to be fragmented is that we are looking too low; we fail to raise our sights to the level at which the fragmentation is only a part of a greater whole. As a result, we mistakenly see things as separate, as fragmented. Were he to speak to us today, he might say, “Raise your sights. Look at a higher level for the greater whole.”

As humanity continues to devolve, less and less raise their sights and instead become fixated on imagination produced by escapism and technology. How many are willing to raise their sights if it is more attractive to look down?

This raises the question if a super civilization is still possible: as humanity continues its devolution into fragmentation. Simone Weil describes what is necessary for a super civilization:

"The combination of these two facts — the longing in the depth of the heart for absolute good, and the power, though only latent, of directing attention and love to a reality beyond the world and of receiving good from it — constitutes a link which attaches every man without exception to that other reality.

Whoever recognizes that reality recognizes also that link. Because of it, he holds every human being without any exception as something sacred to which he is bound to show respect.

This is the only possible motive for universal respect towards all human beings. Whatever formulation of belief or disbelief a man may choose to make, if his heart inclines him to feel this respect, then he in fact also recognizes a reality other than this world's reality. Whoever in fact does not feel this respect is alien to that other reality also."

If people could give attention and love to a reality greater than themselves which unites all our various types, they could sense there is something more important than arguing opinions and find it. Imagine a super civilization which feels this reality and the respect for one another it generates from experiencing that they all endure the same human condition? What could they accomplish?

Of course it is impossible but it is still beneficial to realize what we are sacrificing to fragmentation and denying the ability to look up and become aware of our source in relation to the quality of our being

[Dontaskme]

As humanity continues to devolve, less and less raise their sights and instead become fixated on imagination produced by escapism and technology. How many are willing to raise their sights if it is more attractive to look down?

There is nothing wrong with this action that you have just described in your reply....If however the action is taken to evolve to a higher plane of consciousness then only life itself will evolve this action to happen when it is meant to happen and not one second before.

For example: my brother hates it when I talk about nonduality to him he has no understanding of what I am saying to him, but the point is he is a naturally content happy and loving person, who never seems to be ever phased by any problem, and just deals with them as and when they arise, then moves on .....Now, the point is, is he missing out on something better here? ...No, of course not, not that he is aware of anyway...so it's not as if he would even care about awakening to a higher self ..it really is not going to happen for him anytime soon, unless this action is taken as part of his script, the one that only life can evolve him to do. And also, why would he have any awareness while just living the life as he does at present, why would he have awareness of the idea that it was some form of escapism...escapism from what? surely that wouldn't even enter his thoughts, why would it?.


Does that answer your question?

.

[Nick_A]

You didn't answer the question because you didn't understand it. My question refes to the human need to experience objective meaning and purpose. The human condition makes it difficult so humanity becomes content with imaginary meaning and purpose. Higher selves hve nothing to do with it. How do we use what we are born with to experience the quality of meaning some re attracted to?

If we have been conditioned to be closed to objective meaning, we devolve into the many paths leading to subjective meaning and purpose. Your brother may be content with meaning inspired by the world. Maybe later in life he my begin to question but right now if he is content, let him be. The quest to sacrifice subjective sources of meaning to experience objective meaning are for these rare ones like the Simone's of the world. They live in-between two worlds. They don't fit in.

"To believe in God is not a decision we can make. All we can do is decide not to give our love to false gods. In the first place, we can decide not to believe that the future contains for us an all-sufficient good. The future is made of the same stuff as the present....

"...It is not for man to seek, or even to believe in God. He has only to refuse to believe in everything that is not God. This refusal does not presuppose belief. It is enough to recognize, what is obvious to any mind, that all the goods of this world, past, present, or future, real or imaginary, are finite and limited and radically incapable of satisfying the desire which burns perpetually with in us for an infinite and perfect good... It is not a matter of self-questioning or searching. A man has only to persist in his refusal, and one day or another God will come to him."
-- Weil, Simone, ON SCIENCE, NECESSITY, AND THE LOVE OF GOD, edited by Richard Rees, London, Oxford University Press, 1968.- ©

The real question is how we can raise our sights so as to grow to experience objective meaning and purpose in which wholeness and fragmentation can exist lawfully as one? Society as a whole is devolving from its ability to understand which means the slow death by opinions