Wholeness and Fragmentation

[Nick_A]

Hi Alex

Anyway, besides all that, I still believe it is interesting (if not important) to actually understand where all these perspectives originate from, to see that they are not real - they are simply constantly changing ideas - and that beyond/before all these conceptual perspectives there is actually "something" permanent, something rock solid, something not affected by a perspective - and that it is this source (awareness) that actually sustains us, that makes all these perspectives possible and that will still "be" when all these perspectives are no more.

If I ever began thread on the third dimension of thought I would appreciate your input. We agree on animal reactive consciousness. We also agree on a source for reactive consciousness and all the perspectives it produces. But beyond duality there is the reconciling third force which provides meaning and objective values. Yet at some point those needing to reconcile wholeness and fragmentation must experience it. Read this short article. Does it make sense to you and suggest the limitations of duality?

https://www.brainpickings.org/2015/06/2 ... ve-of-god/

.....................Weil argues that this creates an incomplete and, in its incompleteness, illusory representation of reality — even when it bisects the planes of mathematical data and common sense, such science leaves out the unquantifiable layer of meaning:

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.)

"The difference between truth and meaning". The truth of duality and universal objective meaning experienced through the the third dimension of meaning. A question worth pondering.

[AlexW]

Read this short article. Does it make sense to you and suggest the limitations of duality?

Very interesting article - thank you.

I would actually like to read the referenced book " On Science, Necessity and the Love of God", but it seems to be out of print and every remaining copy costs a fortune... any idea if there is a PDF/eBook version available?

I think Weil still remains well within the boundaries of duality (well, who doesn't...) - she positions "meaning" within (maybe: defines it as) a "third dimension of thought", which is, as I see it, still a language based (and as such dualistic), conceptual interpretation of non dual reality.
But she is of course right in that science (contrary to philosophy) is pretty good at neglecting meaning and replacing it with a "flat" representation bent into shape so it reflects the ideas it wants to prove (eg a relativistic universe).
The cause being, as she has very well recognised, that scientists would rather look at only one single tree instead of the forest - they are either afraid of or simply unaware of the fact that there is a dimension from which one can observe the forest without getting lost in it - and that this overarching perspective (the one that actually is no perspective at all) should be the foundation on which each single tree should be interpreted/inspected from - not as a single, separate piece of wood, but as a being in perfect unity with the whole.

To me, "The difference between truth and meaning" depends on your perspective, it depends on the tree one is sitting on.

What is the meaning of one single tree?
Its meaning might be to become a boat or a cabinet...
But the meaning of the forest is not to be turned into an object - it is to be seen as one whole, to recognise the unity of meaning and truth itself.

To achieve this we have to climb down from and leave our one single tree and look at the forest from above, then truth and meaning merge, they turn out to be one and the same.

[Dontaskme]

DAM wrote: Awareness can never be unaware..there is no such state as unaware, there is only aware.

Within awareness arises anything one can possibly think of...all imagined of course, and yes, the imagination is real.

Complexity and logic are all within the dream story as concepts known, known by not-a-thing, aka emptiness...or if the emptiness word makes no sense, then we can use empty fullness.

There is no higher universal purpose for anything except within the dream, but even that will be pure empty fullness.
.

We seem to have two primary differences concerning awareness and when it begins, I believe creation is a necessity while you believe it is a dream. As an objective necessity it has purpose but a dream doesn't but is the result of the dreams of the dreamer.

I'm really not sure what you mean by this Nick..but my response is ...

Meaning, and objective necessity is an appearance, which manifests as and through the dream. In this conceptual context the dream does appear to have an objective purpose.
Auspiciously Seen as and through the trinity of mind, matter and God in which the 'separate self' lives.
How is this seen? ...it it seen when man created in the image and likeness of God...becomes the opposite...
God created in the image and likeness of the 'separate self'.

The change in direction of attention/mind projected outward towards an external 'God object' is really just an internal search for source which can only appear objective. So it is only when this apparent objective sense of 'separate self' disappears inwardly back into it's own silent source knowing, beyond the limitations of dualistic langauge, does the idea of an objective necessity for a God disappear with it.
Then what remains is 'That which only ever IS' ..which can never be described by the separate self, because the separate self is only an appearance of the whole of that which only ever IS in which the separate self is made out of like everything else. It is not a necessity for God to show up to his own show by becoming an object of his desire, for God is the whole show.

The non-dual whole cannot be reduced into the duality of language which is only adding qualities to something which cannot have objectivity even though all objectivity is made out of it.

For you awareness seems to be the quality which creates the dream. It isn't a necessity but the result of a desire. Do I have that right.

But there is no I other than I

I is always THE SAME ONE...appearing as the many.

There is no dream being created by I .... I is the dream of the uncreated..an appearance of nothing appearing as everything.

Limitless chooses to become limited thus ''appearing'' as finite. In the same context we can say Jesus(finite) the son God as and through the apparent 'finite death' returns to holy spirit of God, the Infinite One.

'' If you cannot find the truth right where you are now, where else do you expect to find it? '' Dogen.

Advaita Vedanta is not a religion .. it is a pointing using concepts to do away with all religions, because they are being known for what they really are which is fictional story writings. The Advaita philosophy says that the whole universe is an expression of consciousness. And that it is only Maya that makes the unreal seem, appear real.

[Nick_A]

DaM and Alex

But there is no I other than I

I is always THE SAME ONE...appearing as the many.

There is no dream being created by I .... I is the dream of the uncreated..an appearance of nothing appearing as everything.

Christianity asserts that God is simultaneously both one and three. People have been arguing this for years. Yet how is it possible that God is simultaneously both one and three especially if there is only I?

Only recently more people are becoming aware of the Law of the INCLUDED middle. Up until recently The Law of the EXCLUDED Middle and its duality introduced by Aristotle was dominant. Here is a brief summary:

https://www.edge.org/response-detail/27 ... %20not%2DA).

Here is simple way of seeing the Law of the included middle. Imagine a horizontal line on piece of paper. The left end represents A and the right end represents not- A. This is basic duality. How can A and Not-A exist at the same time?

Imagine two vertical lines one rising from A and the other rising from not-A. They rise to form a triangle or B. Now A and not A exist as one within the higher reality of B

As I understand it the level of reality which creates our universe is structured on the vertical connection of these triads. From this perspective our source beyond the limits of time and space IS. The fragments and their lawful quality of being OCCUR within creation The process of creation takes place within I and offers the potential for Man to consciously evolve to a higher quality of being within creation

I IS while man is part of a PROCESS within time and space. It is a mistake IMO to confuse them as the same.

[AlexW]

Here is simple way of seeing the Law of the included middle. Imagine a horizontal line on piece of paper. The left end represents A and the right end represents not- A. This is basic duality. How can A and Not-A exist at the same time?

They don't.
A and not-A do not exist at the same time - as I see it, only reality exists (and even stating this is a bit of a stretch - truth is: reality neither exists nor does it not exist - it is not bound by our idea of existence)
But lets assume only non dual reality exists, then how can A and not-A exist at the same time? Of course they can not exist on the same level - they can only exist relatively - in relation to each other - they depend on each other: A cannot be without not-A and vice versa. To me, stating that something exists that bases its existence only on the existence of its opposite is based on a wrong interpretation of existence - it is how conceptual thought works, but not how reality "works".

Imagine two vertical lines one rising from A and the other rising from not-A. They rise to form a triangle or B. Now A and not A exist as one within the higher reality of B

Not really... the higher reality of B - lets call it non dual reality - really never experiences A or not-A - it only experiences B (and as such: itself). The existence of A and not-A are only ideas as A and not-A cannot be directly experienced (only B can be experienced).
Thought might state: I see A and I also see not-A - but this statement is only true within the relativistic domain of thought (which moves only on the line from A to not-A, but can never reach/know B).

As I understand it the level of reality which creates our universe is structured on the vertical connection of these triads.

As I understand it the relativistic "reality" which is our universe is structured only on the horizontal line between A and not-A.

The process of creation takes place within I and offers the potential for Man to consciously evolve to a higher quality of being within creation

As I see it, there is no potential for Man - and with this I mean the conceptual structures, ideas and beliefs that make you "you" - to leave this horizontal line. This is the case as all conceptual structures only move on the horizontal line, but never towards B.
In fact all that is real is B - and the true you/I are it - Man is a movement that occurs on the horizontal line, between A and not-A, and will as such always remain on this level. Only when leaving (the idea of) Man, the horizontal line, behind can B be realised, but not by evolving towards it, not by connecting the A or not-A with B, but rather by "removing" the idea (which is nothing but the horizontal line itself) that you are not already B.

[Dontaskme]

DaM and Alex

But there is no I other than I

I is always THE SAME ONE...appearing as the many.

There is no dream being created by I .... I is the dream of the uncreated..an appearance of nothing appearing as everything.

Christianity asserts that God is simultaneously both one and three. People have been arguing this for years. Yet how is it possible that God is simultaneously both one and three especially if there is only I?

Only recently more people are becoming aware of the Law of the INCLUDED middle. Up until recently The Law of the EXCLUDED Middle and its duality introduced by Aristotle was dominant. Here is a brief summary:

https://www.edge.org/response-detail/27 ... %20not%2DA).

Here is simple way of seeing the Law of the included middle. Imagine a horizontal line on piece of paper. The left end represents A and the right end represents not- A. This is basic duality. How can A and Not-A exist at the same time?

Imagine two vertical lines one rising from A and the other rising from not-A. They rise to form a triangle or B. Now A and not A exist as one within the higher reality of B

As I understand it the level of reality which creates our universe is structured on the vertical connection of these triads. From this perspective our source beyond the limits of time and space IS. The fragments and their lawful quality of being OCCUR within creation The process of creation takes place within I and offers the potential for Man to consciously evolve to a higher quality of being within creation

I IS while man is part of a PROCESS within time and space. It is a mistake IMO to confuse them as the same.

Finding the non-dual reality of God.


Find the pole (I) that supports all the others.........remove that one.........and the whole tent collapses.

[Dontaskme]

Christianity asserts that God is simultaneously both one and three. People have been arguing this for years. Yet how is it possible that God is simultaneously both one and three especially if there is only I?



I IS while man is part of a PROCESS within time and space. It is a mistake IMO to confuse them as the same.

Looking into someone's eyes, one is looking at an image. Behind the image and within it are nothing. The image has no 'behind' or 'within', any more than the image in an 'apparent nightly dream' has a 'behind' or 'within'.

There is no 'focal point' or 'bit' of consciousness in, or associated with, the image seen.

One is wholly present. One is not divided into 'bits' or any other differentiator.



The eye (being an illusion) not only cannot see, it cannot determine (of it’s own) what is, or is not seen.

It is consciousness alone that determines what appears to the seeing. It simply depends upon the story being told. If the story is the life of a blind person there is no seeing. If the story involves an operation giving sight, there is seeing.

The Conceptual story is all that can be known. And that which is known can know nothing.

[Nick_A]

DAM

The Conceptual story is all that can be known. And that which is known can know nothing.

Yet these fragments which know nothing govern our lives. We remain attached to the shadows on the wall in Plato's cave. Why don't we see ourselves as attached? Like other animals we react to the law of the pendulum in which the duality of yin and yang move back and forth. At one time yin is dominant and then yang becomes dominant. Ecclesiastes 3 describes the cycles of the pendulum.

There is a time for everything,
and a season for every activity under the heavens:

2 a time to be born and a time to die,
a time to plant and a time to uproot,
3 a time to kill and a time to heal,
a time to tear down and a time to build,
4 a time to weep and a time to laugh,
a time to mourn and a time to dance,
5 a time to scatter stones and a time to gather them,
a time to embrace and a time to refrain from embracing,
6 a time to search and a time to give up,
a time to keep and a time to throw away,
7 a time to tear and a time to mend,
a time to be silent and a time to speak,
8 a time to love and a time to hate,
a time for war and a time for peace.

Is there a quality of reason which can enable a person to to think as a human being rather than react to the law of the pendulum and sink deeper into fragmentation? I know it as the Law of the included middle which I linked to in my last post. I'll also post a link to Basarab Nicolescu's article in CIRET: The Gödelian Aspects of Nature and Knowledge * It is a mind stretch but worth the effort

http://ciret-transdisciplinarity.org/bulletin/b12c3.php

It is rough stuff but will reveal what it means to experience the duality of yin and yang as a unified whole from a higher perspective.

Karen Voss wrote a review of transdisciplinarity based on the law of the included middle.

http://www.esoteric.msu.edu/Reviews/NicolescuReview.htm

After reading Nicolescu's Manifesto of Transdisciplinarity, it is hard to imagine how any thinking person could retreat to the old, safe, comfortable conceptual framework. Taking a series of ideas that would be extremely thought-provoking even when considered one by one, the Romanian quantum physicist Basarab Nicolescu weaves them together in a stunning vision, this manifesto of the twenty-first century, so that they emerge as a shimmering, profoundly radical whole.

Nicolescu’s raison d’être is to help develop people’s consciousness by means of showing them how to approach things in terms of what he calls “transdisciplinarity.” He seeks to address head on the problem of fragmentation that plagues contemporary life. Nicolescu maintains that binary logic, the logic underlying most all of our social, economic, and political institutions, is not sufficient to encompass or address all human situations. His thinking aids in the unification of the scientific culture and the sacred, something which increasing numbers of persons, will find to be an enormous help, among them wholistic health practitioners seeking to promote the understanding of illness as something arising from the interwoven fabric—body, plus mind, plus spirit—that constitutes the whole human being, and academics frustrated by the increasing pressure to produce only so-called “value-free” material.......................................

....................In Ch. 19, "The Transdisciplinary Evolution of Education," he lays before us a vision of education as a life-long process. Invoking the Delors Report, compiled by Jacques Delors, Chair of the International Commission on Education for the Twenty-First Century sponsored by UNESCO, Nicolescu explains how the report described “four pillars” of a new form of education: “learning to know,” “learning to do,” “learning to live together,” and “learning to be.” After commenting on each of these in turn, he puts forward a challenge to the university to become a place that is once again true to the meaning found in the etymology of the word ‘university.’ He sees the university once again becoming a place for “the study of the universal.” (140), a place where the entire Universe, not only parts of it, would be studied. Finally, he points out the fact that “there is a direct and unavoidable relation between peace and transdisciplinarity.” Saying that “severely fragmented thought is incompatible with the research of peace on this Earth,“ he states that this fact “requires” not only “the transdisciplinary evolution of education,” but also, “the transdisciplinary evolution of the university” itself. (140) By this, I believe that the reader can infer from this that in Nicolescu’s view, a genuine university would do far more to create peace than merely incorporate a program called “Peace Studies” as but a token fragment within its overall curriculum.

He is suggesting that the university should study the universal as well as the study of specialization into fragments. It is only possible through the law of the included middle when the law of the excluded middle is seen as inadequate.

Can the university ever teach specialization in the context of wholeness? Can it ever experience the law of the included middle necessary to admit the source of wholeness? All I know is the power of resistance against it as it follows the law of the pendulum and wonder how many can stand against it.

[Dontaskme]

Nick wrote:

Is there a quality of reason which can enable a person to think as a human being rather than react to the law of the pendulum and sink deeper into fragmentation?

To think as a human being is to fragment the unitary action of the nondual self ...within this apparent fragmentation are apparent reactions.

Can this be avoided? .... No...because it’s the dual nature of knowledge...the knowledge one is a human.

[Nick_A]

Nick wrote:

Is there a quality of reason which can enable a person to think as a human being rather than react to the law of the pendulum and sink deeper into fragmentation?

To think as a human being is to fragment the unitary action of the nondual self ...within this apparent fragmentation are apparent reactions.

Can this be avoided? .... No...because it’s the dual nature of knowledge...the knowledge one is a human.

How does this correspond to the goals of a university described by Dr. Nicolescu? You wrote to think as a human being is to fragment unity. I assert that we already do that. The goal of the university is to teach fragmentation within the context of wholeness which has been forgotten using the law of the Included middle as a teaching method. Do you see the difference?

[Dontaskme]

Nick wrote:

Is there a quality of reason which can enable a person to think as a human being rather than react to the law of the pendulum and sink deeper into fragmentation?

To think as a human being is to fragment the unitary action of the nondual self ...within this apparent fragmentation are apparent reactions.

Can this be avoided? .... No...because it’s the dual nature of knowledge...the knowledge one is a human.

How does this correspond to the goals of a university described by Dr. Nicolescu? You wrote to think as a human being is to fragment unity. I assert that we already do that. The goal of the university is to teach fragmentation within the context of wholeness which has been forgotten using the law of the Included middle as a teaching method. Do you see the difference?

I didn’t read the link you provided regarding Dr. Nicolescu ...because I didn’t need to, I can bypass the descriptions of what we are addressing here and get straight to the point.

The teaching of fragmentation within the context of wholeness can be remembered... if like you say it’s been forgotten.
So it can be remembered by reading and studying any esoteric nondual pieces of literature of which there are many, all of which can inform what one needs to remember..if one has forgotten.

Until nondual literature is taught in schools, colleges and universities...there will always be those who are forever caught in the net of duality....however, some people just naturally gravitate toward nondual knowing automatically without seeking an external influencer ...rather, they take it upon themselves to not get caught up in the net of duality by adopting self introspection through their own sheer curiosity.

.

[Nick_A]

DaM

Until nondual literature is taught in schools, colleges and universities...there will always be those who are forever caught in the net of duality....however, some people just naturally gravitate toward nondual knowing automatically without seeking an external influencer ...rather, they take it upon themselves to not get caught up in the net of duality by adopting self introspection through their own sheer curiosity.

But the minority who are not caught up in the shadows on the wall in Plato's cave are under a lot of pressure. What kind of literature do you suggest which encourages wholeness at the expense of fragmentation? Simone Weil wrote:

Education, he says, is, according to the generally accepted view of it, nothing but the forcing of thoughts into the minds of children. For, says Plato, each person has within himself the ability to think. If one does not understand, this is because one is held by the fetters. Whenever the soul is bound by the fetters of suffering, pleasure, etc. it is unable to contemplate through its own intelligence the unchanging patterns of things.

If the student can't think of the unchanging patterns of things because they are held by fetters (imagination) how can the university help them? How can it help the soul to turn towards the light in the presence of fragmentation to experience the unchanging patterns of things?

[AlexW]

If the student can't think of the unchanging patterns of things because they are held by fetters (imagination) how can the university help them? How can it help the soul to turn towards the light in the presence of fragmentation to experience the unchanging patterns of things?

By cultivating awareness.

This is not an exercise in thinking, its not about learning new concepts - its about practising to be aware (at all times) and, as such, not being caught in thought-world.
The "experience of the unchanging patterns of things" happens automatically once thought has stopped running the show... it can't be learned from books, it has to be practiced and then it happens on its own (just like riding a bike happens once you practice it for a while).

There is a good reason why buddhist/zen monks meditate, why they work - highly alert - in silence (no matter what they do - cleaning dishes or raking leaves...) and why learning from scriptures is deemed less important than aware presence.

[Dontaskme]

But the minority who are not caught up in the shadows on the wall in Plato's cave are under a lot of pressure.

I really don't know what you mean by saying ( under a lot of pressure )

What kind of literature do you suggest which encourages wholeness at the expense of fragmentation?

By using imagery in the form of symbolic representation, or by using symbolic pictures which speak so much louder to one reading the picture according to how the picture is being interpreted, because all meaning is born of that association between subject and object interaction.

Attempting to point to the nondual nature of reality by using words can act as an impediment to what's actually being pointed to, unless one is smart enough to see beyond the impediment and is able to get straight to the point of what's being pointed to. For there are no words that can point to the reality of what nonduality actually is, and yet every word is it...now that is one super divine paradox, the mother of all oxymorons.

Words are images too, and the smart people know there is nothing behind any image pulling the strings of the image, because all images are empty to the core.

So in answer to what I would suggest we use in showing ourselves the nondual nature of reality...I would suggest the following image to be pondered upon.

[Lacewing]

By cultivating awareness.

This is not an exercise in thinking, its not about learning new concepts - its about practising to be aware (at all times) and, as such, not being caught in thought-world.
The "experience of the unchanging patterns of things" happens automatically once thought has stopped running the show... it can't be learned from books, it has to be practiced and then it happens on its own (just like riding a bike happens once you practice it for a while).

There is a good reason why buddhist/zen monks meditate, why they work - highly alert - in silence (no matter what they do - cleaning dishes or raking leaves...) and why learning from scriptures is deemed less important than aware presence.

Very well said!

Aware presence can become one's way of being without any requirements for a certain environment or belief system.