3/24
My train of thought progressed toward wondering this: If in nature it can be seen visually that animals match their environments, it suggests that bugs, animals, and people (also animals) are like pieces of consciousness which have split off and evolved from their environments.
A caterpillar munching a leaf is analogous to a nursing mammal, making the leaf/plant or mother a sort of "whole." Here again is the idea of the holograph, the Earth is the bigger whole and all its creatures are its parts. The Earth, though still a microcosm (if we consider the Hermetic idea of "As above, so below,") to us (parts) is a macrocosm, and its form - a sphere - suggests completion and eternity, since the only logical way to comprehend infinity is in the form of a circle.
Why not just have the whole exist and not its parts?
In many religions, God created man in his image and likeness. Carl Sagan said, "We are a way for the cosmos to know itself." The whole cannot see or understand itself without stepping outside of itself to get an objective view. It must split into parts to be whole! As mentioned before, sayings are a sort of symbol, using words, that seem to be a product of the unconscious. While we may use them our entire lives, they are rarely expounded upon. "Can't see the forest for all the trees," is a common one. If we are "in" something (or "are" something!), how are we to gain perspective? It is not a forest unless we or until we realize there exists places that are not forests. Such is the state of narcissism. All we know is what we think and feel until we realize that others exist. However, pathological narcissism is like being in a field and calling it a forest, asking oneself, "Where are all of the trees?" Not only does one have to experience the other, or the "non-forest," one must accept its existence. Here is the key. Not only does it require rational deduction, but also trust. How do I know that if I hit you, you feel pain? Because the reverse is true. If you hit me, I feel it. I can never physically feel your pain. I can only trust that the most likely scenario is that in a world inhabited by billions of people, all have basic, similar experiences, but not exact same experiences. Others are the same, but different. WE need to understand that others are like us, to accept their existence, to empathize. But, we need to also understand their experience of existence is also different, to truly accept the "non-forest."
"This is a field. It has some trees and plants. But it is not a forest." If we focus too much on its differences, we cannot understand its nature. If we focus too much on the similarities, the few trees, we miss a big chunk of its nature. It is not a forest because it has some trees. Here we have it, a forest and a field are both - nature. You and I are both - human. The hardest part is understanding someone, or something, that/who perceives itself as only a part, or a whole without realizing they are also a part. What does this look like? In people - narcissism. What does this look like in science and in art? In science, it is the mysterious diversion between Newtonian and Quantum physics. In art, one must consider subject/object/environment as one whole composition, without considering the whole - which is to avoid placement of object within the macrocosm (environment) composition is lost, leading to failed work.
