Approaching Ultimate Reality

As we have seen the fundamental relationship as between wholes and parts (and parts and wholes) - operating at all levels of physical reality - must be properly interpreted in a dynamic interactive manner entailing the two-way interaction of complementary aspects that are - relatively -  quantitative and qualitative with respect to each other.

This has intimate implications for the very way we view the universe.

In the standard reduced approach, the universe is considered as the sum total of its parts (that can be quantitatively measured). This entails that the universe is considered in phenomenal terms as the “whole object” (which thereby contains all part objects, such as the milky way galaxy, our solar system (within that galaxy), planet Earth (within the solar system) and so on.  

However properly considered, in dynamic interactive terms, the whole is contained in each constituent part (regardless of how minute); equally all the parts are collectively contained in the whole. However this requires that both quantitative and qualitative aspects are related.

So the whole in a qualitative context relates to a common capacity of universal interdependence (which is typically referred to in spiritual terms). So the whole universe in this spiritual sense is thereby contained in each (quantitative) part; equally the collection of parts are spiritually contained in the (qualitative) whole.  

In this sense the whole (macro) universe is contained in each (micro) part.

This for example is what William Blake was referring to in his line from his “Auguries of Innocence”

“To see the world in a grain of sand”.

Using more traditional mystical type language, in this case spirit is seen as immanent in each part.

Then from the complementary perspective the collection of (micro) parts is contained in the (macro) universe.

Thus the collection of parts is transcended in a spiritually whole manner.

And if this all seems foreign in terms of the contemporary manner of viewing the physical world, this is precisely my point i.e. that in fact what is conventionally accepted in scientific terms represents but a reduced view (which misleadingly attempts to abstract the physical from the spiritual aspect of understanding).

Referring back to that book on Stephen Hawking again, which I have been recently reading, there are frequent references to the intuitive creative style of his thinking, which contributed greatly to his most important work.

Intuition relates directly to the holistic spiritual aspect of understanding as opposed to the more linear form of rational analysis.

Though scientists subsequently present their theories explicitly in a solely rational manner, the key insights leading to their discoveries implicitly relate to intuitive understanding.

Scientists then explicitly ignore the holistic role of intuition presenting their discoveries in a rational analytic manner.

In other words, in the very manner in which scientists operate, the reduction of the spiritual to the physical aspect of understanding is clearly in evidence.  

Therefore formal interpretation in a mere rational fashion, strictly, amounts to a significant misrepresentation of the nature of scientific truth.

However this problem can only be made apparent through explicit recognition of the holistic aspect of science.

The analytic quantitative approach is based on the use of linear reason. When pushed to extremes - either at the global (macro) or quantum (micro) levels of investigation - this leads to inevitable paradox.

The resolution of such paradox then takes place directly in holistic intuitive terms that is indirectly expressed in a circular rational manner.

For example, yesterday I used the crossroads as an illustration. So we can approach the crossroads while either heading N or from the opposite direction heading S.

Now when these polar reference frames are considered in an independent manner, analytic reason can be used in an unambiguous fashion.

So if heading N when one reaches the crossroads a left turn can be given an unambiguous meaning (represented as + 1).

Likewise if heading S, again on encountering the crossroads a left turn can be given an unambiguous meaning (as + 1).

However when one simultaneously combines the two reference frames as interdependent, linear reason is rendered paradoxical.

So what the left turn at the crossroads heading N i.e. + 1 is a right turn, heading S (i.e. – 1); and what is a left turn heading S, i.e. + 1 is a right turn heading N (i.e. – 1).

So when both reference frames are holistically considered (as interdependent) + 1 = – 1 and + 1 = – 1.

Now this is paradoxical from the linear rational perspective. However through holistic intuition one is able to literally “see” what is implied. Then one can indirectly represent this in a circular rational fashion, as the complementarity of opposite poles.

And in mathematical fashion we would indeed represent + 1 and – 1 as two equidistant points on the unit circle (in the complex plane).

Holistic intuition relates to potential (infinite) appreciation in “seeing” what is possible in a situation (not yet made actual).

Then with analytic reason one understands what happens in an actual (finite) manner.

Thus without giving a pre-assigned direction of approach, a turn at a crossroads potentially can be both left and right. One then understands this directly in an intuitive holistic manner, which indirectly can be given a circular rational interpretation.

However, when a single direction of approach is given (either N or S) a turn in actual terms is either left or right (separately). One understands this in a linear rational manner.

In scientific terms, instead of N and S directions as polar frames of reference, we can have whole (macro) and part (micro) aspects of investigation.

So when we study the whole system (as in the theory of relativity) quantitatively in a (linear) rational manner, consistent answers can be given.

Then likewise when we study the minute parts of the system (as in quantum theory) in a rational manner, again consistent answers can be given.

However when we now attempt to consider both the whole and its parts together (in trying to combine relativity theory and quantum theory) in a rational manner, then paradox is inevitable.

And this paradox again can only be reconciled at a true holistic level of understanding. requiring in direct terms a highly refined form of intuition, which indirectly can be given a circular rational interpretation.

Thus rational linear understanding in a quantitative manner can carry us only so far. As it approaches closer to the extremes of investigation in seeking (either with respect to micro and macro reality) a consistent overall explanation it is rendered increasingly paradoxical. And it at this level of ultimate type explanation that holistic type appreciation is especially useful, where reconciliation with respect to the mysteries of reality occurs directly in a spiritual intuitive manner.

Then a comprehensive approach to physics - and indeed all science - requires incorporating both analytic and holistic aspects in a balanced manner, where the marriage of refined rational understanding with a true contemplative vision can properly take place.