The whole is more than the sum of its parts. If you don't realize what
a tree really is, it could appear as myriads upon myriads of separate
leaves, but in actuality a tree is one whole comprising many separate
leaves, and a tree as one whole is more than the sum of its leaves. If
you don't realize what an ocean really is, it could appear as myriads
upon myriads of separate waves, but in actuality an ocean is one whole
comprising many separate waves, and an ocean as one whole is more than
the sum of its waves. If you don't realize what
the universe
really is, it could appear as myriads upon myriads of separate
people,
but in actuality
the universe
is one whole comprising many separate
people,
and
the universe
as one whole is more than the sum of its
people.
That's my
personal
recreation of
Alan Watts
distinguishing a tree, an ocean, and
the universe
(see his quote above). In addition, I'd like to try on making a salient
change to what
Alan
distinguishes as
the universe:
I'd like to substitute the phrase "the
beingsphere",
a phrase
Werner
deploys with great import, for
Alan's
original "the
universe".
Try this on: "If you don't realize what
the beingsphere
really is, it could appear as myriads upon myriads of separate
beings,
but in actuality
the beingsphere
is one whole comprising many separate
beings,
and
the beingsphere
as one whole is more than the sum of its
beings.".
Here's the thing: if you don't realize
who you really are,
you'll never know
the beingsphere
as one whole comprising many separate
beings.
It's secondarily relevant that we're all
human beingS
- plural. Primarily, we're all
human Being
- singular (yes, singular).
The beingsphere
is one whole comprising many separate
beings.
"There is only one!" bellows the Highlander ("and it lives in
'a you and
me'
world" says I, extending his quote by deploying
poetic
license).
Now
observably
(I'm tempted to say "Now tragically ..." but to keep it
straight,
without all the histrionics, I'll say
"Now observably
...") we don't live in the world that way and we don't run the world
that way. We live in the world and we run the world as an adversarial
"you or
me"
world ie as an "us vs them" world which in actuality it
isn't. We're blind to the possibility of living in the world and
running it as an inclusive
"you and
me"
world, which in actuality it is. We're stuck in an "us vs them"
paradigm. For the world to work for everyone,
the beingsphere
calls for an "us and them" paradigm ie for a
transformation.
Try this analogy on for size: "If their end of the canoe
tips over, we all end up in
the water.".
Planet Earth
as a canoe? Yes, tiny and fragile in the overall
rapids
of things. Washington DC, United Nations, all regional and national and
international government entities everywhere: are you
listening?
If they (ie the ubiquitous "they") are at war, all of us
aren't at peace; if they have
hunger,
all of us don't have enough to eat; if they pollute, all of us are
poisoned. The consequences, effects, and ramifications of what happens
at their end of the canoe, affect everyone
everywhere at our end too. All our worldly problems of war,
hunger,
pollution etc are the results of living in
"a you or me world".
And I assert all their solutions are discovered to be living in
"a you and me"
world.
Last word:
Keith Richards dreamed "Satisfaction". Paul McCartney dreamed
"Yesterday". I don't know who
sourced
"If their end of the canoe tips over, we all end up in
the water.".
I've googled it, and I can't locate its
source
anywhere. I may have dreamed it. I may have
written
it. Either way, it's a great analogy.