There is a difference between a fragment, and a part that is integral to the whole. We live fragmented. But if we can see the world as made of integrated parts, the world view changes.
6/20/2019 8:40 a.m.
The Club: We are here, you are ready to go. State it.
OK, yesterday I read in one of Dave’s books [David Bohm, “Unfolding Meaning”] how he describes the relationship between the whole and the part, and further the difference between a part and a fragment. And as I sat there, yesterday, outside reading it, it occurred to me how truly our worldview -- that is, how is how we interpret ourselves into a given moment, a given world -- how our worldview is fragmented.
Keep going. Explain part vs fragment.
Yes, it can all very easily be seen by going to the root of the word.
“To fragment” comes from a root that means “to break apart.” To smash. The resulting fragments bear no resemblance to the whole they once came from.
“The part,” however, is intrinsically related to the whole. It comes from a root that means “to grant, to allot” from a whole. So we also get words like “participation,” which means both “to partake” (to share in), and to “take part” (to actively be involved in a whole).
Very good. You’re doing fine. Keep going. [laughing]
OK, so a part is intrinsically still involved in a whole. Like, the parts of a watch each serve a function in the whole of the watch – integrated. An internal organ is a part within a whole. The whole could not be without the part.
It is likie Hua-Yen Buddhism, how part and whole relate. The rafter is an integral part of the house, without it the house could not be, and vice versa, without the house it would be the rafter, it would only be a piece of wood.
So the whole depends on the part and the part on the whole.
Yet to fragment means to break apart, to smash. And then the “parts” are broken, taken out of their context of wholeness, “broken” , and the original relationship is gone.
And it occurs to me, that in our normal state of mind, we see things greatly fragmented. If we can look at things as all parts, of a part of the whole, then that also includes us. And yesterday as I sat there, and looked at the plants, the grass, around me, I looked at them, as single parts, and it was like I was integrated, we were integrated into a whole.
[pause] I can do it right now, sitting outside. I look at the flowers, gently swaying in the wind, and sense how it is all “part” of the whole. It is really quite beautiful.
[pause] Are you there?
Yes, we are lulled by your beautiful account. Nothing to add, you are expressing it all fine, being a “part” of us and All-that-Is. So go to your insight about physics.
Yes. So then a particle, in matter that is because we also have thought-particle, but say an electron now appears somewhere based on its probability function, the wave collapses, then it expresses that wholeness. It appears at this “place” like that, because it is a part, a part-icle, in that wholeness, coming out of, as Dave called it, “the implicate order.”
And we, the observer, are also part of it, and thereby “participate” in it. We partake (share) and “take part” in this wholeness. So the “whole” still remains unbroken, only expressed as these parts.
And you are but a part in this, in this “totality,” and thus in the dual action, of partaking (sharing, consuming) and actively taking part, changing the whole.
So the whole contains the part, and the part contains the whole, and it is an ever ongoing process of, let’s call it, evolution.
Right, so I, we, are all participants in this whole flow. Here we have “participants,” in how John Wheeler talked about “the participatory universe.” How only after “we observer” the part can manifest.
Yes, but not manifest, only, but the key point was that “the part” means “to allot.” Remember, you looked up the meaning of the words, and the part meant “to grant, allot,” possibly related “to procure.”
To procure, to bring forth, by caring, and then allot “a part of the whole” still being the whole, that is really what is happening.
The ancients still felt a deeper knowing of this process, of being one, because they were involved in nature, seeing it all the time. Modern man has “isolated” himself from that, and thus only sees fragments, that bear no more resemblance to a whole.
[pause; thinking about how animals can still “sense” this whole better]
Animals are more instinctive. Humans are more cognitive. Thought, prevailing world thought, overrides the deep inner knowing.
Materialism, reductionism, are the effects of this worldview and at the same time set and strengthen this world view. And smashing atoms into bits, not parts but bits, to find “the ultimate building block,” only they don’t find one. Because, again, they look for fragments, and thin the whole can be build up from fragments.
But it is really the parts in relationship that make the whole the whole, and vice versa. So to look at the Higgs particle in isolation makes no sense, all it proves is that a theory is right, but it has to be seen in its place in the whole. You see?
Absolutely. So I am wondering if we cannot change our view of how we see the world? If we could not see fragments, but “parts” of which we are but one, not separated, but connected, even more, being one.
Of course, but then you have to overcome a lot of conditioning – the “talking together” of your upbringing, really, that of a whole generation, of the History of Western man. That’s what you are up to.
Now, can you, as an “individual,” using a wrong term, do this? We think, yes. But it would be hard. It’s really a re-training of the cognitive apparatus, going back to the roots.
Look, right now, you are sitting outside, you are immersed in life, and it makes it easier to see how it is all “part” of a greater whole.
But modern man is capsulated against that. Inside buildings, hearing only the sounds, if any, of technology, of news chatter, chattering, fragmented chattering.
But being out here, it immerses you into the whole, if you but allow it to.
Yes, and it is beautiful.
Then this can be part of retraining. Sort of a meditative state. This time not going inwards, but expanding consciousness, which is “a part” in the whole.
It’s a gate of truth, another gate of truth, of merging with the other. And a gate of truth is really that: not just merging with a singular other, like a picture of art, but through that artwork, through the merging becoming one again with the whole.
I am so attuned to it now. Seeing the wind more the blades of grass. Feeling the wind, the coolness. Hearing the birds, the leaves rustling. My chest breathing. It is a calmness, so calm, and you feel yourself one with all. Beautiful.
A gate of truth: the part is the whole, and the whole is the part.
So one thing that came up yesterday then, was, there really is nothing wrong with seeing the world as parts. The can still be parts, that is in a way “separate,” but not.
Yes, and that is a very important point. You are in a world, 3D/4D world, where you function as a more or less “separate” entity. That’s just how it is.
But if you see yourself as simply a fragment, you lost the connection to all. If you see yourself as a part, integrated with all the with all the other parts of an unbroken whole, then the whole world view changes.
The whole expresses itself as parts! “Particles” (elements and such), “thought-particles,” and you participate in it. Partake and take part. Share/consume and change. In an ever ongoing dance.
If you understand that, that is a big, big step. The next on is to bring this alive, in how you, we are alive. But yes, there is nothing wrong with seeing parts everywhere. Fragments are a different story.
Wow, long talk today.
But good. Productive. Well let’s see [laughing]. Let’s stop. Enough to let it all “sync in.”
OK. Bye [9:30 pm]
Namaste — I and the Divine in me bow to You and the Divine in You.
Copyright © Hanns-Oskar Porr