Wholeness and Fragmentation

[Eodnhoj7]

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?

Wholeness and fragmentation are complimentary. For example a series of monads exists. Each monad is the reflection of one monad considering they all share the same form. One monad exists across many.

Dually the multitude of monads reflects the one monad in multiple states, or rather multiple positions, at the same time. So while the one monad exists, it exists in relative multiple states with these multiple states being the expression of the one under an infinite series of forms. Each form is an approximation of "the one".

The monad exists as both one and many. One as the underlying base through all forms. Many as the series of forms which exist as approximations of the one.

[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?

Wholeness and fragmentation are complimentary. For example a series of monads exists. Each monad is the reflection of one monad considering they all share the same form. One monad exists across many.

Dually the multitude of monads reflects the one monad in multiple states, or rather multiple positions, at the same time. So while the one monad exists, it exists in relative multiple states with these multiple states being the expression of the one under an infinite series of forms. Each form is an approximation of "the one".

The monad exists as both one and many. One as the underlying base through all forms. Many as the series of forms which exist as approximations of the one.

The monad by definition is one. Religion states that God as the ONE is simultaneously both one and three. How is this possible?

[Eodnhoj7]

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/



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?

Wholeness and fragmentation are complimentary. For example a series of monads exists. Each monad is the reflection of one monad considering they all share the same form. One monad exists across many.

Dually the multitude of monads reflects the one monad in multiple states, or rather multiple positions, at the same time. So while the one monad exists, it exists in relative multiple states with these multiple states being the expression of the one under an infinite series of forms. Each form is an approximation of "the one".

The monad exists as both one and many. One as the underlying base through all forms. Many as the series of forms which exist as approximations of the one.

The monad by definition is one. Religion states that God as the ONE is simultaneously both one and three. How is this possible?

All contexts are empty in themselves except through an expansion.

Each context thus acts as an intrinsic middle context to a further context.

The context becomes self referential through the many contexts and contains both itself and its variations as one.

Each phenomena as:

Intrinsically empty of self,
Inherent middle for a further phenomena,
And self referential through the context as a context

necessitates the phenomena as trifold in existing.

[Nick_A]

EOD

All contexts are empty in themselves except through an expansion.

Each context thus acts as an intrinsic middle context to a further context.

The context becomes self referential through the many contexts and contains both itself and its variations as one.

Each phenomena as:

Intrinsically empty of self,
Inherent middle for a further phenomena,
And self referential through the context as a context

necessitates the phenomena as trifold in existing.

Are you saying then that the ineffable God both one and three beyond the domain of time and space and the source of creation is unreal? The triune universe is a bottom up connection of middles?

[Eodnhoj7]

EOD

All contexts are empty in themselves except through an expansion.

Each context thus acts as an intrinsic middle context to a further context.

The context becomes self referential through the many contexts and contains both itself and its variations as one.

Each phenomena as:

Intrinsically empty of self,
Inherent middle for a further phenomena,
And self referential through the context as a context

necessitates the phenomena as trifold in existing.

Are you saying then that the ineffable God both one and three beyond the domain of time and space and the source of creation is unreal? The triune universe is a bottom up connection of middles?

The middle point is the ultimate consciousness, ie "God".

[Nick_A]

EOD

All contexts are empty in themselves except through an expansion.

Each context thus acts as an intrinsic middle context to a further context.

The context becomes self referential through the many contexts and contains both itself and its variations as one.

Each phenomena as:

Intrinsically empty of self,
Inherent middle for a further phenomena,
And self referential through the context as a context

necessitates the phenomena as trifold in existing.

Are you saying then that the ineffable God both one and three beyond the domain of time and space and the source of creation is unreal? The triune universe is a bottom up connection of middles?

The middle point is the ultimate consciousness, ie "God".

Let me take this step by step to see if I understand you

All contexts are empty in themselves except through an expansion.

"Trifold in existence" means to me that all created phenomenon is a unification of three forces at different qualities: Affirming, denying, and reconciling. Hinduism has this idea in the three Gunas and Christianity has it with the Trinity for example. Each force is empty by itself but acquires meaning in the Trinity

Each context thus acts as an intrinsic middle context to a further context.

The idea of the union of three forces must be experienced in movement. The higher and lower can only be defined through what level of reality they create.
the middle for a higher level of reality is the lower for us while it is the higher for a level of reality below human consciousness.

The context becomes self referential through the many contexts and contains both itself and its variations as one.

Yes, When the affirming force from above is met by the denying force from below, the only way they become one is through the reconciling or third force and when stationary is called the middle..The middle which creates the conscious connection between above and below called God consciousness

Does this process for you only takes place and explains evolution or does it also explain involution or the act of the levels of creation in which the ONE involutes into creation within itself becoming three. They are together as the union of three forces or I AM within the involving qualities of creation

[Eodnhoj7]

EOD




Are you saying then that the ineffable God both one and three beyond the domain of time and space and the source of creation is unreal? The triune universe is a bottom up connection of middles?

The middle point is the ultimate consciousness, ie "God".

Let me take this step by step to see if I understand you

All contexts are empty in themselves except through an expansion.

"Trifold in existence" means to me that all created phenomenon is a unification of three forces at different qualities: Affirming, denying, and reconciling. Hinduism has this idea in the three Gunas and Christianity has it with the Trinity for example. Each force is empty by itself but acquires meaning in the Trinity

Each context thus acts as an intrinsic middle context to a further context.

The idea of the union of three forces must be experienced in movement. The higher and lower can only be defined through what level of reality they create.
the middle for a higher level of reality is the lower for us while it is the higher for a level of reality below human consciousness.

The context becomes self referential through the many contexts and contains both itself and its variations as one.

Yes, When the affirming force from above is met by the denying force from below, the only way they become one is through the reconciling or third force and when stationary is called the middle..The middle which creates the conscious connection between above and below called God consciousness

Does this process for you only takes place and explains evolution or does it also explain involution or the act of the levels of creation in which the ONE involutes into creation within itself becoming three. They are together as the union of three forces or I AM within the involving qualities of creation

Yeah close enough.

[Dontaskme]

You didn't answer the question because you didn't understand it.

I maybe didn't reply in the context in which you would have preferred, or wanted to hear, but this difference of opinion is inevitable and usually happens in most if not all dual conversations.
However, I understood the question. I really really did understand the question, and I understand what the Simone woman is saying as well.

I get it all.

I also believe very strongly that reality, the nature of oneness is unconditionally boundless and free to act in every moment. And that every action will always be the perfect expression of this oneness. Whether it's a positive action or a negative action, whether it's someone committing mass murder of innocent people ..or it's an action of great service for the mental health, well being, welfare and care of everyone...every action is free, free to be, and that's what free will is, it's total boundless freedom to be....and within that dynamic within the story / dream of separation within the context of space time duality, there will of course ARISE the effects of cause and effect, in that for every action there will be an opposite and equal reaction, where responsibility and consequences are key concepts in discernment when it comes to making sense of chaos and order in the world, and to be able to understand our place within it. Even though, there is no one that is in the world, rather, the world is in no one.

And so ultimately, no matter what we think about things, no matter how we want things to be or not be, nothing really ever changes, for even an enlightened man will kill another if pushed to do so to save his own skin.

There really is, just what IS... who you are ultimately, is the pure emptiness in which all your hopes, dreams, and desires, arise and fall unconditionally...and this is the only REAL LOVE. ....love for itself, or love to destroy itself, there is no difference, and that any difference is within the dream story, a difference that is not actually there, because ultimately, there is no self because there is no other than self...self is totally self-less, and it is also selfish, because it is boundless, free and unconditional oneness from begining to end, from source to source and endless spring.


And that's all there is to understand, well for this one here anyway. If you don't agree, or see it this way, then that's ok, it's all fine, your ok I'm ok.



.

[Sculptor]

You didn't answer the question because you didn't understand it.

I get it all.



.

Sorry, but there is a proscription against all Trumpisms.
This is your first warning!

[Nick_A]

DAM

dream of separation within the context of space time duality, there will of course ARISE the effects of cause and effect, in that for every action there will be an opposite and equal reaction, where responsibility and consequences are key concepts in discernment when it comes to making sense of chaos and order in the world, and to be able to understand our place within it. Even though, there is no one that is in the world, rather, the world is in no one.

You write of the dream of separation and I write of the being potential for relative human consciousness. Imagination and consciousness are mutually exclusive. The dream is imagination and unreal while consciousness is the ultimate reality

I don't see any purpose in the dream of separation yet I can see the reason and purpose for conscious evolution and the necessity for the conscious connection between wholeness and fragmentation. This is our basic difference: imagination or the dream of separation and the reality of relative consciousness a person can verify through efforts to know thyself.

[Dontaskme]

You write of the dream of separation and I write of the being potential for relative human consciousness. Imagination and consciousness are mutually exclusive. The dream is imagination and unreal while consciousness is the ultimate reality

The conceptual dream...(the known)...is known by the only knowing there is which is consciousness.
The I that knows is the known dream within conscious recognition(unreal) ...an embodied aspect of pure awareness of I (real)

I don't see any purpose in the dream of separation yet I can see the reason and purpose for conscious evolution and the necessity for the conscious connection between wholeness and fragmentation. This is our basic difference: imagination or the dream of separation and the reality of relative consciousness a person can verify through efforts to know thyself.

Any connection is pure illusory thought recognition within the dream of separation, in other words one has to separate to come together again... the separation is a fictional narrative arising in wholeness, and yet the illusion is real enough, that's the whole point of it.

The I that knows is the known dream...known by consciousness the only knowing there is, dreaming difference where there is none, all the one love action. Every point of view exists simultaneously, but can only be known as and when it arises within the mind/body mechanism, known by conscious recognition within embodied awareness the only knowing there is.

I get it Nick, I get it all.

When Awareness (Father) knows sensation (consciousness) (Mother) child/son (mind) is born...the holy trinity.

The I of the father is the same I of the mother and the I of the child...It's all the same one I

The one I is ultimately boundless and free to be, it is infinity itself expressing itself in infinite ways, it doesn't have to evolve for it is already wholeness and complete.

What is being witnessed is the infinite unfurling of this one. . within space time duality...the dream of separation, the finite aspect of the infinite.

Evolution was within the dream, it was a necessary part of the dream so that the dreamer was able to awaken and become aware by becoming lucid of it's own dreaming...lucid as when the dreamer became knowledgable of itself, aware of itself, self knowing. Knowing itself within it's own dream, becoming aware of itself that it was dreaming. Dreaming itself alive.

Awareness is neither dead nor alive...but within it's dream, it is both, but only as a fictional story arising in it.

.

[Nick_A]

DaM

The conceptual dream...(the known)...is known by the only knowing there is which is consciousness.
The I that knows is the known dream within conscious recognition(unreal) ...an embodied aspect of pure awareness of I (real)

The consciousness of ONE beyond time and space which begins with the division into three within the ONE is what we call creation. Plotinus described it as nous. You call it a dream and I call it a necessity and ojective reality

Any connection is pure illusory thought recognition within the dream of separation, in other words one has to separate to come together again... the separation is a fictional narrative arising in wholeness, and yet the illusion is real enough, that's the whole point of it.

The I that knows is the known dream...known by consciousness the only knowing there is, dreaming difference where there is none, all the one love action. Every point of view exists simultaneously, but can only be known as and when it arises within the mind/body mechanism, known by conscious recognition within embodied awareness the only knowing there is.

Yes, animal man lives in a dream. But can Man living in a dream, in imagination, become capable of becoming a conscious human being?

When Awareness (Father) knows sensation (consciousness) (Mother) child/son (mind) is born...the holy trinity.

The I of the father is the same I of the mother and the I of the child...It's all the same one I

Your belief in the dream prevents you from contemplating the relativity of consciousness and knowledge of scale it provides. For example in the universal structure the Father is beyond time and space, Man is the low point between consciousness and animal mechanics, while the Son is the middle between the Father and Man. Without relativity of consciousness and universal scale, none of this can be understood and easier just to call it imagination and deny its objective meaning and purpose.

Evolution was within the dream, it was a necessary part of the dream so that the dreamer was able to awaken and become aware by becoming lucid of it's own dreaming...lucid as when the dreamer became knowledgable of itself, aware of itself, self knowing. Knowing itself within it's own dream, becoming aware of itself that it was dreaming. Dreaming itself alive.

The cycle of involution and evolution sustain the breath of Brahma If you suggest it is a necessity I could agree but you call it a dream which takes the place of reality. Man dreams. God is ultimate consciousness.

Awareness is neither dead nor alive...but within it's dream, it is both, but only as a fictional story arising in it.

Awareness is a relative quality of consciouness and does not define life and death. Dreaming man with the potential to become conscious man seems meaningless for you because creation is a dream without objective meaning and purpose. God does not awaken. God is awake. It is our essential disagreement.

[Dontaskme]

The consciousness of ONE beyond time and space which begins with the division into three within the ONE is what we call creation. Plotinus described it as nous. You call it a dream and I call it a necessity and ojective reality

OK ..so what?

Yes, animal man lives in a dream. But can Man living in a dream, in imagination, become capable of becoming a conscious human being?

Short answer is no...man is not conscious of anything, except within the dream of separation, within knowledge...in which case yes.
The whole universe is aware of itself as and through the mind body mechanism we call duality, it's oneness/awareness (non physcial) looking upon itself ( in form/physical) In my opinion, there is nothing more to it than that...it's all very simple for this one here.

Your belief in the dream prevents you from contemplating the relativity of consciousness and knowledge of scale it provides.

Not really, because what you've said here is a knowledge known to the awareness in which it is arising.

For example in the universal structure the Father is beyond time and space, Man is the low point between consciousness and animal mechanics, while the Son is the middle between the Father and Man. Without relativity of consciousness and universal scale, none of this can be understood and easier just to call it imagination and deny its objective meaning and purpose.

That might be so within your understanding of oneness, but I don't see it like that at all. I've already shown how I see it multiple times on this forum.

The cycle of involution and evolution sustain the breath of Brahma If you suggest it is a necessity I could agree but you call it a dream which takes the place of reality. Man dreams. God is ultimate consciousness.

No, that's not how I see it at all, that's how you have interpreted it, but then you've spun your own web out of what you thought I meant, with your own words, which is not what i said, meant, nor is it the way I see it.

Awareness is a relative quality of consciouness and does not define life and death.

OK..but this description it's not how I see it, or would describe it.

Dreaming man with the potential to become conscious man seems meaningless for you because creation is a dream without objective meaning and purpose. God does not awaken. God is awake. It is our essential disagreement.

Again, you have simply added your own spin on what you think I am saying, and then responded with your own ideas, which you are more than entitled to do as the authour of your own reality according to how you see it ...but your response is not how I see it. And so this particular response makes absolutely no sense to me. I've never once suggested the word meaningless in the context of which I understand oneness..for me, meaning is what the mind the puts there, that's all.

But thanks for the discussion. Do continue if the so called urge arises within you.

.

[Nick_A]

The sad part about this for me is the fact that modern culture as a whole has sacrificed the desire to feel the psychological connection between no-thing and every-thing. It just looks down enchanted by technology while losing the power of attention necessary to look up. It demands to be given Barabbas. The crowd cannot tolerate Simone Weil or those who feel the need to become human.

Thomas Merton records being asked to review a biography of Weil (Simone Weil: A Fellowship in Love, Jacques Chabaud, 1964) and was challenged and inspired by her writing. “Her non-conformism and mysticism are essential elements in our time and without her contribution we remain not human.”

Can you imagine people so dedicated to scientific truth (fragmentation) and at the same time dedicated to becoming capable to receive from above in the direction of wholeness: the reality existing above Plato's divided line. Simply intolerable! .Such people should be strung up for disturbing the peace. Give us Barabbas and be done with it.

Yet there are those like Thomas Merton who do not wish to condemn her but also assert that the efforts of those like Simone are essential if we are ever to become human by Connecting above and below now made impossible by the attraction to the crowd and the need for escapism.

[Age]

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?

Do not look at this being 'one or another'. There is no actual sides. There are only human made sides.

There is truth and falsehoods in both perceived "sides", with thee actual only One Truth residing in the middle.