Wholeness and Fragmentation

[Sculptor]

Is the universe a living or a dead machine?

Neither. A thing that is not living cannot be known as dead, unless it was alive before. The universe is not alive and not dead.

We know the purpose of the dead car and a computer and that it serves us but what is the purpose of this.....

Cars and computers were designed FOR a purpose.
You are confusing terms.

... unique living

not living

machine if it does share the characteristics of life such as order. Who or what does it serve?

Not even a question.

Sculptor

Neither. A thing that is not living cannot be known as dead, unless it was alive before. The universe is not alive and not dead.

Is the universe a living machine? It would be an interesting topic but could not work where secularism is dominant and it would be shouted down. There is a lot of info on the idea from different sources. For example:

https://www.huffpost.com/entry/the-livi ... r_b_665400

Depak Chopra.
REALLY???
Oh please!

Cars and computers were designed FOR a purpose.
You are confusing terms.

Science has learned what the universe does: its purpose.

Rubbish.
Science is all about description. The universe has no purpose and science is the last discipline that would claim to think there was one.
I really do not know what planet you inhabit.
The question is without merit.

We know it transforms substances through the processes of involution and evolution functioning by laws. However science doesn’t know why? If it was designed by laws for a purpose it must have had a conscious source.

if... if.. if, followed by a false conclusion.

Laws do not appear by accident.

No they are what human use to try to describe what is there already.

But contemplating an ineffable conscious source is offensive to the modern descent into fragmentation so only a few are open to the question and idolatry rules the day

machine if it does share the characteristics of life such as order. Who or what does it serve?

Not even a question.

It isn’t a question for the secular mind which has limited itself to the facts of the world. However it is a great question for the universal mind concerned with universal values which arise from influences originating from a higher level of reality and beyond the world

Even if the question were valid. On what basis would we recognise the answer?

[Nick_A]

Sculptor, we can go on and on about the purpose of the universe to no avail. You don’t see one nor do those who agree with you. Scientists like Einstein do see the necessity for purpose a purpose for all that is being done and the consciousness at its source;

‘Every one who is seriously involved in the pursuit of science becomes convinced that a spirit is manifest in the laws of the Universe-a spirit vastly superior to that of man, and one in the face of which we with our modest powers must feel humble.’ Einstein

Simone Weil offers the essential observation as to the experience of universal purpose

Religion in so far as it is a source of consolation is a hindrance to true faith; and in this sense atheism is a purification. I have to be an atheist with that part of myself which is not made for God. Among those in whom the supernatural part of themselves has not been awakened, the atheists are right and the believers wrong.
- Simone Weil, Faiths of Meditation; Contemplation of the divine
the Simone Weil Reader, edited by George A. Panichas (David McKay Co. NY 1977) p 417

If the algebra of physicists gives the impression of profundity it is because it is entirely flat; the third dimension of thought is missing.

That third dimension is that of meaning — one concerned with notions like “the human soul, freedom, consciousness, the reality of the external world.” (Three decades later, Hannah Arendt — another of the twentieth century’s most piercing and significant minds — would memorably contemplate the crucial difference between truth and meaning, the former being the material of science and the latter of philosophy.)

It isn’t a question for the secular mind which has limited itself to the facts of the world. However it is a great question for the universal mind concerned with universal values which arise from influences originating from a higher level of reality and beyond the world

Even if the question were valid. On what basis would we recognise the answer?

The only Way we can recognize the answer is by experiencing “the third dimension of thought.” Which includes objective meaning. We see that the world is not ready for it. Modern philosophy lacks the humility to open to the idea that it is missing something and secular religions believe in faith and deny the value of thought to purify faith

You are satisfied with your perspective and DaM is content with hers. My concern is for the minority in the world who admit the human condition in the world and in themselves and seek to acquire a human perspective: to develop consciously and serve the universal purpose of consciously connecting above and below: wholeness and fragmentation

[Dontaskme]

The purpose of the universe is to replicate itself infinitely for eternity.

Not really sure if that’s a good idea or it is the most shocking and scariest scenario ever. Whatever is going on, there’s absolutely no one here at the controls driving this dream bus that can do anything to change or stop it.

.

[Age]

Are fragmentation and wholeness complimentary or mutually exclusive?

Complimentary, just like creation and evolution, free will and determinism, nature and nurture, are complimentary of each other, as well as being obviously different things.

Obviously every single thing, besides the whole Universe Itself, is a fragmentation of the whole Universe, Itself.

The two wholeness (the Universe) and Its fragmented pieces both would not exist without the other. This is how they both compliment each other and are both different things.

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?

[Lacewing]

‘Every one who is seriously involved in the pursuit of science becomes convinced that a spirit is manifest in the laws of the Universe-a spirit vastly superior to that of man, and one in the face of which we with our modest powers must feel humble.’ - Einstein

This seems totally reasonable. It does not indicate, however, that such a "spirit" superior to man is in any way whatsoever "thinking" in the way that humans might imagine. Nature is a completely different flow of perfection, creation, and evolvement, surely based on the information of the connectivity of all. There's no need for judgments. There's no need for ego. There's no need for any agenda -- there's just NATURALLY growth and exploration, as that's what nature does. Humankind tries to apply their ego perspective on some all-mighty that is beyond them, and I don't think that's truth. Ego is a tool for controlling a defined space. Nature can ripple egos right out of existence.

[Nick_A]

The purpose of the universe is to replicate itself infinitely for eternity.

Not really sure if that’s a good idea or it is the most shocking and scariest scenario ever. Whatever is going on, there’s absolutely no one here at the controls driving this dream bus that can do anything to change or stop it.

.

Quite true. But as a living being it would replicate itself just as we replicate our body. Panentheism suggests that the universe is the body of God. It is a machine that is a necessary part of the triune whole. Our organism is like this and some believe that Man is a mini universe. We know our bodies are nourished by the blood stream. The processes of material involution and evolution serve the same function as our blood stream but as a six dimensional process.

Man's being,his collective consciousness, is either involving or evolving. It doesn't just stay the same. The esoteric purposes of the ancient traditions seek to awaken Man to the potential for its conscious evolution. Of course it is misunderstood and becomes secularized and used for egoistic reasons.

Our difference is my belief in the scale and relativity of human being. You seem to believe in the duality where the scale and relativity of being is unnecessary in a dream. Just go with the flow. So the purpose of life for me as a mini universe as opposed to dog is its potential for conscious evolution. If there is nothing in the dream to awaken to the question is meaningless Of course the great difficulty is becoming free from imagination that keeps us as we are and sustains the human condition or as Thomas Merton said: sub human.

I was thinking of a thread relating to human purpose which would seriously disturb the peace I'm known for "For the good of humanity which attitude is more beneficial: In God we trust or in machines we trust?" Of course without the belief in the good higher consciousness can offer Man the only other thing is to believe in is the good machines can bring in dealing with nature.

[Nick_A]

‘Every one who is seriously involved in the pursuit of science becomes convinced that a spirit is manifest in the laws of the Universe-a spirit vastly superior to that of man, and one in the face of which we with our modest powers must feel humble.’ - Einstein

This seems totally reasonable. It does not indicate, however, that such a "spirit" superior to man is in any way whatsoever "thinking" in the way that humans might imagine. Nature is a completely different flow of perfection, creation, and evolvement, surely based on the information of the connectivity of all. There's no need for judgments. There's no need for ego. There's no need for any agenda -- there's just NATURALLY growth and exploration, as that's what nature does. Humankind tries to apply their ego perspective on some all-mighty that is beyond them, and I don't think that's truth. Ego is a tool for controlling a defined space. Nature can ripple egos right out of existence.

Can you think of why this may be true?

"Man would like to be an egoist and cannot. This is the most striking characteristic of his wretchedness and the source of his greatness." Simone Weil....Gravity and Grace

[Lacewing]

‘Every one who is seriously involved in the pursuit of science becomes convinced that a spirit is manifest in the laws of the Universe-a spirit vastly superior to that of man, and one in the face of which we with our modest powers must feel humble.’ - Einstein

This seems totally reasonable. It does not indicate, however, that such a "spirit" superior to man is in any way whatsoever "thinking" in the way that humans might imagine. Nature is a completely different flow of perfection, creation, and evolvement, surely based on the information of the connectivity of all. There's no need for judgments. There's no need for ego. There's no need for any agenda -- there's just NATURALLY growth and exploration, as that's what nature does. Humankind tries to apply their ego perspective on some all-mighty that is beyond them, and I don't think that's truth. Ego is a tool for controlling a defined space. Nature can ripple egos right out of existence.

Can you think of why this may be true?

"Man would like to be an egoist and cannot. This is the most striking characteristic of his wretchedness and the source of his greatness." Simone Weil....Gravity and Grace

Why what would be true? Are you asking me if I think what Simone says may be true? I was responding to what Einstein said, and how it makes sense to me based on how I see/interpret nature and its forces. Simone's interpretations are not something I typically relate to as you do. Maybe you can explain how you think her statement compares or aligns with Einstein's?

[Nick_A]

Lacewing

You deny the depth of contemplating Einstein's and Simone's remarks together; how they compliment each other

Einstein as a gifted scientist has the humility to realize that as much as he understands it is nothing compared to the consciousness responsible for the laws of our universe

Simone agrees but suggests that the cause isn't our ego but what has happened to it known as the fallen human condition. She is saying that developing the potential for a conscious balanced ego is what makes man great. However being unable to contend with the corrupted ego and the imagination required to live within absurdity is what makes Man wretched.

The bottom line is that if Man can awaken to his potential he could be capable of great things. Einstein knows it which is why he wrote of conscience as essential for awakening. Simone describes the problem between Man as great and Man as wretched. It is the power of imagination which keeps our species as sub human.

[Lacewing]

You deny the depth of contemplating Einstein's and Simone's remarks together; how they compliment each other

Okay, so Nick, after reading your first sentence, I'm not going to read the rest of what you wrote. You're starting off by accusing me of something you've made up, and I have absolutely no interest in dealing with any of your absurdity.

I didn't deny anything. I said I don't relate to Simone, and I asked you to explain what you see. Now I'm not interested in anything you have to say.

[Nick_A]

You deny the depth of contemplating Einstein's and Simone's remarks together; how they compliment each other

Okay, so Nick, after reading your first sentence, I'm not going to read the rest of what you wrote. You're starting off by accusing me of something you've made up, and I have absolutely no interest in dealing with any of your absurdity.

I didn't deny anything. I said I don't relate to Simone, and I asked you to explain what you see. Now I'm not interested in anything you have to say.

Lacewing wrote

Why what would be true? Are you asking me if I think what Simone says may be true? I was responding to what Einstein said, and how it makes sense to me based on how I see/interpret nature and its forces. Simone's interpretations are not something I typically relate to as you do. Maybe you can explain how you think her statement compares or aligns with Einstein's?

Lacewing was limiting herself to Einstein and doesn't relate to Simone so I wrote what is lost by not seeing them together. Denial is the modern way but do not see it beneficial for philosophy or the potential to open ones mind to what philosophy offers. So what else is new?

[Lacewing]

Lacewing was limiting herself to Einstein

You're an idiot, Nick. Your lack of comprehension beyond your stories is astounding.

[Nick_A]

Lacewing was limiting herself to Einstein

You're an idiot, Nick. Your lack of comprehension beyond your stories is astounding.

A perfect example of secular intolerance. There is no sense in it but sustains itself through denial. The sad part is the influence it has on the field of education. 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.”

Is it really so difficult to see that Einstein and Simone both offer valuble insights but from a slightly different perspective. Einstein refers to the value of objective conscience and Simone refers to the value of becoming capable of sustained conscious attention as we experience the world. But when we cannot "raise our sights" what else is possible but justification of opinions through denial?

[Dontaskme]

The purpose of life for me as a mini universe as opposed to dog is its potential for conscious evolution.

Consciously evolve into what though? That's the bit that's puzzles me Nick

For me, there's just God dreaming endless dreams, playing each and every role, as and through the character/mind/body mechanism whether that be human or animal, or even as and through Flora, & Fauna... Also including the idea of Satan and Evil. Each character being a popped aware aspect of Gods ultimate infinite awareness...popped awareness that is constantly arising and falling like a wave out of the ocean. And that everything that could possibly happen is happening simultaneously right here and now infintely for eternity.

It's that simple for me. Nothing is excluded, nothing is included, for God is all inclusive.

I also believe that Gods love for itself is unconditional, it allows all expression of being, one side is of an expansive nature - while the other side is of a contraction nature, contraction that tends to automatically coil away from evil and hatred. And that both love and hate are mutually arising like that of the heartbeat, contracting and expanding within the same body. I also think that the whole universe is God's body.

There's a part of the heart that expresses itself as harmful evil and hatred, and there's the opposite side of the heart that expresses itself as pure harmless love and all things of beauty. And yet it's all the same one love in action dreaming difference where there is none. This is how I see, and cannot change my way of seeing it this way.



.

[Lacewing]

The purpose of life for me as a mini universe as opposed to dog is its potential for conscious evolution.

Consciously evolve into what though? That's the bit that's puzzles me Nick

For me, there's just God dreaming endless dreams, playing each and every role, as and through the character/mind/body mechanism whether that be human or animal, or even as and through Flora, & Fauna... Also including the idea of Satan and Evil. Each character being a popped aware aspect of Gods ultimate infinite awareness...popped awareness that is constantly arising and falling like a wave out of the ocean. And that everything that could possibly happen is happening simultaneously right here and now infintely for eternity.

It's that simple for me. Nothing is excluded, nothing is included, for God is all inclusive.

I also believe that Gods love for itself is unconditional, it allows all expression of being, one side is of an expansive nature - while the other side is of a contraction nature, contraction that tends to automatically coil away from evil and hatred. And that both love and hate are mutually arising like that of the heartbeat, contracting and expanding within the same body. I also think that the whole universe is God's body.

There's a part of the heart that expresses itself as harmful evil and hatred, and there's the opposite side of the heart that expresses itself as pure harmless love and all things of beauty. And yet it's all the same one love in action dreaming difference where there is none. This is how I see, and cannot change my way of seeing it this way.

I agree with much of what DAM expressed here. I just don't use any image or name of a personified god. From my perspective (which is like DAM's), all is connected, as well as being diverse. Nothing is separate -- only humans create stories that separate things.