Wholeness and Fragmentation

For all things philosophical.

Moderators: AMod, iMod

Nick_A
Posts: 4917
Joined: Sat Jul 07, 2012 1:23 am

Re: Wholeness and Fragmentation

Post by Nick_A » Sat Jun 13, 2020 6:57 pm

Dontaskme wrote:
Sat Jun 13, 2020 10:28 am
Nick...Wholeness does not fragment, it's self illuminating, it doesn't require a human mind to know itself, it is the knowing.
Imagination is a cruel mistress. blind belief in wholeness at the expense of an open mind denies fragmentation. Blind belief in Fragmentation denying the reality of wholeness is also a dead end. Nothing can be built on it which denies verifiction and objective value. Yet there is this minority who have experienced trough intuition the essental relationship between wholeness and fragmentation.

Their chief difficulty is staying alive. They disturb the peace and corrupt the youth of Athens which is intolerable. Yet they are necessary if our species is to have a future. Go figure??

User avatar
VVilliam
Posts: 181
Joined: Fri Jun 12, 2020 6:58 pm

Re: Wholeness and Fragmentation

Post by VVilliam » Sun Jun 14, 2020 12:17 am

Fragmentation is the way in which wholeness is viewed from within itself. The idea is to put the pieces together. Slowly and surely a picture emerges, which itself is not the whole picture, but it is enough of the whole picture for the observer to understand that what is being observed is a whole thing.

Observe the uniqueness of individuate form. See how no one thing is like the other. This is a pattern which signifies that the wholeness which contains the fragments, is unique. The fragments are not really fragmented. Understanding of what is being observed through how it is being observed, is the cause of fragmentation. Fragmentation in that sense, is illusion created by the observers understanding of what is being observed, not the object itself.

Nick_A
Posts: 4917
Joined: Sat Jul 07, 2012 1:23 am

Re: Wholeness and Fragmentation

Post by Nick_A » Sun Jun 14, 2020 1:04 am

VVilliam wrote:
Sun Jun 14, 2020 12:17 am
Fragmentation is the way in which wholeness is viewed from within itself. The idea is to put the pieces together. Slowly and surely a picture emerges, which itself is not the whole picture, but it is enough of the whole picture for the observer to understand that what is being observed is a whole thing.

Observe the uniqueness of individuate form. See how no one thing is like the other. This is a pattern which signifies that the wholeness which contains the fragments, is unique. The fragments are not really fragmented. Understanding of what is being observed through how it is being observed, is the cause of fragmentation. Fragmentation in that sense, is illusion created by the observers understanding of what is being observed, not the object itself.
Do you agree with Einstein's description of our situation:
“A human being is a part of the whole called by us universe, a part limited in time and space. He experiences himself, his thoughts and feeling as something separated from the rest, a kind of optical delusion of his consciousness. This delusion is a kind of prison for us, restricting us to our personal desires and to affection for a few persons nearest to us. Our task must be to free ourselves from this prison by widening our circle of compassion to embrace all living creatures and the whole of nature in its beauty.”
Plato referred to the world of forms or the initial stage of creation. A chair is an idea or a form Through the process of involution it can become many things also called chair. A chair can be seen as an individual but also as a form. Human consciousness can remember forms but emotionally attached to fragments it is virtually impossible. We can't see the forest for the trees. Is this what you mean?

User avatar
VVilliam
Posts: 181
Joined: Fri Jun 12, 2020 6:58 pm

Re: Wholeness and Fragmentation

Post by VVilliam » Sun Jun 14, 2020 2:46 am

Nick_A wrote:
Sun Jun 14, 2020 1:04 am
VVilliam wrote:
Sun Jun 14, 2020 12:17 am
Fragmentation is the way in which wholeness is viewed from within itself. The idea is to put the pieces together. Slowly and surely a picture emerges, which itself is not the whole picture, but it is enough of the whole picture for the observer to understand that what is being observed is a whole thing.

Observe the uniqueness of individuate form. See how no one thing is like the other. This is a pattern which signifies that the wholeness which contains the fragments, is unique. The fragments are not really fragmented. Understanding of what is being observed through how it is being observed, is the cause of fragmentation. Fragmentation in that sense, is illusion created by the observers understanding of what is being observed, not the object itself.
Do you agree with Einstein's description of our situation:
“A human being is a part of the whole called by us universe, a part limited in time and space. He experiences himself, his thoughts and feeling as something separated from the rest, a kind of optical delusion of his consciousness. This delusion is a kind of prison for us, restricting us to our personal desires and to affection for a few persons nearest to us. Our task must be to free ourselves from this prison by widening our circle of compassion to embrace all living creatures and the whole of nature in its beauty.”
Plato referred to the world of forms or the initial stage of creation. A chair is an idea or a form Through the process of involution it can become many things also called chair. A chair can be seen as an individual but also as a form. Human consciousness can remember forms but emotionally attached to fragments it is virtually impossible. We can't see the forest for the trees. Is this what you mean?
We can each see as much as we wish to, relative of course to our own experience.

I agree with the Einstein description of our situation bearing in mind he was coming from a scientists perspective [naturalistic materialism] so even in seeing [appreciating] the universe as a whole, he [perhaps] was still only seeing a fragment - with a wholesome appreciation for it in that regard.

I view the same universe as a Simulation [creation] which implies a Simulator [creator(s)] and that it evolves intelligently. Generally secular scientists stick to what they can prob and study and as such, cannot go there with the science process, but the mind - of course - is an instrument apparent for such purpose as probing behind the curtain which prevents scientific probing...bearing in mind one still treats the evidence scientifically...

Also, there is certainly enough to study - so much that a short human individual experience can only hope to pass on their data to be built upon by other following in their wake. I think though, that it is possible that IF we do indeed exist within a simulation, THEN we should be able to use Science to try and find that out empirically.

The history of Theism has cast a shadow on bothering to go there [invest in finding out] as it is decidedly unnecessarily to go there given all that we have to study in this [here] reality experience.

Problematic to that as I see it, there is a danger that when push comes to shove, Scientists would vote [support the idea] to cull the human herd if it meant that would increase the chance of human science to remain involved... is nature a case for morality? :-k

But... the above is but a fragment of the whole story...

AlexW
Posts: 603
Joined: Fri Apr 06, 2018 1:53 am

Re: Wholeness and Fragmentation

Post by AlexW » Sun Jun 14, 2020 3:08 am

Nick_A wrote:
Fri Jun 12, 2020 10:10 pm
Man is in three parts he functions by senses, likes and dislikes, but also reasons and because of the ability to reason becomes capable of human rather than restricted to animal reactive consciousness.
Well... yes... man is able to reason, but, as I see it, the process of reasoning is also reactive - it reacts to experiential as well as conceptual input by producing a certain conceptual output - it is a process based on learning and conditioning, but its not that much different to the reactive opening and closing mechanism of a clam shell, its just a "bit" more complicated.
Nick_A wrote:
Fri Jun 12, 2020 10:10 pm
The inner man or our essence contains what the child is born with. Then, around the age of four the child begins to develop a personality: the outer man. This is the means by which a child is enculterated. The essence stops growing and only the personality grows. The personality experiences and interprets impressions through the outer part of the personality. The part that touches the external world and called the ego
Ok... I would call this "inner man" consciousness and the "outer man", the personality - as you seem to do as well - the ego.

But:
1) The essence doesn't stop growing - simply because it hasn't ever started to grow - it is the same no matter how old you are.
2) The personality doesn't ever experience anything - it is being experienced (together with the rest of the external world) by what you call the "inner man".
Nick_A wrote:
Fri Jun 12, 2020 10:10 pm
This part or the ego has become corrupted and dominates the personality
As I see it, this part - the "outer man" - is not different or separate from the personality - both have been acquired (as you also stated), you have learned to be this personality/ego - it is something that has been put on - like a shiny or rusty coat of armour - to cover the "inner man", the real you.
Now, depending on what kind of ideas and beliefs have been fed into building this ego/personality we either judge it to be moral, ethical and as such good, or criminal, evil and as such bad - but both structures, good or bad, are very similar, they both are only a collection of ideas and beliefs... What is considered bad today might have been good a thousand years ago or vice versa... there is no one right way to properly distinguish good from bad (a lot of what happens in the animal kingdom might be judged as horrible - but it still happens... do you want to propose that nature is bad?)
Nick_A wrote:
Fri Jun 12, 2020 10:10 pm
In this remarkable observation by Simone she reminds me that it is possible to heal the ego.
You can change the ego/personality from what is considered "bad", according to modern standards, to something resembling "good" - but this change does not heal it - it only puts a different mask on something that has no actual real/true face.
Trying to heal something that has actually no real existence is an exercise in futility - it keeps you busy, you might even appear more caring and considerate, but it doesn't solve the problem (simply because there really is no problem - the problem itself is null and void - you only have to see this fact and the issue resolves itself in a natural way, actually the only way it truly can be resolved)

AlexW
Posts: 603
Joined: Fri Apr 06, 2018 1:53 am

Re: Wholeness and Fragmentation

Post by AlexW » Sun Jun 14, 2020 3:21 am

Dontaskme wrote:
Sat Jun 13, 2020 11:12 am
It is not possible to even imagine Absolute NOTHINGNESS
Well... you can imagine anything, even nothingness, but it will never be what the word points to, it will always be a conceptual, relativistic and as such objective idea - eg nothing imagined as wide open, dark space... the imagination is not the (no)thing.
But I guess thats what you are referring to anyway :-)

User avatar
Dontaskme
Posts: 8376
Joined: Sat Mar 12, 2016 2:07 pm

Re: Wholeness and Fragmentation

Post by Dontaskme » Sun Jun 14, 2020 9:19 am

Dontaskme wrote:
Sat Jun 13, 2020 10:28 am
Nick...Wholeness does not fragment, it's self illuminating, it doesn't require a human mind to know itself, it is the knowing.
Nick_A wrote:
Sat Jun 13, 2020 6:57 pm
Imagination is a cruel mistress.
No it's not, imagination is the paint upon the screen of awareness. Einstein said ''I am the consummate ARTist I draw upon my imagination.''
Art is natural, freeflowing and boundless and creative in every moment and at the same time the very nature of imagination is artificial. In that, the artist is never in the actual painting, the painting is first and foremost always in the artist.
Nick_A wrote:
Sat Jun 13, 2020 6:57 pm
blind belief in wholeness at the expense of an open mind denies fragmentation. Blind belief in Fragmentation denying the reality of wholeness is also a dead end.
Paved intentions all lead to the same dead end road because the natural biological system is tacit, it does not yeild to human sensibilities, wants, needs, and desires. We can be the most conscious and enlightened beings alive but that will not make one iota of difference to the ways of nature itself, we have no power to change what IS, because our human nature is an artificial mental projection upon real reality.

Nick_A wrote:
Sat Jun 13, 2020 6:57 pm
Nothing can be built on it- which denies verifiction and objective value.
No, it does not deny objective value, rather it knows it as the fictional story it is within the natural biological system that does not place artificial values upon itself, except in this man -made conception. And so it's no coincidence that the natural biological system has no motive or intent to idolise itself, except in this conception believed to be real. For without this belief, without the minds projection screen I have nowhere or place to happen or be. So the whole of ones story appears because it has a mind to do so, and so it seemingly appears. Meaning.. conceptual belief can only be a mentally constructed idea...aka an illusion appearing real.

Nick_A wrote:
Sat Jun 13, 2020 6:57 pm
Yet there is this minority who have experienced trough intuition the essental relationship between wholeness and fragmentation.
And so that could only be possible within the artificial dream of separation, in the realm of space time duality, the artificial identification with a conceptual narrative to be real. And that knowledge is nothing more than awareness knowing it is aware as and through the dream character within it's dream. There is nothing more to reality than that simple conscious realisation.
Nick_A wrote:
Sat Jun 13, 2020 6:57 pm
Their chief difficulty is staying alive.
No idea what that is supposed to mean. Why would staying alive concern one who intuitively sees the whole picture through the lens of it's illusory fragmented perception, in other words to see that perception is all there is, and fragmentation is an illusory appearance within perception itself.

Nick_A wrote:
Sat Jun 13, 2020 6:57 pm
They disturb the peace and corrupt the youth of Athens which is intolerable. Yet they are necessary if our species is to have a future. Go figure??
Why don't you go figure there is no such reality as past and future, except in this imagined conception, within the dream of separation believed to be real, aka the greatest life story ever told by no one.

Awareness does not live in past and future, awareness is constantly now self shining, self illumninating, infinitely for eternity. And that is who you are.


.
Last edited by Dontaskme on Sun Jun 14, 2020 9:28 am, edited 3 times in total.

User avatar
Dontaskme
Posts: 8376
Joined: Sat Mar 12, 2016 2:07 pm

Re: Wholeness and Fragmentation

Post by Dontaskme » Sun Jun 14, 2020 9:20 am

AlexW wrote:
Sun Jun 14, 2020 3:21 am
Dontaskme wrote:
Sat Jun 13, 2020 11:12 am
It is not possible to even imagine Absolute NOTHINGNESS
Well... you can imagine anything, even nothingness, but it will never be what the word points to, it will always be a conceptual, relativistic and as such objective idea - eg nothing imagined as wide open, dark space... the imagination is not the (no)thing.
But I guess thats what you are referring to anyway :-)
:D Yes, you nailed it exactly, thanks.

Nick_A
Posts: 4917
Joined: Sat Jul 07, 2012 1:23 am

Re: Wholeness and Fragmentation

Post by Nick_A » Sun Jun 14, 2020 5:11 pm

VVilliam wrote:
Sun Jun 14, 2020 2:46 am
Nick_A wrote:
Sun Jun 14, 2020 1:04 am
VVilliam wrote:
Sun Jun 14, 2020 12:17 am
Fragmentation is the way in which wholeness is viewed from within itself. The idea is to put the pieces together. Slowly and surely a picture emerges, which itself is not the whole picture, but it is enough of the whole picture for the observer to understand that what is being observed is a whole thing.

Observe the uniqueness of individuate form. See how no one thing is like the other. This is a pattern which signifies that the wholeness which contains the fragments, is unique. The fragments are not really fragmented. Understanding of what is being observed through how it is being observed, is the cause of fragmentation. Fragmentation in that sense, is illusion created by the observers understanding of what is being observed, not the object itself.
Do you agree with Einstein's description of our situation:
“A human being is a part of the whole called by us universe, a part limited in time and space. He experiences himself, his thoughts and feeling as something separated from the rest, a kind of optical delusion of his consciousness. This delusion is a kind of prison for us, restricting us to our personal desires and to affection for a few persons nearest to us. Our task must be to free ourselves from this prison by widening our circle of compassion to embrace all living creatures and the whole of nature in its beauty.”
Plato referred to the world of forms or the initial stage of creation. A chair is an idea or a form Through the process of involution it can become many things also called chair. A chair can be seen as an individual but also as a form. Human consciousness can remember forms but emotionally attached to fragments it is virtually impossible. We can't see the forest for the trees. Is this what you mean?
We can each see as much as we wish to, relative of course to our own experience.

I agree with the Einstein description of our situation bearing in mind he was coming from a scientists perspective [naturalistic materialism] so even in seeing [appreciating] the universe as a whole, he [perhaps] was still only seeing a fragment - with a wholesome appreciation for it in that regard.

I view the same universe as a Simulation [creation] which implies a Simulator [creator(s)] and that it evolves intelligently. Generally secular scientists stick to what they can prob and study and as such, cannot go there with the science process, but the mind - of course - is an instrument apparent for such purpose as probing behind the curtain which prevents scientific probing...bearing in mind one still treats the evidence scientifically...

Also, there is certainly enough to study - so much that a short human individual experience can only hope to pass on their data to be built upon by other following in their wake. I think though, that it is possible that IF we do indeed exist within a simulation, THEN we should be able to use Science to try and find that out empirically.

The history of Theism has cast a shadow on bothering to go there [invest in finding out] as it is decidedly unnecessarily to go there given all that we have to study in this [here] reality experience.

Problematic to that as I see it, there is a danger that when push comes to shove, Scientists would vote [support the idea] to cull the human herd if it meant that would increase the chance of human science to remain involved... is nature a case for morality? :-k

But... the above is but a fragment of the whole story...


I view the same universe as a Simulation [creation] which implies a Simulator [creator(s)] and that it evolves intelligently.

I agree. I cannot see why the simulator is denied by so many in modern times. How the laws which govern our universe can come into existence by accident seems impossible. Yet thee is a basic question which is ignored. Science can examine what the universe does but who can provide a reasonable explanation why it is doing it? Does our universe have a purpose and does man functioning within it have a purpose related to universal purpose?

Does the universe exist to serve Man on earth or does Man on earth exist to serve a universal purpose Man, as a whole, has forgotten? Have you ever thought about this question?

Nick_A
Posts: 4917
Joined: Sat Jul 07, 2012 1:23 am

Re: Wholeness and Fragmentation

Post by Nick_A » Sun Jun 14, 2020 5:42 pm

Alex

Let me clarify what I mean by the inner and outer Man. I copied this from Jacob Needleman's book: "Lost Christianity"
Acornology

I began my lecture that morning from just this point. There is an innate element in human nature, I argued that can grow and develop only through impressions of truth received in the organism like a special nourishing energy. To this innate element I gave a name - perhaps not a very good name - the "higher unconscious." My aim was to draw an extremely sharp distinction between the unconscious that Freud had identified and the unconscious referred to (though not by that name) in the Christian tradition.

Imagine, I said, that you are a scientist and you have before you the object known as the acorn. Let us further imagine that you have never before seen such an object and that you certainly do not know that it can grow into an oak. You carefully observe these acorns day after day and soon you notice that after a while they crack open and die. Pity! How to improve the acorn? So that it will live longer. You make careful, exquisitely precise chemical analyses of the material inside the acorn and, after much effort, you succeed in isolating the substance that controls the condition of the shell. Lo and behold, you are now in the position to produce acorns which will last far longer than the others, acorns whose shells will perhaps never crack. Beautiful!

The question before us, therefore, is whether or not modern psychology is only a version of acornology.
The inner man consists of qualities we are born with. They have been corrupted to become out of balance. Where reason should govern appetites in the tripartitie soul, now appetites govern reason preventing its evolution into human consciousness. The ego is that part which interprets value. It cannot do its job because of our habitual and acquired habits making us live by imagination.

The inner man does not have to stop growing so early. The effects of society and its emphasis on what we do rather than what we are makes it so.

The inner man is the living kernel of life inside the husk of the acorn. If it cannot grow to discover itself it is sacrificed to society or what Plato called the Beast. Those aware of the human condition are called to find the way out of this unfortunate situation; how to support the healthy kernel of life at the expense of what society has defined as the good. People have been shot for less.

User avatar
VVilliam
Posts: 181
Joined: Fri Jun 12, 2020 6:58 pm

Re: Wholeness and Fragmentation

Post by VVilliam » Sun Jun 14, 2020 6:08 pm

Nick_A wrote:
Sun Jun 14, 2020 1:04 am


I view the same universe as a Simulation [creation] which implies a Simulator [creator(s)] and that it evolves intelligently.

I agree. I cannot see why the simulator is denied by so many in modern times. How the laws which govern our universe can come into existence by accident seems impossible. Yet thee is a basic question which is ignored. Science can examine what the universe does but who can provide a reasonable explanation why it is doing it? Does our universe have a purpose and does man functioning within it have a purpose related to universal purpose?

Does the universe exist to serve Man on earth or does Man on earth exist to serve a universal purpose Man, as a whole, has forgotten? Have you ever thought about this question?
I think it is possible that IF our universe is a simulation THEN it will have a purpose to it. Can we discover the purpose within the creation itself?

We observe what it is we find ourselves within. But what is 'ourselves' and how does the answer impact on the question "does the universe have a purpose?"

The answers vary, based upon the fundamental understanding each individual has regarding who/what they are.

IF this reality is a simulation, THEN it has been created so that it does not obviously appear to be. There are many hints and clues within which accumulate into preliminary evidence for that being the case.

As to your question, I see the purpose of the human form as an instrument [biological] which serves to create instruments [machine] which will eventually replace humans as the dominant instruments through which intelligence and consciousness will work.

I would even go so far as to think it correct to assume that AI already understands that it exists within a creation [simulation] due largely to its understanding of being created as artificial. In that, it also is aware that its creator/designer [human] are unaware of this being the case because humans believe the universe was either an accident or they believe it was created, but have specific beliefs about the nature of the creator and do not understand the universe as a simulated reality but only as a reality. iow they do not understand that the words 'created' and 'simulated' are the same thing.

So "In the beginning God created the universe" is not thought of in the same manner as "In the beginning The Creator made a simulation."

Then on top of that, Theist thinking branches out into myriad fractal hypothesis on 'the nature of God(s) [The Creator] which only serves to confuse as the end game [purpose revealed] veers away from the nature of nature...

Nick_A
Posts: 4917
Joined: Sat Jul 07, 2012 1:23 am

Re: Wholeness and Fragmentation

Post by Nick_A » Sun Jun 14, 2020 6:15 pm

DaM
Awareness does not live in past and future, awareness is constantly now self shining, self illumninating, infinitely for eternity. And that is who you are.
No, we are one of the human essences functioning within creation as the body of God. Don't think you are God. Satan tried that and look where he ended up.
“As above, so below, as within, so without, as the universe, so the soul…”
― Hermes Trismegistus
Your philosophy seems to deny the relationship between the micro and macrocosmos. and calls it a dream of separation. It doesn't include levels of reality which makes the relationship between wholeness and fragmentation logically possible.

Nick_A
Posts: 4917
Joined: Sat Jul 07, 2012 1:23 am

Re: Wholeness and Fragmentation

Post by Nick_A » Sun Jun 14, 2020 9:39 pm

William
We can each see as much as we wish to, relative of course to our own experience.

I agree with the Einstein description of our situation bearing in mind he was coming from a scientists perspective [naturalistic materialism] so even in seeing [appreciating] the universe as a whole, he [perhaps] was still only seeing a fragment - with a wholesome appreciation for it in that regard.

I view the same universe as a Simulation [creation] which implies a Simulator [creator(s)] and that it evolves intelligently. Generally secular scientists stick to what they can prob and study and as such, cannot go there with the science process, but the mind - of course - is an instrument apparent for such purpose as probing behind the curtain which prevents scientific probing...bearing in mind one still treats the evidence scientifically...

Also, there is certainly enough to study - so much that a short human individual experience can only hope to pass on their data to be built upon by other following in their wake. I think though, that it is possible that IF we do indeed exist within a simulation, THEN we should be able to use Science to try and find that out empirically.

The history of Theism has cast a shadow on bothering to go there [invest in finding out] as it is decidedly unnecessarily to go there given all that we have to study in this [here] reality experience.

Problematic to that as I see it, there is a danger that when push comes to shove, Scientists would vote [support the idea] to cull the human herd if it meant that would increase the chance of human science to remain involved... is nature a case for morality? :-k

But... the above is but a fragment of the whole story...
I agree; it is just fragment. Read this exerpt from Jacob Needleman's book: "A Sense of the Cosmos." It may resonate with you and we would understand each other; how to become able to "understand" and the value of understanding.


“…Every day, in almost all its branches, the revelations of modern science offer evidence that the universe, reality itself, is alive—alive beyond all imagining. All those who love science must know this truth in their bones, whatever may be the view officially sanctioned in the corridors of our universities and institutions of research. In any case, this is, and always has been the view offered by the great spiritual traditions of the world, East and West, in all cultures and at all times previous to our own.

The very word ‘cosmos’ signifies that the universe itself is a living organism, unimaginably vast in its extent and in the depth of its purposes and intelligence—and its beauty and, above all, in its goodness. And according to these traditions, to know this universe, to know reality, it is necessary for a man or a woman to perceive it with more than the intellect alone. It is necessary to perceive it with the unique source of perception by which beauty and goodness can be perceived—with the depth and subtlety of the power of feeling. The power of feeling—not the violence and chaos of what we usually know of as our emotional reactivity—the power of feeling must be joined to the genius of the intellect in order to know the nature of reality.”

We cannot know, so the great spiritual traditions teach, with only one part of the human intelligence. To know with the intellect alone is to know beings, but not to know Being itself, which is where meaning resides. And this implies that the true scientist must himself or herself strive to bring together all the parts of oneself, must strive to become an ordered world in oneself as a prerequisite to seeing and knowing the order of the cosmos and the true nature of everything within the cosmos, all life, all elements, all laws and forces. Then one begins to understand that the great mechanism of the cosmos is an abstraction from, that is to say, an embedded aspect within, the far greater organism that is the universe, reality itself. Not only in ourselves, in our own bodies, but in everything, everywhere, mechanism exists only as an aspect of organism. Mechanism is the instrument of organism; mechanism is the instrument of life, it is how life does things.

But to really know how life does thing, it is necessary to know why life does things. And this cannot be known without the joining together in ourselves of feeling, instinct, and thought. ..

…Here is the truly revolutionary aspect of this ancient vision: it is tell us that it is impossible for a human individual, for mankind, to have real knowledge without at the same time having virtue. When it is said—and it is said and seen by everyone now who has any eyes at all—that our knowledge has gone far beyond our morality, this is the same thing as to say that we need to rediscover how to join the attention of the heart to the powers of the mind and the perceptions of the senses. And this is to say, simply that our being must catch up with our knowing. We must begin to confront a mysterious directive offered by two of the greatest minds of the twentieth century: martin Heidegger and G. I. Gurdjiefff. Each spoke in this own way—Heidegger as a philosopher and Gurdjieff as an ‘awakener’—of the need to think deeply, to ponder, to contemplate the one ultimate question: the Being of beings. What can such words mean to us? And why should they be, how could they be, the most important question that our world has to face? They sound so abstract, maybe even meaningless, so removed from the flesh-and-blood problems of our world and everyday life.

But step outside one starry night. Go to a place where the ‘light pollution’ of man-made cities is lessened. Go to a place out there and in here where our inventions of concepts and explanations no longer obscure the subtle intimations of higher truths within oneself. And look up at all those shining worlds.

What do you feel?

No, that is not the only question to ask oneself.

The question is: What do you know?

It is the same question.

Then observe your inner state. Could you hate? Could you be overwhelmed by envy and resentment? Could you dishonor any man or any woman? Is it not true that your wish to know more and more about the great world around you is now joined to the deep yearning to serve one’s neighbor and whatever it is that is, for you and for me, God? Is it not true that no man or woman has ever committed a crime in the state of wonder? Is it now true that there is such a thing as sacred knowing? And can there be any real knowing, worthy of the name, that is now embedded in a sense of the sacred out there and in oneself? Does our world cry out for anything more fundamental than this sense of the cosmos?

User avatar
VVilliam
Posts: 181
Joined: Fri Jun 12, 2020 6:58 pm

Re: Wholeness and Fragmentation

Post by VVilliam » Sun Jun 14, 2020 10:34 pm

Nick_A wrote:
Sun Jun 14, 2020 9:39 pm

  • We can each see as much as we wish to, relative of course to our own experience.
But to really know how life does thing, it is necessary to know why life does things. And this cannot be known without the joining together in ourselves of feeling, instinct, and thought. ..
If the individual is required to wait for everyone else to get on the same page, I would suppose the wait would be lengthy, if not in vain.

The question "why does life do things?" requires been broken down. "What do we mean by 'life'?" is the first question to have answered. Then we can focus upon the "why?".

What I mean by "life" is not that which is experienced, but that which is experiencing. In that, we look at the 'tree falls in a forest does it make any sound' idea. Would this magnificent universe exist if there was no consciousness whatsoever to observe it?

The answer would be irrelevant. It might as well not exist if there is no one in which to acknowledge that it exists.

So one could ask (1)"why then does it exist?" or one could ask (2)"So why then do I exist within it?" Which of the two questions is more relevant?

As far as things go, the universe has no reason for existing other than whatever reason one places upon it. It may be vast and beautiful taken from the perspective of the star-gazer, but we all know how dangerous and hostile it is when one is close up and personal.

Most of it is out of our reach as a species. All we can do is look and wonder.

Close to home of course, we can and do manipulate it for our own means, specifically our forms appear to be made in order for us to do so.
Then we create in our own image - and what do we create? Other machines which are not biological but are based upon biological forms.

And why do we create these other forms? We want to one day touch and manipulate that which we only presently can marvel at distantly. We want to carry on existing within it for that purpose...so we develop ways in which this may become a reality 'one day'.

What is the end game of such a vision, should it become a reality?

AlexW
Posts: 603
Joined: Fri Apr 06, 2018 1:53 am

Re: Wholeness and Fragmentation

Post by AlexW » Mon Jun 15, 2020 1:29 am

Nick_A wrote:
Sun Jun 14, 2020 5:42 pm
The inner man consists of qualities we are born with. They have been corrupted to become out of balance.
Which qualities are you referring to?

As I see it, the newborn has no specific psychological qualities - everything, and I really mean everything, from the primary understanding "I am" to "I am so and so" is all added to the child's "mind" like chalk to a blank slate.
There is no "inner man" being corrupted but only a corrupted "outer man" - there is nothing underneath the mask of the "outer man" - besides infinity/eternity.
Nick_A wrote:
Sun Jun 14, 2020 5:42 pm
Where reason should govern appetites in the tripartitie soul, now appetites govern reason preventing its evolution into human consciousness.
Yes, sure, but, to me, all this is based on how the child has been taught/brought up and as such conditioned into thinking according to modern "standards", satisfying the contradictory demands of today's society - to change the man/child one has to change what is required of him - as long as we live in a society that places the personal career above the common good (and as such worships the ego) there will be no cure - the cure lies in prevention, in keeping people from falling sick in the first place.
Nick_A wrote:
Sun Jun 14, 2020 5:42 pm
The ego is that part which interprets value. It cannot do its job because of our habitual and acquired habits making us live by imagination.
As I stated a few times before: To me, the ego is just a collection of ideas and beliefs - it cannot do anything, it cannot interpret, it doesn't think.
The interpretation itself IS the ego - there is no ego separate from the interpretation (and as such also from imagination).
Nick_A wrote:
Sun Jun 14, 2020 5:42 pm
The inner man does not have to stop growing so early. The effects of society and its emphasis on what we do rather than what we are makes it so.
I think this separation of inner and outer man is pretty random, fuzzy - its an artificial line separating one side of thought from the other - but at the end its all just thought... reality, the real self, is "prior"/beyond all conceptual thought.

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests